Obama releases top secret CIA interrogation techniques

[red states rule]

Why the hell wuld any US President realease this classified info and allow our enemies to prepare?

Giving the enemy information that will allow them to prolong the war on terror and cause the deaths and injuries of more Americans is a serious risk to national security.

To libs, torture could be anything less than a 5 star hotel and satin bed sheets.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM119_090416_olcbybee.html

[April15]

I believe the reason is so current history will not be changed later because of the secrecy of Bush and the republicans at covering up all their evil! It also will make the truth easier to believe.

[Kathianne]

I believe the reason is so current history will not be changed later because of the secrecy of Bush and the republicans at covering up all their evil! It also will make the truth easier to believe.

Have you read the memos? Solid legal case, which is why you can take it to the bank, NO ONE is going to be convicted of jack, if charges were sought. Indeed, reading the memos would turn even the 'anti-waterboard' crowd, around if not wedded to torture meme.

[April15]

Have you read the memos? Solid legal case, which is why you can take it to the bank, NO ONE is going to be convicted of jack, if charges were sought. Indeed, reading the memos would turn even the 'anti-waterboard' crowd, around if not wedded to torture meme.I just went there again to re read them and poof they are removed. Must have been something in them?

[Kathianne]

I just went there again to re read them and poof they are removed. Must have been something in them?

Assuming you went to some weird source, try this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993446103128041.html


The Obama administration has declassified and released opinions of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) given in 2005 and earlier that analyze the legality of interrogation techniques authorized for use by the CIA. Those techniques were applied only when expressly permitted by the director, and are described in these opinions in detail, along with their limits and the safeguards applied to them.

The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.

Proponents of the release have argued that the techniques have been abandoned and thus there is no point in keeping them secret any longer; that they were in any event ineffective; that their disclosure was somehow legally compelled; and that they cost us more in the coin of world opinion than they were worth. None of these claims survives scrutiny.

Soon after he was sworn in, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that suspended use of these techniques and confined not only the military but all U.S. agencies -- including the CIA -- to the interrogation limits set in the Army Field Manual. This suspension was accompanied by a commitment to further study the interrogation program, and government personnel were cautioned that they could no longer rely on earlier opinions of the OLC.

Although evidence shows that the Army Field Manual, which is available online, is already used by al Qaeda for training purposes, it was certainly the president's right to suspend use of any technique. However, public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual....

[Psychoblues]

Resembling the actions of those we oppose is a losing proposition from it's outset.

Our troops deserve better than to be ordered to torture. I never received such an order and if I had I would have probably done as ordered but you would all certainly have known my name back in 1971. Torture is for chickenshits.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Resembling the actions of those we oppose is a losing proposition from it's outset.

Our troops deserve better than to be ordered to torture. I never received such an order and if I had I would have probably done as ordered but you would all certainly have known my name back in 1971. Torture is for chickenshits.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Perhaps because their were no crimes committed, and the terrorists were not tortured?

[5stringJeff]

Perhaps because their were no crimes committed, and the terrorists were not tortured?

Well, waterboarding was performed, and waterboarding is torture; therefore, torture was performed.

[red states rule]

Well, waterboarding was performed, and waterboarding is torture; therefore, torture was performed.

In your opinion Jeff. It has been shown waterboarding the terrorists prevented attacks and saved lives

I guess you would rather have had the attacks happen, have innocent people murdered - rather then cause a little discomfort to the terrorists

[5stringJeff]

In your opinion Jeff. It has been shown waterboarding the terrorists prevented attacks and saved lives

I guess you would rather have had the attacks happen, have innocent people murdered - rather then cause a little discomfort to the terrorists

Waterboarding isn't "a little discomfort." It's a torture technique. And using the argument that 'the ends justify the means' is a really slippery slope. If the ends are your security, and the means to those ends are the elimination of your freedom, is that justified?

[red states rule]

Waterboarding isn't "a little discomfort." It's a torture technique. And using the argument that 'the ends justify the means' is a really slippery slope. If the ends are your security, and the means to those ends are the elimination of your freedom, is that justified?

All it is Jeff is suirting water down the nose of a terrorist. I would like to see what EIT you would use if you were left alone with a terrorist that knew where a member of your familt was being held

Would you raise your voice?

Would you say "Pretty Please"?

How far would you go Jeff? Would you more worried about the safe return of your wife and/or child - or the comfort and rights of the terrorist?

[red states rule]

BTW Jeff, do we "torture" members of the US military, and select CIA employees? They are waterboarded as part of their training

Now if we told them we were going to string them up and beat them with whips and chains - then I would agree they were tortured

[crin63]

I guess next time we just say, "please, oh please won't you tell us what your plan to kill Americans is"? Pretty please with sugar and a cherry on top. No, okay well heres your suite at the Hilton while you think about it. We better not even say, "bad, bad little terrorist" because that might be seen as degrading to the little homicide bomber.

[red states rule]

I guess next time we just say, "please, oh please won't you tell us what your plan to kill Americans is"? Pretty please with sugar and a cherry on top. No, okay well heres your suite at the Hilton while you think about it. We better not even say, "bad, bad little terrorist" because that might be seen as degrading to the little homicide bomber.

Some of the left say we can't raise our voice to the terrorists, we can't adjut the temp in the cells, we can't stop them from sleeping, we can't cut them down to bread and water, we can't make them stand for long periods of time, we can't put a catterpiller in their cell to scare them, and we can't track their funds and watch theior bank accounts

How the hell do these people expect to when this war? Kill the terrorists with kindness?

[bullypulpit]

In your opinion Jeff. It has been shown waterboarding the terrorists prevented attacks and saved lives

I guess you would rather have had the attacks happen, have innocent people murdered - rather then cause a little discomfort to the terrorists

No such thing has been shown. If you are talking about the plot to fly a plane in to L.A.'s Library Tower, supposedly foiled by the water-boarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed that the right wing nut punditocracy keeps mewling about...Well, that's so much bullshit. Y'see Red, KSM was taken into US custody in <b>2003</b>. According to the Bush administration timeline, the "plot" was foiled in 2002. Now, you tell me how KSM being water-boarded in 2003 "foiled" a "plot" that, according to the Bush administration, was rolled up in 2002.

The fact is, Red that torture reliably produces nothing more than false confessions. That you and your fellow travelers continue to assert torture works to protect the Republic shows a remarkable ignorance of a basic fact...You cannot destroy a thing, if your goal is to save it. The rule of law is the foundation of the Republic, and any civilized society. Dispense with it and you rapidly descend into totalitarianism or anarchy, neither of which is conducive to the existence of a free and open society.

[Missileman]

No such thing has been shown. If you are talking about the plot to fly a plane in to L.A.'s Library Tower, supposedly foiled by the water-boarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed that the right wing nut punditocracy keeps mewling about...Well, that's so much bullshit. Y'see Red, KSM was taken into US custody in <b>2003</b>. According to the Bush administration timeline, the "plot" was foiled in 2002. Now, you tell me how KSM being water-boarded in 2003 "foiled" a "plot" that, according to the Bush administration, was rolled up in 2002.

The fact is, Red that torture reliably produces nothing more than false confessions. That you and your fellow travelers continue to assert torture works to protect the Republic shows a remarkable ignorance of a basic fact...You cannot destroy a thing, if your goal is to save it. The rule of law is the foundation of the Republic, and any civilized society. Dispense with it and you rapidly descend into totalitarianism or anarchy, neither of which is conducive to the existence of a free and open society.

Right Bully! And if the Liberal pussies had their way, we'd all be speaking German, or Russian, or Chinese or dropping to our knees several times a day to thank Allah for the wisdom of appeasement.

The rule of law is there to protect us, not to be exploited by our enemies. This notion that our enemies are entitled to the same rights as us is bullshit. The ultimate objective of a war is to win. To insinuate that that we'd be better off to lose the war honorably is simply retarded.

[bullypulpit]

Right Bully! And if the Liberal pussies had their way, we'd all be speaking German, or Russian, or Chinese or dropping to our knees several times a day to thank Allah for the wisdom of appeasement.

The rule of law is there to protect us, not to be exploited by our enemies. This notion that our enemies are entitled to the same rights as us is bullshit. The ultimate objective of a war is to win. To insinuate that that we'd be better off to lose the war honorably is simply retarded.

So, if you toss out the rule of law at the first sign of trouble, what good is it?...Why have the rule of law at all? Again, if one acts in a manner totally contrary to the very bedrock of the Republic to, ostensibly, save it...Are those actions not detrimental, if not outright destructive to the Republic?

As we saw during the Bush administration, a brazen disregard for the rule of law through the use of torture, rendition, black sites and extralegal judicial systems WAS exploited by our enemies to swell the ranks of their recruits. It did nothing to secure either America or the rest of the world. Never mind that during the Bush administration terrorist attacks around the world actually increased.

You're reacting emotionally, thus missing the big picture. Sure attaching electrodes to their genitals, water-boarding them and beating the bejezus out of the fuckers may be emotionally satisfying, but it does nothing to secure reliable intel or make us more secure.

A willingness to throw out the rule of law in times of trouble and strife bespeaks a certain lack of character, if not outright cowardice, on the part of the advocates of such a course. If the burden of living in a free and open society is too much of a responsibility to bear, there are still police states where one might find s measure of security. It will only cost you your freedom.

[Missileman]

So, if you toss out the rule of law at the first sign of trouble, what good is it?...Why have the rule of law at all? Again, if one acts in a manner totally contrary to the very bedrock of the Republic to, ostensibly, save it...Are those actions not detrimental, if not outright destructive to the Republic?

As we saw during the Bush administration, a brazen disregard for the rule of law through the use of torture, rendition, black sites and extralegal judicial systems WAS exploited by our enemies to swell the ranks of their recruits. It did nothing to secure either America or the rest of the world. Never mind that during the Bush administration terrorist attacks around the world actually increased.

You're reacting emotionally, thus missing the big picture. Sure attaching electrodes to their genitals, water-boarding them and beating the bejezus out of the fuckers may be emotionally satisfying, but it does nothing to secure reliable intel or make us more secure.

A willingness to throw out the rule of law in times of trouble and strife bespeaks a certain lack of character, if not outright cowardice, on the part of the advocates of such a course. If the burden of living in a free and open society is too much of a responsibility to bear, there are still police states where one might find s measure of security. It will only cost you your freedom.

Emotion hasn't anything to do with it. I'm reacting realistically because the reality is that we cannot afford to lose this war no matter the cost. Pull your head out of your high horse's ass and consider the ramifications of losing. Then let's hear you say again that losing is okay as long as we look good doing so.

[moderate democrat]

If we abandon the rule of law, we've already lost.

[Missileman]

If we abandon the rule of law, we've already lost.

We are of course not talking about abandonment as abandonment implies permanence. Abandonment WILL be a certain consequence if we lose however.

[Kathianne]

Seems the concern for the 'rule of law' depends upon the topic:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGM2NzNjNjMxMjkxYWM2M2NlMGJlZWIwOWViMjhiZGE=


Thursday, April 30, 2009

Chrysler Bankruptcy Sticking Point: The Rule of Law [Stephen Spruiell]
Chrysler's smaller creditors — the ones that didn't take TARP money — have issued a statement complaining that they were shut out of negotiations with the Obama administration, which tried to screw them over in order to secure a better deal the UAW:


What created this much-publicized impasse? Under long recognized legal and business principles, junior creditors are ordinarily not entitled to anything until senior secured creditors like our investors are repaid in full. Nevertheless, to facilitate Chrysler’s rehabilitation, we offered to take a 40% haircut even though some groups lower down in the legal priority chain in Chrysler debt were being given recoveries of up to 50% or more and being allowed to take out billions of dollars. [...]

Our offer has been flatly rejected or ignored. The fact is, in this process and in its earnest effort to ensure the survival of Chrysler and the well being of the company’s employees, the government has risked overturning the rule of law and practices that have governed our world-leading bankruptcy code for decades.

04/30 01:07 PM

[bullypulpit]

Emotion hasn't anything to do with it. I'm reacting realistically because the reality is that we cannot afford to lose this war no matter the cost. Pull your head out of your high horse's ass and consider the ramifications of losing. Then let's hear you say again that losing is okay as long as we look good doing so.


We are of course not talking about abandonment as abandonment implies permanence. Abandonment WILL be a certain consequence if we lose however.


If your view prevails, then we've already lost.

[bullypulpit]

Seems the concern for the 'rule of law' depends upon the topic:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGM2NzNjNjMxMjkxYWM2M2NlMGJlZWIwOWViMjhiZGE=

And this has what to do with torture?

But I understand your point. The rule of law must apply to all or it applies to none. Whether or not any laws were broken in your example remains to be seen. If there were, the guilty parties need to be held accountable. Even so, they do not rise to the level of torture.

[Missileman]

If your view prevails, then we've already lost.

Bullshit! Thankfully, the number of people like yourself that are willing to entertain the option of losing the war on terror are miniscule.

[Kathianne]

And this has what to do with torture?

But I understand your point. The rule of law must apply to all or it applies to none. Whether or not any laws were broken in your example remains to be seen. If there were, the guilty parties need to be held accountable. Even so, they do not rise to the level of torture.

As you noted and I said, 'the rule of law' seems to be flexible for the administration, depending on the topic. Never equated torture and thuggery by those now in power. Both have to do with the rule of law, however.

[Agnapostate]

I don't see the purpose of disingenuously labeling waterboarding something other than "torture." In fact, such an act allows one's opponents to successfully commit a petitio principii fallacy by beginning from a premise that torture is wrong without ethical examination of that premise.

[bullypulpit]

Bullshit! Thankfully, the number of people like yourself that are willing to entertain the option of losing the war on terror are miniscule.

So long as people, such as yourself, continue to advocate for the use of torture and the usurpation of the rule of law, the possiblity of losing the "war" is very real.

[glockmail]

So long as people, such as yourself, continue to advocate for the use of torture and the usurpation of the rule of law, the possiblity of losing the "war" is very real.The enhanced interrogation techniques that we used at Gitmo ain't torture; reading more Liberal whines claiming that it is might be though.

[bullypulpit]

The enhanced interrogation techniques that we used at Gitmo ain't torture; reading more Liberal whines claiming that it is might be though.

Your opinion is irrelevant. The law says it is.

[Kathianne]

Your opinion is irrelevant. The law says it is.

The 'law' also says that bankruptcy has certain rules to follow. Doesn't work anymore.

[glockmail]

Your opinion is irrelevant. The law says it is.Prove it.

[jimnyc]

Your opinion is irrelevant. The law says it is.

Can you please cite the law that specifically outlaws waterboarding? A shoddy case and/or interpretation from a flimsy case does not make it a law. I've had a few attorney friends search lexus/nexus and I've been told no such law exists, although there have been a few cases citing the technique. As you know, a judges "interpretation" of a law that DOES NOT specifically cite waterboarding DOES NOT make it a law.

So again, please cite the specific law and pertaining law code so I can verify it.

[emmett]

crickets chirping

[jimnyc]

Bully, you were just on here a few moments ago, responded in another thread, but failed to address this one. I wonder why that might be? Maybe for the same reason you failed to respond to my inquiries in another thread on the same subject a few weeks ago when you posted?

I'll end the suspense....

There is no law whatsoever that specifically addresses waterboarding, just your interpretation which is no more than an OPINION.

In fact, even the geneva convention and/or U.N. Convention against Torture don't hold water against waterboarding (no pun intended).

Let's start here:


Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.



As you can plainly see, terrorists do not fall into any of these categories, unless you would like to "spin", which wouldn't surprise me. Unless you can fit terrorists into one of these categories, there is no point even debating whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

[red states rule]

crickets chirping

BP will use his usual excuse that he became "bored" with the thread and decided to move on

It is not the first time he has ran away with his tail tucked between his legs - and it will not be the last

[moderate democrat]

Jim....you quote the Geneva Convention and no one that I know of is suggesting that terrorists are afforded any protection under those conventions.

The UN Convention against torture is a different story. THAT is also the supreme law of the land, and that convention, of which we are signatories, defines torture as follows:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

do you honestly think, that when someone is strapped to a board, and tipped upside down, and water is poured down their nose and mouth to the point where they feel that drowning is imminent, that does NOT constitute severe mental suffering?

[red states rule]

Jim....you quote the Geneva Convention and no one that I know of is suggesting that terrorists are afforded any protection under those conventions.

The UN Convention against torture is a different story. THAT is also the supreme law of the land, and that convention, of which we are signatories, defines torture as follows:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

do you honestly think, that when someone is strapped to a board, and tipped upside down, and water is poured down their nose and mouth to the point where they feel that drowning is imminent, that does NOT constitute severe mental suffering?

Tell us all when AQ and other terror groups signed the GC.

Once again, you are more worried about the comfort of terrorists then trying to prevent attacks

[moderate democrat]

Tell us all when AQ and other terror groups signed the GC.

Once again, you are more worried about the comfort of terrorists then trying to prevent attacks


can you READ??????

try again:

"no one that I know of is suggesting that terrorists are afforded any protection under those conventions."

[red states rule]

can you READ??????

try again:

"no one that I know of is suggesting that terrorists are afforded any protection under those conventions."

Try your elected Dem leaders, and the liberal media. Libs have been saying water boarding is against the GC

Terrorists are not covered under the GC and water boarding is NOT torture. If you think it is, then you must beleive the US also tortures the members of the US military since they are waterboarded as pasr tof their training

But as usual you are long on BS but short on facts

[jimnyc]

Jim....you quote the Geneva Convention and no one that I know of is suggesting that terrorists are afforded any protection under those conventions.

The UN Convention against torture is a different story. THAT is also the supreme law of the land, and that convention, of which we are signatories, defines torture as follows:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

do you honestly think, that when someone is strapped to a board, and tipped upside down, and water is poured down their nose and mouth to the point where they feel that drowning is imminent, that does NOT constitute severe mental suffering?

I did mention that I believed neither the Geneva Convention nor the U.N. Convention against torture would hold water. Geneva is out as it doesn't pertain to terrorists. I also don't believe the U.N. treaty is designed to protect terrorists either.

With that said, no, I do not believe it constitutes severe mental suffering. I know people who have been waterboarded as part of training and they agree - no lasting affects whatsoever. I also have read many, many reports of others who have endured the technique - and again, no lasting effects whatsoever. IMO, it's simply a technique that scares the shit out of the person and the fear causes them to spill the beans. The next day they will feel perfectly fine and only regret giving in to the technique. The ENTIRE thing is 100% opinion based at this point as I have been pointing out to Bully, as there IS NO LAW specifically outlawing waterboarding, only those that interpret it as such.

IMO, to reach the point of severe mental suffering, the person would have to have lasting effects as a result of their treatment. You know, like having their head cut off, tied to a bridge and burnt alive, having limbs literally snapped and left in small cells for them to heal inappropriately...

Those who get waterboarded do not suffer sever pain or any mental suffering beyond the point the water stops. And also IMO, it's no different than when I fell off a surfboard and got stuck under the tide for about 1 minute and thought for sure that I was going to drown. I ultimately came above water and got back to land. While I thought death was imminent, I was over it within a few mere minutes.

I'm sorry, and with all due respect, I don't see it as mental suffering at all. In fact, locking them up in a cell with 3 squares a day for the rest of their lives would seem like more torture and mental suffering to me. Many in isolation, as terrorists would get, tend to literally go out of their minds.

Give me a bucket of water and a plank, send a terrorist to me that wants to harm American citizens, and I will waterboard them and not think twice about it.

[moderate democrat]

Try your elected Dem leaders, and the liberal media. Libs have been saying water boarding is against the GC

Terrorists are not covered under the GC and water boarding is NOT torture. If you think it is, then you must beleive the US also tortures the members of the US military since they are waterboarded as pasr tof their training

But as usual you are long on BS but short on facts

I have NEVER said that terrorists are covered under the Geneva conventions so why do you persist in bringing them up. For you to say that waterboarding is not torture is merely your opinion...and it is not shared by everyone. We, in fact, found japanese officers guilty of torturing our troops when THEY waterboarded our GI's in WWII.

And again.... go read the definition of Torture under the UN convention. Waterboarding itself is not torture if it is performed as part of a military training exercise... it is only when it is used "for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." training our own troops does not meet that definition. Our troops KNOW that they will not be allowed to drown. Our enemies know no such thing.

[emmett]

Jim....you quote the Geneva Convention and no one that I know of is suggesting that terrorists are afforded any protection under those conventions.

The UN Convention against torture is a different story. THAT is also the supreme law of the land, and that convention, of which we are signatories, defines torture as follows:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

do you honestly think, that when someone is strapped to a board, and tipped upside down, and water is poured down their nose and mouth to the point where they feel that drowning is imminent, that does NOT constitute severe mental suffering?


MD....I'll skip around all the crap. You are right! In my opinion, waterboarding is torture. Would you not be willing to torture a person who was a member of a combatant force that had killed innocent Americans or American soldiers? Knowing full well they possibly had information that would lead to the saving of American lives.

Even if they didn't......OK..let's assume the presumption was incorrect. If a foreign gorilla or militia fighter placed himself in a position to be allied with people who were attempting to harm Americans or American forces, he has failed the personal responsibility test. He is fair game.

Frankly, I am of the mindset that waterboarding is unimportant. If it were up to me I would do whatever I had to do to ensure the safety of Americans....PERIOD! The Bush Administration, like em or hate em, derailed many attempts to harm innocent Americans by using waterboarding or whatever torture techniques were used. See..I don't debate whether they were or weren't, or should be or not. I clearly condone torture of enemy combatants. I condone anything that will deter enemy combatants from harming Americans.

That said...I was not a supporter of the Iraq War. I am not a supporter of any aggression on any country outside our borders unless it is in dorect response to attacks on our soil or Americans abroad. I have argued the attack on Iraq was not illegal or a big lie...yes....because technically we had reason within two years after the first Iraq war to finish the job. I did support the first one because Saddam Hussein clearly was the aggressor against Kuwait and killed innocent allies of ours. I struggled with it but I did agree it was the right thing to do.

I have what I feel is a true even keeled approach to the whole issue. While I am against war in general I am a realist and know we can't allow ourselves to be intimidated. For instance, when Akfuckdenishad runs his mouth I get ahgry because I know when American see the news they get scared to think a nuclear weapon could be in the hands of an enemy such as this idiot...or worse...the clergy that really runs that fucked up country. Would I torture an Irani scientist into telling me what they really have? You bet your ass I would. Wouldn't you? Would you want children in our country to live with the cloud over their heads that we lived with fearing Russia. I don't know about you but I'm old enough to remember drills in elementary school when all would crowd into a bomb shelter to exercise what to do if the Russians attacked us. I don't want any American child to live like that. EVER!!! I don't give one fucking damn about the children of another country over Americans. Their countrymen are responsible for seeing that they mind themselves and don't intimidate folks with nuclear weapons.

We used the weapon in self defense! Before you even make that point. It ended the war with Japan that they started by slaughtering innocent Americans. When they did that they placed their children in danger of having it happen to them.

Waterboarding is a "watered down" (excuse the pun) version of what I would do. I'd cut off fingers, stick needles in eyes and saw off body parts brother to protect you, your family or mine! Simply because we are Americans! Compromise of this philosophy is just flat stupid! Idle threats don't work anymore. We have been attacked. When our enemies see us infighting over what we will do to enemy combatants, they exploit our weakness. We need to be strong like John Kennedy was when he saved ytour family ancestory, you and your grandchildren. The Russians felt he would really push the button, I beleive he would have. I'm glad. He didn't patsy himself to them, bow to them, apologize to them or insult the integrity of our country by accusing Eisenhower of being at fault.....which he could have easily done by the way.

Torture is necessary of an enemy. I assure you they will torture us. War is not a place for rules. I don't give the first shit about being a good sport when my life and yours are at stake.

That is my two cents.

[emmett]

If I may add, I disagree with Jim on one point. I believe enemy combatants of any type fall under 4a2 of Geneva Conventions. "Menbers of other militias and other volunteer corps. I think the terrorists, any type fall under the description of an organized militia so they would be protected by the Geneva Conventions.

I don't care....I say torture them anyway. I have no respect for the Geneva Conventions rules what so ever.

[jimnyc]

If I may add, I disagree with Jim on one point. I believe enemy combatants of any type fall under 4a2 of Geneva Conventions. "Menbers of other militias and other volunteer corps. I think the terrorists, any type fall under the description of an organized militia so they would be protected by the Geneva Conventions.

You forgot to read the rest...


2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In order to fall under the category you stated, they would need to meet conditions a through d, and terrorists fails those conditions miserably! :)

[red states rule]

I have NEVER said that terrorists are covered under the Geneva conventions so why do you persist in bringing them up. For you to say that waterboarding is not torture is merely your opinion...and it is not shared by everyone. We, in fact, found japanese officers guilty of torturing our troops when THEY waterboarded our GI's in WWII.

And again.... go read the definition of Torture under the UN convention. Waterboarding itself is not torture if it is performed as part of a military training exercise... it is only when it is used "for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." training our own troops does not meet that definition. Our troops KNOW that they will not be allowed to drown. Our enemies know no such thing.

You sure mangle the facts V

As far as war crimes, are you talking about this Jap officer?

Defendant: Asano, Yukio

Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

Verdict: 15 years CHL

He was not hanged V

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm

I know you keep falling back on the Useless nations treaty to try and make your lame case, but that is a sign of desperation to follow the talking points of your party

In some case, the same party leaders who are now caught in a web of lies when they tried to score political points over "torture" charges.

BTW the terrorists also know they will not drown, A Doctor is present at all times

[red states rule]

Bully, you were just on here a few moments ago, responded in another thread, but failed to address this one. I wonder why that might be? Maybe for the same reason you failed to respond to my inquiries in another thread on the same subject a few weeks ago when you posted?

I'll end the suspense....

There is no law whatsoever that specifically addresses waterboarding, just your interpretation which is no more than an OPINION.

In fact, even the geneva convention and/or U.N. Convention against Torture don't hold water against waterboarding (no pun intended).

Let's start here:



As you can plainly see, terrorists do not fall into any of these categories, unless you would like to "spin", which wouldn't surprise me. Unless you can fit terrorists into one of these categories, there is no point even debating whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Well Jim looks like BP has left this thread in shame. Looks like he is more interested in the marriage thread then trying to defend his arguments on this thread, and pleading for the rights of terrorists

[moderate democrat]

MD....I'll skip around all the crap. You are right! In my opinion, waterboarding is torture. Would you not be willing to torture a person who was a member of a combatant force that had killed innocent Americans or American soldiers? Knowing full well they possibly had information that would lead to the saving of American lives.

Even if they didn't......OK..let's assume the presumption was incorrect. If a foreign gorilla or militia fighter placed himself in a position to be allied with people who were attempting to harm Americans or American forces, he has failed the personal responsibility test. He is fair game.

Frankly, I am of the mindset that waterboarding is unimportant. If it were up to me I would do whatever I had to do to ensure the safety of Americans....PERIOD! The Bush Administration, like em or hate em, derailed many attempts to harm innocent Americans by using waterboarding or whatever torture techniques were used. See..I don't debate whether they were or weren't, or should be or not. I clearly condone torture of enemy combatants. I condone anything that will deter enemy combatants from harming Americans.

That said...I was not a supporter of the Iraq War. I am not a supporter of any aggression on any country outside our borders unless it is in dorect response to attacks on our soil or Americans abroad. I have argued the attack on Iraq was not illegal or a big lie...yes....because technically we had reason within two years after the first Iraq war to finish the job. I did support the first one because Saddam Hussein clearly was the aggressor against Kuwait and killed innocent allies of ours. I struggled with it but I did agree it was the right thing to do.

I have what I feel is a true even keeled approach to the whole issue. While I am against war in general I am a realist and know we can't allow ourselves to be intimidated. For instance, when Akfuckdenishad runs his mouth I get ahgry because I know when American see the news they get scared to think a nuclear weapon could be in the hands of an enemy such as this idiot...or worse...the clergy that really runs that fucked up country. Would I torture an Irani scientist into telling me what they really have? You bet your ass I would. Wouldn't you? Would you want children in our country to live with the cloud over their heads that we lived with fearing Russia. I don't know about you but I'm old enough to remember drills in elementary school when all would crowd into a bomb shelter to exercise what to do if the Russians attacked us. I don't want any American child to live like that. EVER!!! I don't give one fucking damn about the children of another country over Americans. Their countrymen are responsible for seeing that they mind themselves and don't intimidate folks with nuclear weapons.

We used the weapon in self defense! Before you even make that point. It ended the war with Japan that they started by slaughtering innocent Americans. When they did that they placed their children in danger of having it happen to them.

Waterboarding is a "watered down" (excuse the pun) version of what I would do. I'd cut off fingers, stick needles in eyes and saw off body parts brother to protect you, your family or mine! Simply because we are Americans! Compromise of this philosophy is just flat stupid! Idle threats don't work anymore. We have been attacked. When our enemies see us infighting over what we will do to enemy combatants, they exploit our weakness. We need to be strong like John Kennedy was when he saved ytour family ancestory, you and your grandchildren. The Russians felt he would really push the button, I beleive he would have. I'm glad. He didn't patsy himself to them, bow to them, apologize to them or insult the integrity of our country by accusing Eisenhower of being at fault.....which he could have easily done by the way.

Torture is necessary of an enemy. I assure you they will torture us. War is not a place for rules. I don't give the first shit about being a good sport when my life and yours are at stake.

That is my two cents.

what is important to me, and apparently was of tantamount importance to the founding fathers as well, is the rule of law. Our founding fathers believed so strongly in the united states being a country that could be trusted by the rest of the world, that they put it into our constitution that agreements (treaties) made with other nations were the supreme law of our land. They believed that when America gave its word, that the world should ALWAYS be able to count on us keeping it.

If you want to have the ability to torture our captives, all you need to do is to abrogate those treaties that disallow torture. Until you do that, however, I believe, and our founding fathers believed, that we should abide by those treaties. If you feel as if the government has the right to disregard the constitution when it suits their purpose, you are tacitly agreeing to allowing the government to disregard the constitution even when it protects your own rights.

[red states rule]

what is important to me, and apparently was of tantamount importance to the founding fathers as well, is the rule of law. Our founding fathers believed so strongly in the united states being a country that could be trusted by the rest of the world, that they put it into our constitution that agreements (treaties) made with other nations were the supreme law of our land. They believed that when America gave its word, that the world should ALWAYS be able to count on us keeping it.

If you want to have the ability to torture our captives, all you need to do is to abrogate those treaties that disallow torture. Until you do that, however, I believe, and our founding fathers believed, that we should abide by those treaties. If you feel as if the government has the right to disregard the constitution when it suits their purpose, you are tacitly agreeing to allowing the government to disregard the constitution even when it protects your own rights.

A lib preaching the rule of law?? LOL!!! After Bill Clinton, the elction fraud Dems committed in the last 3 elections, the corruption in the Dem run Congress over the last 3 years - and YOU preach the rule of law

You mean selective enforcement of the laws do't you V?

Now, your own Dems are getting ciouaght playing political games with the security of theis nation. Like you, they have been thumping their chests sneering how America needs to "rise above" our enemies - while when it was politicaly convienent they supported waterboarding and even asked if it was enough

V, you have said many times you would not waterboard a terrorist even it stopped attacks and saved lives. You are well known for supporting terrorist rights and comfort over saving innocent lives

[moderate democrat]

Elmo... if you want to be able to torture captives, why not simply abrogate the treaties that prevent it? why is that such an unrealistic solution?

[red states rule]

Elmo... if you want to be able to torture captives, why not simply abrogate the treaties that prevent it? why is that such an unrealistic solution?

Keep ducking the question, facts, and your double standards Virgil.

BTW glad to see you back. I guess after several of us deleted our avatars you decided to come back. Why not grow a pair and address the facts and question presented?

[Jeff]

Keep ducking the question, facts, and your double standards Virgil.

BTW glad to see you back. I guess after several of us deleted our avatars you decided to come back. Why not grow a pair and address the facts and question presented?

HMMM wonder why the avatar's offended MD when they were of some guy name Virgil??

[moderate democrat]

Keep ducking the question, facts, and your double standards Virgil.

BTW glad to see you back. I guess after several of us deleted our avatars you decided to come back. Why not grow a pair and address the facts and question presented?

why are you avoiding my simple question?

[red states rule]

why are you avoiding my simple question?

For the same reason Pelosi and other Dems are now caught up in their lies. They did not see waterboaridng as torture because it is not - and they knew it saved lives

But now like you, they are puting their party ahead of the country and trying to score political points with their kook base - which you are a proud memebr of

Now your turn Virgil

[moderate democrat]

even emmet admits that waterboarding is torture. torture is in violation of the UN convention against torture which we signed....ergo, it is against the supreme law of the land. Again....if you believe we should be able to torture our captives, why wouldn't abrogating the treaties that prevent us from doing so be the legal and constitutional thing to do?

[red states rule]

even emmet admits that waterboarding is torture. torture is in violation of the UN convention against torture which we signed....ergo, it is against the supreme law of the land. Again....if you believe we should be able to torture our captives, why wouldn't abrogating the treaties that prevent us from doing so be the legal and constitutional thing to do?

and still ducking the questions, issues, and double standards I see Virgil

So what if Emmett says it is torture - who died and made him boss? I could not care less what the Useless nations says or does Virgil. It seems like John Kerry you want the US to get a permission slip from that body before America defends itself

Once again:

A lib preaching the rule of law?? LOL!!! After Bill Clinton, the elction fraud Dems committed in the last 3 elections, the corruption in the Dem run Congress over the last 3 years - and YOU preach the rule of law

You mean selective enforcement of the laws do't you V?

Now, your own Dems are getting caught playing political games with the security of theis nation. Like you, they have been thumping their chests sneering how America needs to "rise above" our enemies - while when it was politicaly convienent they supported waterboarding and even asked if it was enough

V, you have said many times you would not waterboard a terrorist even it stopped attacks and saved lives. You are well known for supporting terrorist rights and comfort over saving innocent lives

[Jeff]

even emmet admits that waterboarding is torture. torture is in violation of the UN convention against torture which we signed....ergo, it is against the supreme law of the land. Again....if you believe we should be able to torture our captives, why wouldn't abrogating the treaties that prevent us from doing so be the legal and constitutional thing to do?

LMAO that was as low as ya can go, although I do Value emmetts points very much, he is a expert now? seems you have just got whooped, LOL

[jimnyc]

even emmet admits that waterboarding is torture.

I respect the fact that Emmett believes it is torture, as I respect your opinion. But it's just that at this point, and opinion, and has no solid basis in law to this point. Makes for great debates, but until actual law is set, no one will likely change the others mind.

You BELIEVE it is the supreme law of the land. I believe and agree that the treaties ARE supreme law, but I just disagree that waterboarding rises to the level of torture described in the treaty. If you can show me how waterboarding causes any type of long term suffering after the procedure, then I might be swayed. IMO, again, all it does is scare the bejeezus out of the recipient but shortly therafter they are fine.

Does anyone have medical reports, analysts or anything at all showing long term suffering? Hell, if you're on the battlefield and get shot in the leg, you will suffer much, much longer than being waterboarded.

[moderate democrat]

LMAO that was as low as ya can go, although I do Value emmetts points very much, he is a expert now? seems you have just got whooped, LOL

Of course he is not an expert.... neither am I....notice I said "even emmet"....

many many legal experts think that waterboarding is torture.... torture is in violation of the UN convention which is the supreme law of the land.

why do YOU also avoid the question?

[moderate democrat]

I respect the fact that Emmett believes it is torture, as I respect your opinion. But it's just that at this point, and opinion, and has no solid basis in law to this point. Makes for great debates, but until actual law is set, no one will likely change the others mind.

You BELIEVE it is the supreme law of the land. I believe and agree that the treaties ARE supreme law, but I just disagree that waterboarding rises to the level of torture described in the treaty. If you can show me how waterboarding causes any type of long term suffering after the procedure, then I might be swayed. IMO, again, all it does is scare the bejeezus out of the recipient but shortly therafter they are fine.

Does anyone have medical reports, analysts or anything at all showing long term suffering? Hell, if you're on the battlefield and get shot in the leg, you will suffer much, much longer than being waterboarded.

nothing in the UN definition requires the suffering to be long term.

[red states rule]

and still ducking the questions, issues, and double standards I see Virgil

So what if Emmett says it is torture - who died and made him boss? I could not care less what the Useless nations says or does Virgil. It seems like John Kerry you want the US to get a permission slip from that body before America defends itself

Once again:

A lib preaching the rule of law?? LOL!!! After Bill Clinton, the elction fraud Dems committed in the last 3 elections, the corruption in the Dem run Congress over the last 3 years - and YOU preach the rule of law

You mean selective enforcement of the laws do't you V?

Now, your own Dems are getting caught playing political games with the security of theis nation. Like you, they have been thumping their chests sneering how America needs to "rise above" our enemies - while when it was politicaly convienent they supported waterboarding and even asked if it was enough

V, you have said many times you would not waterboard a terrorist even it stopped attacks and saved lives. You are well known for supporting terrorist rights and comfort over saving innocent lives

****crickets chirping*****

[red states rule]

nothing in the UN definition requires the suffering to be long term.

We are stopping terrorist attacks Virgil. People that have been proven to kill innocent people over and over again. They don't mind strapping a bomb to their son to kill 60 innocent people that do not believe the way they do. Don't confuse us with them.And as for what we are trying to "win"? It's our freedom to walk around our towns everyday and not have to worry if a plane is going to crash into one of our buildings, or if someone is going to walk in with a bomb and kill everyone.

No terrorist that was waterboarded by the US ever died.

No terrorist that was waterboarded was physically harmed.

3000 innocent civilians were burned and crushed to death by terrorists hijacking American airplanes filled with innocent civilian passengers, who crashed those planes into twin towers and the pentagon.

Yet libs like you Virgil are more worried about the comfort, mental well being, and rights of the terrorists

[jimnyc]

nothing in the UN definition requires the suffering to be long term.

But it does state this:

<nobr> Although “severe ... pain or suffering” is not specifically defined anywhere in the United</nobr>

States Code, the War Crimes Act, as amended by the MCA, describes “serious physical pain
or suffering” as bodily injury that involves (1) a substantial risk of death; (2) extreme
physical pain; (3) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts,
abrasions, or bruises); or (4) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily
member, organ, or mental faculty. 18 U.S.C. § 2441(d)(2).


I do not see waterboarding fitting into this category.

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=un+convention+against+torture+declarations+reser vations&y=Search&xa=9zuLlJ.OyXRfV1yQEpw2BQ--%2C1242481344&fr=yfp-t-501&u=fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/101750.pdf&w=un+%22united+nations%22+%22the+united+nations%22 +%22united+nation%22+convention+against+torture+de clarations+declaration+declare+reservations+reserv ation+reserve&d=Ogus40xISpsH&icp=1&.intl=us

And also:


The United States ratified CAT, subject to certain declarations, reservations, and
understandings, including that the Convention was not self-executing and therefore
required domestic implementing legislation to be enforced by U.S. courts.

Which brings us back to my original point, where is the domestic implementation specifically outlawing waterboarding?

[Jeff]

Of course he is not an expert.... neither am I....notice I said "even emmet"....

many many legal experts think that waterboarding is torture.... torture is in violation of the UN convention which is the supreme law of the land.

why do YOU also avoid the question?

I am sorry Vir, M, MM, who ever you are, I was to busy LMAO to see any question

[red states rule]

I am sorry Vir, M, MM, who ever you are, I was to busy LMAO to see any question

You must not be good at tap dancing Jeff :laugh2:

If you were you might have read the "question"

[glockmail]

You forgot to read the rest...



In order to fall under the category you stated, they would need to meet conditions a through d, and terrorists fails those conditions miserably! :)
Whoa- 3:42 am post. Get a fucking life, bro! :slap:

[moderate democrat]

But it does state this:

<nobr> Although “severe ... pain or suffering” is not specifically defined anywhere in the United</nobr>


I do not see waterboarding fitting into this category.

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=un+convention+against+torture+declarations+reser vations&y=Search&xa=9zuLlJ.OyXRfV1yQEpw2BQ--%2C1242481344&fr=yfp-t-501&u=fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/101750.pdf&w=un+%22united+nations%22+%22the+united+nations%22 +%22united+nation%22+convention+against+torture+de clarations+declaration+declare+reservations+reserv ation+reserve&d=Ogus40xISpsH&icp=1&.intl=us

And also:



Which brings us back to my original point, where is the domestic implementation specifically outlawing waterboarding?

the WCA is a separate piece of law. the UN convention against torture has nothing to do with war, it has to do with torture, it defines is quite succinctly and in the opinion of many scholars, waterboarding clearly fits the definition.

Why aren't the folks who believe we should be able to torture our captives and those who are also supposed lovers of our constitution not clamouring to have the UN convention abrogated?

[moderate democrat]

I am sorry Vir, M, MM, who ever you are, I was to busy LMAO to see any question

then I can put you back on ignore then...if you don't want to converse in a civil manner with me, I certainly have ZERO desire to do so with you. AMF

[red states rule]

then I can put you back on ignore then...if you don't want to converse in a civil manner with me, I certainly have ZERO desire to do so with you. AMF

This will be how many times you have had Jeff on ignore Virgil?

You have put me on ignore about 6 times in the last 2 years

(Now you will lie how you have only been here since December) :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

You must not be good at tap dancing Jeff :laugh2:

If you were you might have read the "question"

you too, elmo.

if you don't want to carry on a civil conversation with me, just say so and I'll put your cut and paste illiterate ass back on ignore too.

[red states rule]

We are stopping terrorist attacks Virgil. People that have been proven to kill innocent people over and over again. They don't mind strapping a bomb to their son to kill 60 innocent people that do not believe the way they do. Don't confuse us with them.And as for what we are trying to "win"? It's our freedom to walk around our towns everyday and not have to worry if a plane is going to crash into one of our buildings, or if someone is going to walk in with a bomb and kill everyone.

No terrorist that was waterboarded by the US ever died.

No terrorist that was waterboarded was physically harmed.

3000 innocent civilians were burned and crushed to death by terrorists hijacking American airplanes filled with innocent civilian passengers, who crashed those planes into twin towers and the pentagon.

Yet libs like you Virgil are more worried about the comfort, mental well being, and rights of the terrorists

Ask Virgil a question and all you get are crickets chirping :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

if we got good intelligence from captives by killing one of their children in front of their eyes, or by hooking electrodes up to their testicles, I take it that you would be all in favor of those enhanced interrogation techniques as well?

what does the effectiveness of waterboarding have to do with the discussion as to whether or not it violates the constitution?

[red states rule]

if we got good intelligence from captives by killing one of their children in front of their eyes, or by hooking electrodes up to their testicles, I take it that you would be all in favor of those enhanced interrogation techniques as well?

what does the effectiveness of waterboarding have to do with the discussion as to whether or not it violates the constitution?

Changin the subject again Virgil? I know being a liberal means you must smear and piss on your country and those who keep your fat ass safe - but it is really something to see you willing to kiss the ass of terrorists who want you and your family dead

Tell me V, do you worry about the mental stress, pain and suffering of a child who is about to be aborted as you do over a terrorist about to be waterboarded?

Chances are you worry more about the terrorist

[moderate democrat]

Changin the subject again Virgil? I know being a liberal means you must smear and piss on your country and those who keep your fat ass safe - but it is really something to see you willing to kiss the ass of terrorists who want you and your family dead

Tell me V, do you worry about the mental stress, pain and suffering of a child who is about to be aborted as you do over a terrorist about to be waterboarded?

Chances are you worry more about the terrorist

I am not changing the subject at all. What does the effectiveness of waterboarding have to do with the discussion as to whether or not it is illegal?

[red states rule]

I am not changing the subject at all. What does the effectiveness of waterboarding have to do with the discussion as to whether or not it is illegal?

This may come as a shock to you Virgil - the US does not torture terrorists

Now how about answering the many questions I have asked you today

We are stopping terrorist attacks Virgil. People that have been proven to kill innocent people over and over again. They don't mind strapping a bomb to their son to kill 60 innocent people that do not believe the way they do. Don't confuse us with them.And as for what we are trying to "win"? It's our freedom to walk around our towns everyday and not have to worry if a plane is going to crash into one of our buildings, or if someone is going to walk in with a bomb and kill everyone.

No terrorist that was waterboarded by the US ever died.

No terrorist that was waterboarded was physically harmed.

3000 innocent civilians were burned and crushed to death by terrorists hijacking American airplanes filled with innocent civilian passengers, who crashed those planes into twin towers and the pentagon.

Yet libs like you Virgil are more worried about the comfort, mental well being, and rights of the terrorists

Tell me V, do you worry about the mental stress, pain and suffering of a child who is about to be aborted as you do over a terrorist about to be waterboarded?

Or are you to busy smearing the US and those that keep us safe to take the time to answer them?

[moderate democrat]

This may come as a shock to you Virgil - the US does not torture terrorists

Now how about answering the many questions I have asked you today

We are stopping terrorist attacks Virgil. People that have been proven to kill innocent people over and over again. They don't mind strapping a bomb to their son to kill 60 innocent people that do not believe the way they do. Don't confuse us with them.And as for what we are trying to "win"? It's our freedom to walk around our towns everyday and not have to worry if a plane is going to crash into one of our buildings, or if someone is going to walk in with a bomb and kill everyone.

No terrorist that was waterboarded by the US ever died.

No terrorist that was waterboarded was physically harmed.

3000 innocent civilians were burned and crushed to death by terrorists hijacking American airplanes filled with innocent civilian passengers, who crashed those planes into twin towers and the pentagon.

Yet libs like you Virgil are more worried about the comfort, mental well being, and rights of the terrorists

Tell me V, do you worry about the mental stress, pain and suffering of a child who is about to be aborted as you do over a terrorist about to be waterboarded?

Or are you to busy smearing the US and those that keep us safe to take the time to answer them?


you need to accept the fact that simply because you make a pronouncement that waterboarding in not torture, does not make that pronouncement a factual statement.

Until you can do that, we really will continue to talk past one another, I guess.

That's OK...it is certainly nothing new.

[red states rule]

you need to accept the fact that simply because you make a pronouncement that waterboarding in not torture, does not make that pronouncement a factual statement.

Until you can do that, we really will continue to talk past one another, I guess.

That's OK...it is certainly nothing new.

Translation - the crickets can keep on chirping. If OPelosi can lie, duck, dodge, and spin - so can I

Virgil is well versed at not answering question, lying thru his teeth, and playing the role of offended and mistreated liberal

[jimnyc]

the WCA is a separate piece of law. the UN convention against torture has nothing to do with war, it has to do with torture, it defines is quite succinctly and in the opinion of many scholars, waterboarding clearly fits the definition.

I'm unsure what you mean? The quotes I gave you were directly from the U.N. Convention against Torture, and clearly states that the convention only defines a "general definition of the term" defining torture. The USA ratified the CAT with declarations and reservations -which the main one being that it was not self executing and required implementation by the US courts.

This is right there in the treaty as part of our ratification, but I still see nothing by our courts declaring ANYTHING about waterboarding or a fuller picture of exactly what constitutes torture. Therefore, it is still nothing more than your opinion.

[Missileman]

Elmo... if you want to be able to torture captives, why not simply abrogate the treaties that prevent it? why is that such an unrealistic solution?

Still waiting for you to produce the treaty against torture to which Al Qaida was a signatory.

[glockmail]

if we got good intelligence from captives by killing one of their children in front of their eyes, or by hooking electrodes up to their testicles, I take it that you would be all in favor of those enhanced interrogation techniques as well?

what does the effectiveness of waterboarding have to do with the discussion as to whether or not it violates the constitution?Comparing apples to oranges I see: failure.

[moderate democrat]

Still waiting for you to produce the treaty against torture to which Al Qaida was a signatory.


the UN Convention against torture protects EVERYONE.... not just signatories. I thought I told you that (a dozen times) before.

[moderate democrat]

Comparing apples to oranges I see: failure.


not apples and oranges at all. RSR judges waterboarding solely on the basis of whether he thinks it is effective in getting information, and not one bit on whether or not it might violate the law. I was seeing how far that premise extended.

[moderate democrat]

I'm unsure what you mean? The quotes I gave you were directly from the U.N. Convention against Torture, and clearly states that the convention only defines a "general definition of the term" defining torture. The USA ratified the CAT with declarations and reservations -which the main one being that it was not self executing and required implementation by the US courts.

This is right there in the treaty as part of our ratification, but I still see nothing by our courts declaring ANYTHING about waterboarding or a fuller picture of exactly what constitutes torture. Therefore, it is still nothing more than your opinion.


no doubt. until a court of law finds an american official guilty of torture under the CAT, it will be just my opinion....and the opinion of many others as well. But when that DOES happen, it will prove my point that those who advocate torturing our captives have been violating the supreme law of the land and pissing on the constitution.

[red states rule]

no doubt. until a court of law finds an american official guilty of torture under the CAT, it will be just my opinion....and the opinion of many others as well. But when that DOES happen, it will prove my point that those who advocate torturing our captives have been violating the supreme law of the land and pissing on the constitution.

Seems ypur beloved Speaker of the House had no problem at all with waterboarding terrorists when it suited her politically. As with most libs (you included) she sees everything on how it helps/hurts the Dem party and not if it hels/hurts America

[moderate democrat]

Seems ypur beloved Speaker of the House had no problem at all with waterboarding terrorists when it suited her politically. As with most libs (you included) she sees everything on how it helps/hurts the Dem party and not if it hels/hurts America


I think that waterboarding is against the law...I think it is torture. If Pelosi ever thought otherwise, I would disagree with her on that point.

Like I said.... you don't care whether waterboarding is torture or not... you would be fine with ANY form of interrogation as long as it got results.

[red states rule]

I think that waterboarding is against the law...I think it is torture. If Pelosi ever thought otherwise, I would disagree with her on that point.

Like I said.... you don't care whether waterboarding is torture or not... you would be fine with ANY form of interrogation as long as it got results.

So you "disagree" with her for LYING and no smearing the CIA? Wow! You saying that Virgil is almost an act or rebellion

Everyone here knows what a policital hack you are, and all your "views" are not based on prinicpals - but how if benefits/hurts your PARTY. Even if it means siding with terrorists and America's enemies

[moderate democrat]

So you "disagree" with her for LYING and no smearing the CIA? Wow! You saying that Virgil is almost an act or rebellion

Everyone here knows what a policital hack you are, and all your "views" are not based on prinicpals - but how if benefits/hurts your PARTY. Even if it means siding with terrorists and America's enemies

this from the guy who voted for McCain:poke:

[red states rule]

this from the guy who voted for McCain:poke:

Once again Virgil changes the subject. Iff I go back to the avatar with you holding the NAMBLA flag will you leave again? :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

Once again Virgil changes the subject. Iff I go back to the avatar with you holding the NAMBLA flag will you leave again? :laugh2:


that wasn't me... and I thought you had NAMBLA as an avatar because you were a proud charter member. I am sure that most people naturally assume you are a member of an organization when you proudly display their flag as your avatar. I was surprised when you took it down.

And I didn't change the subject...YOU call ME a party hack when YOU voted for McCain. I just pointed out your blatant hypocrisy.:lol:

[red states rule]

that wasn't me... and I thought you had NAMBLA as an avatar because you were a proud charter member. I was surprised when you took it down.

And I didn't change the subject...YOU call ME a party hack when YOU voted for McCain. I just pointed out your blatant hypocrisy.:lol:

OK, then I will go back to using it then. I thought you complained to the staff about it - but I guess I was wrong


MFM has a long history with NAMBLA - since you are not he the avatar sould not possibly bother you then

Seems you could care less your Dem Speaker is once again caught lying about something you claim to care so much about. But since she has a "D" at the end of her name you give her a pass- and really could not care less about it

[jimnyc]

no doubt. until a court of law finds an american official guilty of torture under the CAT, it will be just my opinion....and the opinion of many others as well. But when that DOES happen, it will prove my point that those who advocate torturing our captives have been violating the supreme law of the land and pissing on the constitution.

#1 - A judge finding someone guilty is still just an interpretation of a law, not a law. I've seen case law overturned time and time again, as well as judges making different interpretations. Basically, it's the judges opinions since there is no clear law making it illegal. Of course the judge would be setting precedent, but as we know that precedent can be either overturned or ignored by other courts.

#2 - Since you agree it hasn't happened yet, and even infer to "when it does happen" - IT IS NOT currently the supreme law of the land.

[moderate democrat]

OK, then I will go back to using it then. I thought you complained to the staff about it - but I guess I was wrong


MFM has a long history with NAMBLA - since you are not he the avatar sould not possibly bother you then

Seems you could care less your Dem Speaker is once again caught lying about something you claim to care so much about. But since she has a "D" at the end of her name you give her a pass- and really could not care less about it


I don't know this MFM guy... but it sure as hell looks to me like you are a proud member of NAMBLA... why else would you have their flag as your avatar?

That would be like me having a log cabin republican flag as MY avatar!:lol:

Tell me...when did you first start boinking little boys?

and are you a NAMBLA charter member? If so, your first conquest has got to be a grown man by now.... and you must have moved on to littler and younger ones.

I have not read anything about Pelosi lying about anything. I have heard that she has had a tiff with the CIA, but I really haven't read much about it.

[Jeff]

I don't know this MFM guy... but it sure as hell looks to me like you are a proud member of NAMBLA ... why else would you have their flag as your avatar?

That would be like me having a log cabin republican flag as MY avatar!:lol:

Tell me...when did you first start boinking little boys?

and are you a NAMBLA charter member? If so, your first conquest has got to be a grown man by now.... and you must have moved on to littler and younger ones.

I have not read anything about Pelosi lying about anything. I have heard that she has had a tiff with the CIA, but I really haven't read much about it.

Not sure if RSR has seen this yet but I think I can answer your question, He used the avatar cause it the same one you use on another board except being all the talk of you and children someone put NAMBLA, on it for you,

As for the tiff, is this the same CIA that told GW about WMD? ooo and they were right on then, but know they leid to poor Pelosi, LMAO

[jimnyc]

*** I am re-posting my reply to ensure it hasn't gotten lost in the fighting. I think it's important as it appears to be the first time that MD has admitted that it is not the supreme law of the land currently, even if not stated intentionally. ***


no doubt. until a court of law finds an american official guilty of torture under the CAT, it will be just my opinion....and the opinion of many others as well. But when that DOES happen, it will prove my point that those who advocate torturing our captives have been violating the supreme law of the land and pissing on the constitution.

#1 - A judge finding someone guilty is still just an interpretation of a law, not a law. I've seen case law overturned time and time again, as well as judges making different interpretations. Basically, it's the judges opinions since there is no clear law making it illegal. Of course the judge would be setting precedent, but as we know that precedent can be either overturned or ignored by other courts.

#2 - Since you agree it hasn't happened yet, and even infer to "when it does happen" - IT IS NOT currently the supreme law of the land.

[moderate democrat]

*** I am re-posting my reply to ensure it hasn't gotten lost in the fighting. I think it's important as it appears to be the first time that MD has admitted that it is not the supreme law of the land currently, even if not stated intentionally. ***



#1 - A judge finding someone guilty is still just an interpretation of a law, not a law. I've seen case law overturned time and time again, as well as judges making different interpretations. Basically, it's the judges opinions since there is no clear law making it illegal. Of course the judge would be setting precedent, but as we know that precedent can be either overturned or ignored by other courts.

#2 - Since you agree it hasn't happened yet, and even infer to "when it does happen" - IT IS NOT currently the supreme law of the land.

I think you might be splitting semantic hairs. If a law is passed, are you suggesting that that law is not really a law until someone actually is charged with breaking it?

There is a treaty which outlaws torture. we signed that treaty. waterboarding has been a recognized method of torture since the spanish inquisistion. we admit to waterboarding prisoners for the purpose of extracting information. I suggest that it fits the UN definition of torture as described in the treaty we signed. I suggest that treaty is the supreme law of the land whether or not anyone has been charged with breaking it yet.

[moderate democrat]

Not sure if RSR has seen this yet but I think I can answer your question, He used the avatar cause it the same one you use on another board except being all the talk of you and children someone put NAMBLA, on it for you,

As for the tiff, is this the same CIA that told GW about WMD? ooo and they were right on then, but know they leid to poor Pelosi, LMAO

I do not use that avatar anywhere. it is not me. RSR merely is showing everyone his support for men who like to screw boys. I was amazed at his forthrightness about that. I assumed he would want his membership in that group to remain a secret. Seriously....Would YOU put a NAMBLA flag up as YOUR avatar? and if not, why not?

I have no idea what the CIA told Pelosi. I do know that many many CIA analysts have come forward to say that the classified portions of every single NIE written about Iraq contained caveats and qualifiers...which, by definition, meant that there was an element of doubt and uncertainty about the information contained therein...which meant that when Dubya said that "there is no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" he was LYING.:poke:

[jimnyc]

I think you might be splitting semantic hairs. If a law is passed, are you suggesting that that law is not really a law until someone actually is charged with breaking it?

I am stating that there is no current law specifically outlining the waterboarding issue, and therefore it's all opinion based as to whether or not it constitutes torture. As per the CAT, it is not self executing and needs to be specifically addressed by the US courts. A conviction would set precedent but doesn't make it law. It would need to specifically be made a law before becoming supreme law of the land.


There is a treaty which outlaws torture. we signed that treaty. waterboarding has been a recognized method of torture since the spanish inquisistion. we admit to waterboarding prisoners for the purpose of extracting information. I suggest that it fits the UN definition of torture as described in the treaty we signed. I suggest that treaty is the supreme law of the land whether or not anyone has been charged with breaking it yet.

And this is merely opinion, as no law has been established making waterboarding a law pursuant to the CAT. The day congress addresses the issue completely and outlaws it via statutes, then it will be supreme law of the land - but until then it is merely an opinion which one judge could convict upon and another can easily state it doesn't rise to the level of torture. They have the luxury of making different decisions based on the fact that there is no clear cut law addressing waterboarding.

[moderate democrat]

until a judge convicts someone of waterboarding as a violation of the CAT, all either of us has is our opinion. My opinion is that waterboarding has been considered torture for at least half a millenium... and that we use it for the purpose that fits the UN definition of it.

[jimnyc]

until a judge convicts someone of waterboarding as a violation of the CAT, all either of us has is our opinion. My opinion is that waterboarding has been considered torture for at least half a millenium... and that we use it for the purpose that fits the UN definition of it.

A judge can convict but that wouldn't make it supreme law. Before that can happen it would need to be specifically addressed and made into law. Whether or not case law exists from the past showing convictions has no merit whatsoever as to the validity of CAT and supreme law.

I'm sorry, but an "opinion" cannot be supreme law and our constitution and freedoms deserve more than an opinion to set precedent. I'll be the very first to agree with you that it is the supreme law of the land - the very day it is made into law.

[jimnyc]

BTW, I'd like to add the following...

I know you have high regard for our constitution, supreme law of the land & our treaties that we have agreed to in the past. These are all founded upon our government and court systems. I would like to think that someone that appropriately addresses them as you do would want us to address the waterboarding issue in the same manner - which would be to have it on record, via law, and declared in such a fashion by our government/courts to clearly address the CAT rather than go forward based on opinions.

[moderate democrat]

you are suggesting that we need a US law passed by congress making waterboarding illegal in order for it to be so even though a treaty we have signed - which, according to the constitution is the supreme law of the land when it IS signed - says that torture is illegal?

Could the CIA then merely switch to electrodes on testicles and use THAT method until a separate law was passed outlawing that as well?

It would seem that we could keep switching torture methodology ad infinitum and the new methods would be legal until congress said otherwise???

[jimnyc]

you are suggesting that we need a US law passed by congress making waterboarding illegal in order for it to be so even though a treaty we have signed - which, according to the constitution is the supreme law of the land when it IS signed - says that torture is illegal?

That's EXACTLY what I'm stating as that's EXACTLY what it states in our declarations and amendments when we ratified the treaty. Don't blame me that they left the torture definition extremely general in nature.


Could the CIA then merely switch to electrodes on testicles and use THAT method until a separate law was passed outlawing that as well?

It would seem that we could keep switching torture methodology ad infinitum and the new methods would be legal until congress said otherwise???

I suppose that would be true, but don't blame me, blame those in congress who added the declarations to the treaty before ratifying it.

How can one declare something "supreme law of the land" while at the same time admitting it is merely their OPINION that waterboarding constitutes torture. Do you HONESTLY want us to base our laws and treaties on our opinions?

[Jeff]

I do not use that avatar anywhere. it is not me. RSR merely is showing everyone his support for men who like to screw boys. I was amazed at his forthrightness about that. I assumed he would want his membership in that group to remain a secret. Seriously....Would YOU put a NAMBLA flag up as YOUR avatar? and if not, why not?

I have no idea what the CIA told Pelosi. I do know that many many CIA analysts have come forward to say that the classified portions of every single NIE written about Iraq contained caveats and qualifiers...which, by definition, meant that there was an element of doubt and uncertainty about the information contained therein...which meant that when Dubya said that "there is no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" he was LYING.:poke:

The only lying going on , AGAIN is from our preacher, you do use that avatar except yours has a flag on it as I posted before , someone was nice enough( knowing your past) and removed the flag with a banner for your favorite boys club

[Mr. P]

Waterboarding is NOT torture!

[Jeff]

I do not use that avatar anywhere. it is not me. RSR merely is showing everyone his support for men who like to screw boys. I was amazed at his forthrightness about that. I assumed he would want his membership in that group to remain a secret. Seriously....Would YOU put a NAMBLA flag up as YOUR avatar? and if not, why not?

I have no idea what the CIA told Pelosi. I do know that many many CIA analysts have come forward to say that the classified portions of every single NIE written about Iraq contained caveats and qualifiers...which, by definition, meant that there was an element of doubt and uncertainty about the information contained therein...which meant that when Dubya said that "there is no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" he was LYING.:poke:
OK Virgil just in case someone on here might think you could possibly tell the truth here is proof of your avatar from another board ,with the flag as I stated , and yes everyone will now see not only are you MD you are also maineman and yes retired man who was also MFM,see Virgil you F***** up you asked for the avatars to be removed here as MD and sent me a pm as maine man, LOL
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/customavatars/avatar13_3.gif
maineman
Yellowdog Democrat

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: maine
Posts: 4,007
Rep Power: 9
Reputation: 250


I don't know what your story is, but until you remove my church from your avatar, I will not engage you in conversation. Please don't reply because I do have you on ignore and I will not read any of your PM's....if you want to discuss religion with me, you will need to take the necessary steps to make that happen.

I hope that clarifies my position.
Forward Message

[glockmail]

not apples and oranges at all. RSR judges waterboarding solely on the basis of whether he thinks it is effective in getting information, and not one bit on whether or not it might violate the law. I was seeing how far that premise extended. Apparently you misunderstand his position.

[Kathianne]

Related post, seems this is a better thread:

http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=367545&postcount=11

[emmett]

you are suggesting that we need a US law passed by congress making waterboarding illegal in order for it to be so even though a treaty we have signed - which, according to the constitution is the supreme law of the land when it IS signed - says that torture is illegal?

Could the CIA then merely switch to electrodes on testicles and use THAT method until a separate law was passed outlawing that as well?

It would seem that we could keep switching torture methodology ad infinitum and the new methods would be legal until congress said otherwise???


Electrocuting their balls! Now THAT is a fucking grrrreeeeat idea!!!!! You know what MD, you're coming along quite well!:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

OK Virgil just in case someone on here might think you could possibly tell the truth here is proof of your avatar from another board ,with the flag as I stated , and yes everyone will now see not only are you MD you are also maineman and yes retired man who was also MFM,see Virgil you F***** up you asked for the avatars to be removed here as MD and sent me a pm as maine man, LOL
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/customavatars/avatar13_3.gif
maineman
Yellowdog Democrat

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: maine
Posts: 4,007
Rep Power: 9
Reputation: 250


I don't know what your story is, but until you remove my church from your avatar, I will not engage you in conversation. Please don't reply because I do have you on ignore and I will not read any of your PM's....if you want to discuss religion with me, you will need to take the necessary steps to make that happen.

I hope that clarifies my position.
Forward Message

This post was removed from thread for awhile, after some discussion with staff, it was decided to return it. Why? To stop these discussions. If anyone wishes to go back and forth with accusations and denials, it better be in the Cage. Anyone who starts and responds will be thread banned. It's been going on too long and has become disruptive to the boards.