A Conservative's view on waterboarding

[theDoctorisIn]

The Constitution in no way applies to non-american enemy combatants.

This isn't a damn global citizenship issue.

And, Waterboarding is not deemed torture nor illegal. And that comes from some great legal minds who ensured it wasn't, before Bush made it a useable policy.

You are a damnable liar. Waterboarding is considered torture.

Waterboarding is Illegal - Washington University Law Review

The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]

The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison, not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]

The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.

There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]

Why don't you name those great legal minds?

Our version of waterboarding is far different than the Japanese or Vietnamese, you stupid ol' coot!

How so?

 

[Wicked Jester]

You are a damnable liar. Waterboarding is considered torture.

Waterboarding is Illegal - Washington University Law Review

The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]

The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison, not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]

The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.

There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]

Why don't you name those great legal minds?

Our version of waterboarding is far different than the Japanese or Vietnamese, you stupid ol' coot!

How so?

Do the research.

It is done with strict limitations. It is done to not cause physical pain, or injury. It is done with a doctor present to ensure no physical pain or injury occurs.

The Japanese and Vietnamese versions are the exact opposite....Their versions are pure torture, period.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah well, Old Rocks has gallantly negged me a whopping -68 pts for expressing a point of view he doesn't agree with. So much for keeping debate and differences of opinion civil, huh. Egads, I may never recover.

So on that note, I'm going to bed with a good movie and will see all you good people back tomorrow. Good night.

There is no way that I can be civil to those that advocate our nation use torture.

 

[Old Rocks]

Our version of waterboarding is far different than the Japanese or Vietnamese, you stupid ol' coot!

How so?

Do the research.

It is done with strict limitations. It is done to not cause physical pain, or injury. It is done with a doctor present to ensure no physical pain or injury occurs.

The Japanese and Vietnamese versions are the exact opposite....Their versions are pure torture, period.

Now that is some of the most pure Bullshit I have very seen posted.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Ah well, Old Rocks has gallantly negged me a whopping -68 pts for expressing a point of view he doesn't agree with. So much for keeping debate and differences of opinion civil, huh. Egads, I may never recover.

So on that note, I'm going to bed with a good movie and will see all you good people back tomorrow. Good night.

There is no way that I can be civil to those that advocate our nation use torture.

We don't use torture.......We waterboard.

I can't be civil to those who are against using a non-torturous version of waterboarding that was just proven effective, as a tool that very well could help save american lives.

 

[elvis]

Waterboarding was considered torture when the Japanese used it on Americans in World War II.
Is it only torture when other countries use it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution in no way applies to non-american enemy combatants.

Incorrect, it most certainly does:

Petitioners ['enemy combatants' ]present a question not resolved by our earlier cases relating to the detention of aliens at Guantanamo: whether they have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, a privilege not to be withdrawn except in conformance with the Suspension Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 2. We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege. Congress has enacted a statute, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), 119 Stat. 2739, that provides certain procedures for review of the detainees’ status. We hold that those procedures are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus. Therefore §7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), 28 U. S. C. A. §2241(e) (Supp. 2007), operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ. We do not address whether the President has authority to detain these petitioners nor do we hold that the writ must issue. These and other questions regarding the legality of the detention are to be resolved in the first instance by the District Court.

BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH

And the crime of torture used to exact evidence would indeed be subject to a habeas petition.

 

[bripat9643]

We are not talking about killing or self defense.

Yes we are.

 

[Ravi]

The problem is, the "ticking bomb" scenario doesn't happen in real life, only in re-runs of 24.

What's the point of discussing a hypothetical that has NEVER happened to justify the use of torture?

It isn't an attempt to justify torture though. It is an attempt to get people to think about whether they are going to stick to principle even if that causes severe harm to another. An event like 9/11 had NEVER happened prior to it's happening. Nobody even contemplated such a thing. But now that we know there are people willing to do that and who will do it again given opportunity to do so, that changes the parameters of possibilities.

If it is your principle to always obey traffic laws, would you violate that principle to get a person to the hospital when second count? Most honorable people would.

If it is your principle to always tell the truth, would you violate that principle and lie to protect an innocent person from harm?

You can go right down the line of such hypotheticals that are hypothetical only until they happen. Most people in search and rescue, disaster relief, and such train using hypotheticals. But if the rule is you don't act without authority from somebody higher up, but you have to act or lose the victim, you violate the principle.

It is a matter of putting the greater good ahead of rules, procedures, and 'principle' based on nothing but ideology.

Of course our policy should be no cruel or inhumane treatment of anybody for any reason. That is a Christian principle we can all agree on or should.

But, if it is the lives of hundred or thousands of innocent men, women, and children at stake, I won't really care what they have to do to get the information to stop that kind of disaster. And I think our national leaders have to have the ability to do whatever they have to do to protect the lives of the innocent.

And I think all Christians will pray that it never be necessary to have to make that kind of decision.

Here's the problem with your argument:

Would you ever shoot a cop in the back?

What if he was a zombie about to kill your family?
I know I would.


Does that make it ok to kill cops?

If someone ever finds themselves in a position that they can try torture to stop others from being harmed then that is a decision the must make on their own with the understanding that they will afterward have to throw themselves on the mercy of the court.

You don't go around torturing people because they MIGHT give you some useful information just like you don't kill cops because the MIGHT be rogue.

The people that waterboarded or authorized waterboarding are too cowardly to face the courts. And I have not seen one shred of evidence that torture has saved a single life, therefore I can only conclude that they KNOW they were in the wrong.

They will have to deal with their God when the time comes.

But of course we have bigger problems to face as a nation. Obama invited a rapper to the White House!!!

 

[uscitizen]

The Constitution in no way applies to non-american enemy combatants.

This isn't a damn global citizenship issue.

And, Waterboarding is not deemed torture nor illegal. And that comes from some great legal minds who ensured it wasn't, before Bush made it a useable policy.

You are a damnable liar. Waterboarding is considered torture.

Waterboarding is Illegal - Washington University Law Review

The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]

The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison, not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]

The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.

There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]

Why don't you name those great legal minds?

Our version of waterboarding is far different than the Japanese or Vietnamese, you stupid ol' coot!

Yessir, we use civilized torture. hahahahahaha

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ah well, Old Rocks has gallantly negged me a whopping -68 pts for expressing a point of view he doesn't agree with. So much for keeping debate and differences of opinion civil, huh. Egads, I may never recover.

So on that note, I'm going to bed with a good movie and will see all you good people back tomorrow. Good night.

There is no way that I can be civil to those that advocate our nation use torture.

It must pain you to live in a country that "tortures" it's own soldiers.

 

[uscitizen]

Ah well, Old Rocks has gallantly negged me a whopping -68 pts for expressing a point of view he doesn't agree with. So much for keeping debate and differences of opinion civil, huh. Egads, I may never recover.

So on that note, I'm going to bed with a good movie and will see all you good people back tomorrow. Good night.

There is no way that I can be civil to those that advocate our nation use torture.

It must pain you to live in a country that "tortures" it's own soldiers.

Are you talking about the few that voluntarially go thru torture testing?

If you volunteer to do something it is no longer torture.
Kinda like if I volunteered to watch Fox Nooze for a week non stop.
or listen to only country and western music.

 

[bodecea]

There is no way that I can be civil to those that advocate our nation use torture.

It must pain you to live in a country that "tortures" it's own soldiers.

Are you talking about the few that voluntarially go thru torture testing?

If you volunteer to do something it is no longer torture.
Kinda like if I volunteered to watch Fox Nooze for a week non stop.
or listen to only country and western music.

Or when someone voluteers to do it for charity.

 

[Seawytch]

Ah well, Old Rocks has gallantly negged me a whopping -68 pts for expressing a point of view he doesn't agree with. So much for keeping debate and differences of opinion civil, huh. Egads, I may never recover.

So on that note, I'm going to bed with a good movie and will see all you good people back tomorrow. Good night.

There is no way that I can be civil to those that advocate our nation use torture.

We don't use torture.......We waterboard.

Which is still torture. (ask John McCain, a man who WAS tortured)

I can't be civil to those who are against using a non-torturous version of waterboarding that was just proven effective, as a tool that very well could help save american lives.

Banning cigarettes would save more lives. Helmet laws save more lives.

When has waterboarding been proven to be effective? All that bad intelligence we got from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? He didn't give us any actionable intelligence until we STOPPED torturing him.

 

[bodecea]

You are a damnable liar. Waterboarding is considered torture.

Waterboarding is Illegal - Washington University Law Review

The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]

The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison, not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]

The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.

There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]

Why don't you name those great legal minds?

Our version of waterboarding is far different than the Japanese or Vietnamese, you stupid ol' coot!

Yessir, we use civilized torture. hahahahahaha

Yes we do....our torture is "humane"....because....well, it is.

 

[bodecea]

So...now we can count ourselves in the catagory of nations that torture. It is what it is. But don't expect me to be happy about it or applaud it like some here do.

 

[Liability]

If one rejects the self-serving liberal premise that waterboarding "is" torture, then the matter is nowhere near as clear as the piece quoted in del's OP suggests.

The value of the OP begins with a seriously debated premise and, imho, it therefore falls flat.

 

[Dr.Drock]

If waterboarding a terrorist prevented a dirty bomb from exploding in the heart of Chicago in 2003, in a noontime street with thousands of workers out and about, it was the right thing to have done. Not to have found out by doing nothing would have been the wrong and irresponsible thing to do.

We don't have to put up with a brainwashed pawn murdering tens of thousands of Americans on a crowded street.

May Allah deal harshly with craven, unscrupulous poseurs vying for luxuries by murdering American civilians at their workplaces, civic centers, and anywhere else.

I'm giving America a thumbs up for employing its limited use of waterboarding to obtain information that saved American lives from those paranoid scurrying rats who did 9/11.

We did them back, and they won't get away with bullshittin' calumny that led to the murder of every person who died in the attack of 9/11. It was evil pure and simple. And it deserved to be halted.

If there's gonna be hell to pay to terrorist families, may they get what they have comin', and that'd be a certain torturous death. And if that doesn't work, nuke 'em all and the camels they rode in on.Softness on anyone's part on our side is considered a free fire zone and cause for more murders by the rabid terrorists. If they act like bugs, and they convince their entire society to act like bugs, there really isn't any other recourse except kill or be killed.

Ergo, give 'em hell if that's what it takes, and I think that's exactly what it's gonna take.

Therefore, I support whatever it takes to rid the world of this threat to innocent people. Or they can leave us alone and be left alone.

The choice is theirs.

Next issue!

Another person who thinks being just like the terrorists isn't good enough, we need to be even worse than them.

Disgusting.

 

[Samson]

If one rejects the self-serving liberal premise that waterboarding "is" torture, then the matter is nowhere near as clear as the piece quoted in del's OP suggests.

The value of the OP begins with a seriously debated premise and, imho, it therefore falls flat.

"Falls Flat" from .......where?

 

[Samson]

So...now we can count ourselves in the catagory of nations that torture. It is what it is. But don't expect me to be happy about it or applaud it like some here do.

We can also count ourselves among the nations that don't take any shit.

I expect you to move to The Neatherlands to Just be Happy.