The scum also rises...When will it stop?

[bullypulpit]

In March of 2003, the Bush administration thought it had a gold-mine of information on Al Qaeda with the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. FBI interrogators extracted a wealth of information from him before the CIA took over and began using "enhanced interrogation techniques". Hereafter EIT will be called by its correct name...torture.

March 2003, the same month Bush invaded Iraq. The same month Khalid Sheik Mohanmmed was water-boarded 183 times. Under this duress, he admitted to everything from the kidnapping of Charles Lindgergh's baby to being the second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas. What he did not confess to, however, and what the Bush administration was seeking, was an operational link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

In April 2003, former UN weapons inspector. Charles Duelfer, received a request to engage in a more aggressive manner, as in water-boarding, with an Iraqi intelligence officer, Muhammed Khudayr, former head of M-14...a branch of Saddam's Mukhabarat...whom he was helping to debrief on Saddam's WMD's. You know the ones that were never there in the first place. According to Mr. Duelfer, this request originated in Washington. This request was problematic in two aspects. First would have been the violation of the Geneva Conventions, as this Iraqi was a lawful combatant. Secondly, this Iraqi intelligence officer was freely co-operating with his interrogators. Saddam was gone and he saw US forces as allies in rebuilding Iraq. Mr. Duelfer put it thus:

<blockquote>“Some in Washington at very senior levels, not in the CIA, were concerned that the debriefing was too gentle. They asked if enhanced measures, such as waterboarding should be used.”</blockquote>

Duelfer found the request "reprehensible" and he and his fellow interrogators refused to comply with this request to commit a war crime. Never mind that the motive behind the request wasn't to acquire intelligence which could be used to stop a further attack on America. It was to obtain information on an operational link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Never mind that as a uniformed member of Iraqi security services Khudayr WAS subject to ALL provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

According to a report by <a href=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/cheneys-role-deepens/>Robert Windrem</a>, this request for the use of water-boarding Khudayr originated in then Vice-President Dick Cheney's office.

But why this focus on links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Perhaps the Bush administration, realizing it's WMD rational for the invasion of Iraq was tenuous, at best, they were seeking to back-fill their justification for what was, essentially, an illegal, ill-conceived war of choice against an enemy which was no threat to anyone beyond its borders.

The point to all of this is that the Bush administration's use of water-boarding, and other forms of torture, went beyond even the flimsy legal justifications offered up by the Yoo and Bybee memos. As we see in <a href=http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf>this memo</a> from John Bybee

<blockquote>Our advice is based upon the following facts, which you have provided to us. We also understand that you do not have any facts in your possession contrary to the facts outlined here, and this opinion is limited to these facts. If these facts were to change, this advice would not necessarily apply...Specifically, he(Abu Zubaydha) is withholding information regarding terrorist networks in the United States or in Saudi Arabia and information regarding plans to conduct attacks within the United States or against our interests overseas...In 1ight of the information you believe Zubaydah has and the high level of threat you believe now exists, your wish to move the interrogations in to what you have described. as an "increased pressure phase."</blockquote>

The upshot is that the Bush administration exceeded even its own tenuous limits on the use of torture. As indicated above, torture was to be used only in the event of a "ticking time-bomb" scenario. The approval of the torture program by the DOJ was dependent upon the need to stop new attacks on the US and its interests. Securing evidence of an operational link between Al Qaeda and Iraq in order to justify the invasion of Iraq did not fall under even that flimsy rationale. The Bush administration tortured detainees, not to obtain intelligence aimed at preventing further attacks on the US, but to back-fill an illegal war of aggression based on a non-existent operational link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

And there you have it. The torture of detainees, not to prevent further attacks on the US...Even though not even that is justification for torture. Detainees were tortured to cover the political asses of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of the architects of the invasion and botched occupation of Iraq.

Taken as a whole, the continued reluctance of President Obama and Attorney General Holder to pursue the investigation and prosecution of war crimes against the members of the Bush administration who authorized, and those who carried out, torture continues to boggle the mind. Given the evidence that exists, it is clear that an investigation must be undertaken, and the evidence followed wherever...and to whonever...it may lead. US treaty obligations under the UN Conventions Against Torture and the Geneva Convention requires this. Failure to do so is nothing less than complicity in these crimes.

[red states rule]

NBC's ROBERT WINDREM HAS EGG ON HIS FACE AFTER BEING DECEIVED BY ACCUSSED SPY "ANA BELEN MONTES"
By Larry Daley



A very well informed source states that Ana Belen Montes:

1. was the most important Cuban spy and her presence in the US has been known for at least a week. She according to this source was Chief of the Cuban Desk a the US Defense Intelligence Agency.

2. On TV, such as in the Robert Windrem (NBC) interview, she, acting as spokesman for the Pentagon, down played the military threat of Cuba.

This may also explain why Colin Powell recent statements on Castro were considered by many experts as surprisingly mild and even flattering to the dictator. There is still the matter of the CIA web page on Cuba, which at least until recently presented Castro government statistics on Cuban health conditions etc, widely considered to be highly inflated, without criticism. Perhaps this page comes from that same contaminated source. All this could be extremely embarrassing to those involved.

3. The same sources say's she was born in Germany in 1957. However, all this may be a cover, and an assumed name since the feast of Saint Ann (Ana in Spanish) is on the 26th of July (the name of Castro's original movement), Belen is the name of the famous Jesuit prep-school in which Castro was educated, and Lola Montes was a famous courtesan linked to "Mad King" Ludwick of Bavaria.....

Since, much has been revealed recently about the penetration of Castro spies such as the recently broken up Red Avispa network or the relatively recent arrest of Faget a very senior Immigration and Naturalization Service funcionary that all this is extremely disturbing.

The source cited here can be reached for verification at INGMCA@aol.com


Larry Daley


Not a real credible news guy BP

[bullypulpit]

NBC's ROBERT WINDREM HAS EGG ON HIS FACE AFTER BEING DECEIVED BY ACCUSSED SPY "ANA BELEN MONTES"
By Larry Daley



A very well informed source states that Ana Belen Montes:

1. was the most important Cuban spy and her presence in the US has been known for at least a week. She according to this source was Chief of the Cuban Desk a the US Defense Intelligence Agency.

2. On TV, such as in the Robert Windrem (NBC) interview, she, acting as spokesman for the Pentagon, down played the military threat of Cuba.

This may also explain why Colin Powell recent statements on Castro were considered by many experts as surprisingly mild and even flattering to the dictator. There is still the matter of the CIA web page on Cuba, which at least until recently presented Castro government statistics on Cuban health conditions etc, widely considered to be highly inflated, without criticism. Perhaps this page comes from that same contaminated source. All this could be extremely embarrassing to those involved.

3. The same sources say's she was born in Germany in 1957. However, all this may be a cover, and an assumed name since the feast of Saint Ann (Ana in Spanish) is on the 26th of July (the name of Castro's original movement), Belen is the name of the famous Jesuit prep-school in which Castro was educated, and Lola Montes was a famous courtesan linked to "Mad King" Ludwick of Bavaria.....

Since, much has been revealed recently about the penetration of Castro spies such as the recently broken up Red Avispa network or the relatively recent arrest of Faget a very senior Immigration and Naturalization Service funcionary that all this is extremely disturbing.

The source cited here can be reached for verification at INGMCA@aol.com


Larry Daley


Not a real credible news guy BP

And your "source" has no credibility at all. Take your meds and go back to bed.

[red states rule]

And your "source" has no credibility at all. Take your meds and go back to bed.

Typical of you BP. If your source is critical of Pres Bush, and those who keep your sorry liberal ass safe - they are beyond reproach

Maybe you forgot Bush is no longer President, or is this your way to blame of Obama screw up on Bush in a lame attempt to pass the buck and away from Obama's economic policy failures?

San Fran Nan is now caught in a web of lies, yet the left wing kooks you hang out with have been very silent on her knowing approval of "torture" of the poor liitle terrorists

[hjmick]

I'm not even going to get into a discussion about the fact that KSM was not water boarded 183 times in one month. Check the 2007 Red Cross report (http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf). Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself told the Red Cross that he was water boarded five times. Now, there have be some reports that say he had "water poured on his face 183 times." But there's a difference betweenhaving water poured on your face and being water boarded.

[bullypulpit]

I'm not even going to get into a discussion about the fact that KSM was not water boarded 183 times in one month. Check the 2007 Red Cross report (http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf). Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself told the Red Cross that he was water boarded five times. Now, there have be some reports that say he had "water poured on his face 183 times." But there's a difference betweenhaving water poured on your face and being water boarded.

Page 37 of the <a href=http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf>May 30 2005 Bradbury memo</a> states quite clearly that:

<blockquote><i><b>The CIA used the waterboard</b> "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of (Abu) Zubaydah...and <b>183 times in March of 2003</b> in the interrogation of KSM (Khalid Sheik Mohammed)</i></blockquote>

[red states rule]

Page 37 of the <a href=http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf>May 30 2005 Bradbury memo</a> states quite clearly that:

<blockquote><i><b>The CIA used the waterboard</b> "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of (Abu) Zubaydah...and <b>183 times in March of 2003</b> in the interrogation of KSM (Khalid Sheik Mohammed</i></blockquote

Why am I not surprised that libs are more worried about the comfort and well being of terrorists then they are about the comfort and well being of unborn babies about to be aborted

First libs ranted how "torture" NEVER gained aby info for them terrorists Then it comes out it saved lives and prevented attacks, and even Dems like Pelosi knew what was going on - now libs need to slime the CIA and keep going back to attacking Pres Bush

[bullypulpit]

Typical of you BP. If your source is critical of Pres Bush, and those who keep your sorry liberal ass safe - they are beyond reproach

Maybe you forgot Bush is no longer President, or is this your way to blame of Obama screw up on Bush in a lame attempt to pass the buck and away from Obama's economic policy failures? (<i>trying to change the subject Red?</i>)

San Fran Nan is now caught in a web of lies, yet the left wing kooks you hang out with have been very silent on her knowing approval of "torture" of the poor liitle terrorists(<i>trying to change the subject, AGAIN, Red?</i>)

There are a class of people in this nation, like PublicIdiot and his fellow travelers, who believe that black sites, indefinite detention without charge, extra-legal judicial systems and torture are justified in order to keep the Republic safe. It they are right, then the laws need to be changed...treaties abandoned...the nation changed. That change would transform the nation beyond the recognition of its Founding Fathers and, in the process, render the sacrifices of every American who has fought and died to protect those founding principles pointless.

By authorizing the use of torture, the Bush administration embarked on a course never before taken by this country...A course whereby actions which have been prosecuted by this nation as crimes and war crimes are deemed legal. It is only those for whom the end justifies the means...for whom the rule of law is but a quaint, outdated ideal...that find the idea of torture palatable. What they fail or, more likely refuse, to understand is that America cannot be saved by destroying the very foundation upon which it stands...the rule of law. Destroy that foundation, and the Republic soon falls.

[red states rule]

There are a class of people in this nation, like PublicIdiot and his fellow travelers, who believe that black sites, indefinite detention without charge, extra-legal judicial systems and torture are justified in order to keep the Republic safe. It they are right, then the laws need to be changed...treaties abandoned...the nation changed. That change would transform the nation beyond the recognition of its Founding Fathers and, in the process, render the sacrifices of every American who has fought and died to protect those founding principles pointless.

By authorizing the use of torture, the Bush administration embarked on a course never before taken by this country...A course whereby actions which have been prosecuted by this nation as crimes and war crimes are deemed legal. It is only those for whom the end justifies the means...for whom the rule of law is but a quaint, outdated ideal...that find the idea of torture palatable. What they fail or, more likely refuse, to understand is that America cannot be saved by destroying the very foundation upon which it stands...the rule of law. Destroy that foundation, and the Republic soon falls.

BP, JIm (and others including me) are still waiting on another thread for you to show the specific law and treaty that makes waterboarding "torture" and against the law

You seem to have redeployed from that thread when asked to back up your rant

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=366979&postcount=32

As far as Pres Bush, he and others kept your sorry ass safe so you are still alive and still have the right to spit in their face for doing their job

Your "reporter" is a tool and has been unsed before

[bullypulpit]

BP, JIm (and others including me) are still waiting on another thread for you to show the specific law and treaty that makes waterboarding "torture" and against the law

You seem to have redeployed from that thread when asked to back up your rant

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=366979&postcount=32

As far as Pres Bush, he and others kept your sorry ass safe so you are still alive and still have the right to spit in their face for doing their job

Your "reporter" is a tool and has been unsed before

That's because its settled case law, from both civil and military courts.

<blockquote>In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

"All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. - <a href=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834>Waterboarding: A Tortured History</a></blockquote>

Just another piss-poor effort on your part to change the subject as you lack the wherewithal to debate it.

[red states rule]

That's because its settled case law, from both civil and military courts.

<blockquote>In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

"All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. - <a href=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834>Waterboarding: A Tortured History</a></blockquote>

Just another piss-poor effort on your part to change the subject as you lack the wherewithal to debate it.

Settled law????

Your link is a NPR article son - not a legal decision. Why not admit you are toast on the thread and Jiom called you out - and you could not deliver

As far as Pres Bush, he and others kept your sorry ass safe so you are still alive and still have the right to spit in their face for doing their job

Your "reporter" is a tool and has been used before. I find it comical liberals like you want to toss the former President in a jail cell, release terrorists who want us dead, and are silent on Dems who are now caught up in a web of lies when it comes to "torture" and the nations security

[jimnyc]

That's because its settled case law, from both civil and military courts.

Prior cases set precedent but DO NOT make laws. Any judge in the USA is free to judge the opposite if he so chooses.

[bullypulpit]

Prior cases set precedent but DO NOT make laws. Any judge in the USA is free to judge the opposite if he so chooses.

<i>Stare Decisis</i>...The upholding of previous rulings, and the recognition of legal precedent. It has more influence on the law. and the courts, than you seem to think.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. If American Laws are to protect our enemies, and destroy ourselves for some unknown reason.
2. Then if so its true, (making laws to protect the enemy) then we as a nation do not deserve to be one.
3. Making Laws to destroy ourselves, is suicide.
4. Is that how the, mind set of a liberal, is these days?
5. Don't choose suicide, choose life, and the search of happiness, even thou you may never attain it.
6. When American Law chooses our enemies over its citizens well fair, be for warned, we can not sustain it, and no Nation could.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[jimnyc]

Stare Decisis...The upholding of previous rulings, and the recognition of legal precedent. It has more influence on the law. and the courts, than you seem to think.

I suggest you read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

While the overwhelming majority will side with precedent, IT DOES NOT mean that the technique is against the law. If you are so confident it is a law, please supply me with the US code pertaining to waterboarding. If this does not exist, then there is no law. And while precedent holds a lot of weight, it DOES NOT bar a judge from ruling the opposite in the future.

And pertaining to the UN Convention against Torture - until such time that our government declares waterboarding illegal and makes it law, the convention carries no weight against waterboarding as its definition of torture is extremely general in nature.

[bullypulpit]

<blockquote>Waterboarding is a form of torture... - <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding>Wikipedia</a></blockquote>

<blockquote>The carnival-like he-said, she-said of the legality of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques has become a form of doublespeak worthy of Catch-22. Having been subjected to them all, I know these techniques, if in fact they are actually being used, are not dangerous when applied in training for short periods. However, <b>when performed with even moderate intensity over an extended time on an unsuspecting prisoner – it is torture, <i>without doubt</i>,</b>. Couple that with waterboarding and the entire medley not only “shock the conscience” as the statute forbids -it would terrify you. Most people can not stand to watch a high intensity kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American. - <a href=http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/>Malcolm Nance</a></blockquote>

Torture is illegal. Waterboarding IS torture. Therefor waterboarding IS illegal. This short, simple syllogism las it all out, as simply as possible, since I know you on the right are great fans of simplification...Usually over simplification.

[red states rule]

<blockquote>Waterboarding is a form of torture... - <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding>Wikipedia</a></blockquote>

<blockquote>The carnival-like he-said, she-said of the legality of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques has become a form of doublespeak worthy of Catch-22. Having been subjected to them all, I know these techniques, if in fact they are actually being used, are not dangerous when applied in training for short periods. However, <b>when performed with even moderate intensity over an extended time on an unsuspecting prisoner – it is torture, <i>without doubt</i>,</b>. Couple that with waterboarding and the entire medley not only “shock the conscience” as the statute forbids -it would terrify you. Most people can not stand to watch a high intensity kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American. - <a href=http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/>Malcolm Nance</a></blockquote>

Torture is illegal. Waterboarding IS torture. Therefor waterboarding IS illegal. This short, simple syllogism las it all out, as simply as possible, since I know you on the right are great fans of simplification...Usually over simplification.

Amazing how liberals are so worried about the comfort of terrorits while at the same time they sit silent as innocent babies are murdered, Tell me BP do you lose sleep over the murdered babies as you do terrorists who have squirted down their nose?

Still waiting for the legal decison that makes waterboarding "torture" and against the law

[jimnyc]

Waterboarding is a form of torture...


I've asked you no less than 5x thus far, can you PLEASE cite the US law code that pertains to waterboarding being illegal? It should have a citation along with it. And sorry, opinions don't count, only specific code will be acceptable.

[bullypulpit]

Amazing how liberals are so worried about the comfort of terrorits while at the same time they sit silent as innocent babies are murdered, Tell me BP do you lose sleep over the murdered babies as you do terrorists who have squirted down their nose?

Still waiting for the legal decison that makes waterboarding "torture" and against the law

That's right Red...Keep tryin' to change the subject.

[red states rule]

That's right Red...Keep tryin' to change the subject.

Not changing the subject BP. Just pointing out how you try to pass off your opinion as "settled law" and your classic double standards

IOW, pointing out the obvious

[bullypulpit]

I've asked you no less than 5x thus far, can you PLEASE cite the US law code that pertains to waterboarding being illegal? It should have a citation along with it. And sorry, opinions don't count, only specific code will be acceptable.

And there is none that I can find that specifically states that water boarding is a crime. Which does nothing to diminish the fact that case law in civil and military courts has defined waterboarding as torture. As it falls under that rubric, it is covered under US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C. It hus falls under both the UN Conventions Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions.

So, you see, it doesn't matter that the law does not explicitly address waterboarding. It is implicit in the definitions of torture outlined in US law and treaty obligations. You can't save the nation by destroying its foundation in the rule of law. I thought you were smarter than that.

[red states rule]

And there is none that I can find that specifically states that water boarding is a crime.

Thanks for admitting you are full of shit BP

[jimnyc]

And there is none that I can find that specifically states that water boarding is a crime. Which does nothing to diminish the fact that case law in civil and military courts has defined waterboarding as torture. As it falls under that rubric, it is covered under US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C. It hus falls under both the UN Conventions Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions.

I defy you to look at the code you stated and show me on instance of the words waterboard or waterboarding:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html


So, you see, it doesn't matter that the law does not explicitly address waterboarding. It is implicit in the definitions of torture outlined in US law and treaty obligations. You can't save the nation by destroying its foundation in the rule of law. I thought you were smarter than that.

The definitions of torture in the code is EXTREMELY general in nature, and being held in prison in isolation could easily fit within the definition. Do we hold prisoners in isolation in our supermax prisons throughout the US? And hell, those people aren't even terrorists!

I suggest to you as I suggested to MD, that you read the declarations that the USA added to the UN CAT, which clearly states it is not self executing and needs redress through US courts in order to qualify. Until such time that the specific EIT is outlawed via US code, it is no more than everyone's opinions as to whether it qualifies as torture. And I'm sorry for being repetitive, but precedent DOES NOT qualify as law. The supreme court has went against their own precedent HUNDREDS of times throughout history.

[bullypulpit]

I defy you to look at the code you stated and show me on instance of the words waterboard or waterboarding:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html



The definitions of torture in the code is EXTREMELY general in nature, and being held in prison in isolation could easily fit within the definition. Do we hold prisoners in isolation in our supermax prisons throughout the US? And hell, those people aren't even terrorists!

I suggest to you as I suggested to MD, that you read the declarations that the USA added to the UN CAT, which clearly states it is not self executing and needs redress through US courts in order to qualify. Until such time that the specific EIT is outlawed via US code, it is no more than everyone's opinions as to whether it qualifies as torture. And I'm sorry for being repetitive, but precedent DOES NOT qualify as law. The supreme court has went against their own precedent HUNDREDS of times throughout history.

Having read it already, I can tell you that waterboarding is not explicitly mentioned. Waterboarding IS, however, torture and thus falls under the rubric of US code. And it was only with great difficulty that legal redress was given the detainees at GITMO when the SCOTUS ruled against the military commissions as they wer constituted at the time, and for the detainees being covered under Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions.

Now, did it occur to you that the definition of torture was so broadly defined so as to provide the widest latitude possible in establishing a case for torture?

As for precedent...that is the basis of case, or common, law. And unless the court can find error in the interpretation of the law in a previous decision, the court will not change that interpretation. After all would the courts have convicted Texas sheriff James Parker in 1983 if waterboarding was not illegal?

[bullypulpit]

Thanks for admitting you are full of shit BP

Red, unless you have anything useful, substantive and pertinent to the discussion Jimmy and I are having, shut the fuck up. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

[jimnyc]

Having read it already, I can tell you that waterboarding is not explicitly mentioned. Waterboarding IS, however, torture and thus falls under the rubric of US code. And it was only with great difficulty that legal redress was given the detainees at GITMO when the SCOTUS ruled against the military commissions as they wer constituted at the time, and for the detainees being covered under Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions.

Now, did it occur to you that the definition of torture was so broadly defined so as to provide the widest latitude possible in establishing a case for torture?

As for precedent...that is the basis of case, or common, law. And unless the court can find error in the interpretation of the law in a previous decision, the court will not change that interpretation. After all would the courts have convicted Texas sheriff James Parker in 1983 if waterboarding was not illegal?

Bully, with all due respect, I still see differently on this matter and will likely remain with this position until I see the EIT's that were used reach the courts. I'm confident that eventually "torture" will be more specifically defined in order to prevent such chaos in the future. I do believe yourself and MD have presented good arguments but I still believe it boils down to one mans belief of what is torture and what is not.

As for any prior convictions, they are simply the interpretations of the sitting judges. And while their precedents hold a lot of weight, they can still legally be judged differently in another jurisdiction.

I believe this will just fall into one of the many categories where members need to "agree to disagree".

Cheers, big ears! :beer:

[moderate democrat]

Red, unless you have anything useful, substantive and pertinent to the discussion Jimmy and I are having, shut the fuck up. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

if you could point to one post in one thread where RSR has EVER posted anything that was useful, substantive and pertinent AND original, I'd be absolutely amazed.:beer:

[Jeff]

if you could point to one post in one thread where RSR has EVER posted anything that was useful, substantive and pertinent AND original, I'd be absolutely amazed.:beer:

Wow Virgil had another chance to attack, lol looked like a good debate then the preacher puts his 2 cents in :poke:

[red states rule]

if you could point to one post in one thread where RSR has EVER posted anything that was useful, substantive and pertinent AND original, I'd be absolutely amazed.:beer:

Welcome back Virgil. I see you added to the discussion as usual

[red states rule]

Wow Virgil had another chance to attack, lol looked like a good debate then the preacher puts his 2 cents in :poke:

It was nice without him - and I thought the air was clear because the smog had lifted :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Red, unless you have anything useful, substantive and pertinent to the discussion Jimmy and I are having, shut the fuck up. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Wow, more liberal tolerance being shown!

The ONLY way you would consider anyones posts to be useful, substantive and pertinent to the discussion is if I agreeded with you BP

You are so obsessed with the comfort and well being of terrorists it is indeed sad to see

You are an example of how the left wants to fight this war on terror. Not with bombs and guns - but with law books and therapists

I would however be interested to see what YOU would do if you were alone in a room with a terrorist that you KNEW had your family held hostage - and could tell you where they were being held. I would like to see how you would get the terrorist to talk. Would BP walk the walk of following the "law" - or would BP be more interested in getting his family back safe and sound?

[bullypulpit]

Wow, more liberal tolerance being shown!

The ONLY way you would consider anyones posts to be useful, substantive and pertinent to the discussion is if I agreeded with you BP

You are so obsessed with the comfort and well being of terrorists it is indeed sad to see

You are an example of how the left wants to fight this war on terror. Not with bombs and guns - but with law books and therapists

I would however be interested to see what YOU would do if you were alone in a room with a terrorist that you KNEW had your family held hostage - and could tell you where they were being held. I would like to see how you would get the terrorist to talk. Would BP walk the walk of following the "law" - or would BP be more interested in getting his family back safe and sound?

Red, how many time do I have to 'splain it to you? I do not care about the "comfort and well being" of terrorists. I care about the rule of law which this nation was built upon. I served my country honorably, as has every generation of my family since WWII to protect and uphold that foundation. That you would stain that record by suggesting that I would provide aid and succor to our enemies is reprehensible.

As for your bullshit "ticking time bomb" scenario, it's just that...bullshit like every other talking point you mindlessly parrot.

So, y'see, Red, its not intolerance for opposing viewpoints. It's a lack of tolerance for bullshit. And my tolerance for yours has long since run out. So, as I stated earlier, unless you have something to add to the discussion besides your bullshit...have a nice big cup of shut-the-fuck-up.

[bullypulpit]

Bully, with all due respect, I still see differently on this matter and will likely remain with this position until I see the EIT's that were used reach the courts. I'm confident that eventually "torture" will be more specifically defined in order to prevent such chaos in the future. I do believe yourself and MD have presented good arguments but I still believe it boils down to one mans belief of what is torture and what is not.

As for any prior convictions, they are simply the interpretations of the sitting judges. And while their precedents hold a lot of weight, they can still legally be judged differently in another jurisdiction.

I believe this will just fall into one of the many categories where members need to "agree to disagree".

Cheers, big ears! :beer:

Indeed sir! Thank you for the discussion. :beer:

[red states rule]

Red, how many time do I have to 'splain it to you? I do not care about the "comfort and well being" of terrorists. I care about the rule of law which this nation was built upon. I served my country honorably, as has every generation of my family since WWII to protect and uphold that foundation. That you would stain that record by suggesting that I would provide aid and succor to our enemies is reprehensible.

As for your bullshit "ticking time bomb" scenario, it's just that...bullshit like every other talking point you mindlessly parrot.

So, y'see, Red, its not intolerance for opposing viewpoints. It's a lack of tolerance for bullshit. And my tolerance for yours has long since run out. So, as I stated earlier, unless you have something to add to the discussion besides your bullshit...have a nice big cup of shut-the-fuck-up.

and BP the terrorists thank you for following their script.


Increase In Torture Claims Due To Al-Qaeda Handbook
By Digger


I have no doubt that a training manual that gives hints on what to do if captured is behind a string of torture claims that have been surfacing. Let's face it there may be some bad apples out there who would really torture someone, but the fact is that there is so much oversight and attention on these facilities that I find it highly unlikely. Claiming you were tortured is a great pasttime for prisoners even in the U.S. prison system and it quickly gets you attention and puts pressure on the U.S. to investigate your claims. This is a great way for terrorists to make us look bad as well as potentially gaining sympathy and a trial.
Washington Times

An al Qaeda handbook preaches to operatives to level charges of torture once captured, a training regime that administration officials say explains some of the charges of abuse at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
...

In a raid on an al Qaeda cell in Manchester, British authorities seized al Qaeda's most extensive manual for how to wage war.

A directive lists one mission as "spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy."

If captured, the manual states, "At the beginning of the trial ... the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison."

The handbook instructs commanders to make sure operatives, or "brothers," understand what to say if captured.

"Prior to executing an operation, the commander should instruct his soldiers on what to say if they are captured," the document says. "He should explain that more than once in order to ensure that they have assimilated it. They should, in turn, explain it back to the commander."

An example might have occurred in a Northern Virginia courtroom in February.

Ahmed Omar Abul Ali, accused of planning to assassinate President Bush, made an appearance in U.S. District Court and promptly told the judge that he had been tortured in Saudi Arabia, including a claim that his back had been whipped. He is accused of meeting there with a senior al Qaeda leader.

Days later, a U.S. attorney filed a court document saying physicians had examined Ali and "found no evidence of any physical mistreatment on the defendant's back or any other part of his body."

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001083.html

[Jeff]

Virgil a serious question here, your stance is waterboarding is illegal( I have seen no law to prove this just opinions) but let me ask you this, say terrorist abducted your family? You knew they were alive, cause we captured a terrorist that and confirmed it, but he wouldn't tell no more, would ya want us to waterboard him to get information on where your family is?

[red states rule]

Virgil a serious question here, your stance is waterboarding is illegal( I have seen no law to prove this just opinions) but let me ask you this, say terrorist abducted your family? You knew they were alive, cause we captured a terrorist that and confirmed it, but he wouldn't tell no more, would ya want us to waterboard him to get information on where your family is?

Jeff, I am confident how Virgil would react if his family was captured by terrorists and he had a chance to be alone with one of them

Virgil would look them in the eye and say 'Let your brothers know this. Tell my family their sacrifice will not be in vain'

'After the funeral, I will go on all the liberal talk shows and be interviewed by the networks - escept Fox News of course - and play the role as the grieving widower'.

'I will then blame Republicans for this. I will say how they obstructed Pres Obama's plans to fight a more effictive war on terror. How the so called terrorists were lashing out at past polices of the Bush administration - they are not really to blame for this'

'Let my family know their names will be placed at the DNC Wall of Fame - and they will help the party win more seats in local, states, and national elections'

'I will make sure the party benefits from this'

'Then when the Democrat Party has unchecked and unchallenged power, my fellow liberals will reach out to your brothers, and make peace. We will do whatever is needed to secure a lasting and solid relationship with your brothers'

[Jeff]

Jeff, I am confident how Virgil would react if his family was captured by terrorists and he had a chance to be alone with one of them

Virgil would look them in the eye and say 'Let your brothers know this. Tell my family their sacrifice will not be in vain'

'After the funeral, I will go on all the liberal talk shows and be interviewed by the networks - escept Fox News of course - and play the role as the grieving widower'.

'I will then blame Republicans for this. I will say how they obstructed Pres Obama's plans to fight a more effictive war on terror. How the so called terrorists were lashing out at past polices of the Bush administration - they are not really to blame for this'

'Let my family know their names will be placed at the DNC Wall of Fame - and they will help the party win more seats in local, states, and national elections'

'I will make sure the party benefits from this'

'Then when the Democrat Party has unchecked and unchallenged power, my fellow liberals will reach out to your brothers, and make peace. We will do whatever is needed to secure a lasting and solid relationship with your brothers'

I am afraid his answer ( if he answered honestly ) will be just that, you have really figured him out RSR

[bullypulpit]

and BP the terrorists thank you for following their script.


Increase In Torture Claims Due To Al-Qaeda Handbook
By Digger


I have no doubt that a training manual that gives hints on what to do if captured is behind a string of torture claims that have been surfacing. Let's face it there may be some bad apples out there who would really torture someone, but the fact is that there is so much oversight and attention on these facilities that I find it highly unlikely. Claiming you were tortured is a great pasttime for prisoners even in the U.S. prison system and it quickly gets you attention and puts pressure on the U.S. to investigate your claims. This is a great way for terrorists to make us look bad as well as potentially gaining sympathy and a trial.
Washington Times

An al Qaeda handbook preaches to operatives to level charges of torture once captured, a training regime that administration officials say explains some of the charges of abuse at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
...

In a raid on an al Qaeda cell in Manchester, British authorities seized al Qaeda's most extensive manual for how to wage war.

A directive lists one mission as "spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy."

If captured, the manual states, "At the beginning of the trial ... the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison."

The handbook instructs commanders to make sure operatives, or "brothers," understand what to say if captured.

"Prior to executing an operation, the commander should instruct his soldiers on what to say if they are captured," the document says. "He should explain that more than once in order to ensure that they have assimilated it. They should, in turn, explain it back to the commander."

An example might have occurred in a Northern Virginia courtroom in February.

Ahmed Omar Abul Ali, accused of planning to assassinate President Bush, made an appearance in U.S. District Court and promptly told the judge that he had been tortured in Saudi Arabia, including a claim that his back had been whipped. He is accused of meeting there with a senior al Qaeda leader.

Days later, a U.S. attorney filed a court document saying physicians had examined Ali and "found no evidence of any physical mistreatment on the defendant's back or any other part of his body."

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001083.html

Wouldn't be an issue if the Bush administration hadn't decided that torture was O.K. now would it. You don't think beyond the talking points Red.

[red states rule]

Wouldn't be an issue if the Bush administration hadn't decided that torture was O.K. now would it. You don't think beyond the talking points Red.

You are nothing more then a useful idiot BP. The "blame Bush" BS is starting to run out of steam

Your own party is going with many of the Bush policies - so all you have is to push the "torture" crap