A Conservative's view on waterboarding

[NoNukes]

According to the head of the CIA, none of the information that helped in getting Bin Laden came from waterboarding. The only information that came from waterboarding was erroneous.

 

[Too Tall]

Moral of the story - waterboarding, which leaves no permenant damage, is wrong. Putting a bullet in an someone's head is A-OK.

Liberal logic at its best folks.

So, we should be a "cruel and unusual punishment" country now as well as a death sentence country.

Our troops have been waterboarded as part of their training, dumbass.[/QUOtTE]

We waterboarded three of their terrorists and they beheaded dozens of innocent civilians. That seems fair to some misguided twits.

 

[Too Tall]

According to the head of the CIA, none of the information that helped in getting Bin Laden came from waterboarding. The only information that came from waterboarding was erroneous.

According to the CIA, waterboarding was used to determine when the subjects were ready to cooperate. The methodology used was to ask questions while waterboarding with known answers. Once the subject cooperated by telling the truth, the waterboarding was ended. Normal interrogation techniques were then used to get useful information.

So I say you are merely quoting Dem talking points.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I see, so you aren't just advocating for waterboarding, you're advocating for any form of torture.

If we have to pull out intestines to get info, do it, if we have to starve out people, do it, why not just have your dream scenario and have a holocaust of muslims until we get info?

Sorry, I'm a man of principles.

A Man of Principles my ass ya you keep your Principles I'm sure you think appeasement will stop the killing. I would rather more direct action be taken. And for the record Drock I'm fine with whatever is done to end the killing I don't feel the least bit sorry for these animals.

es ist gut, um Ihre Position zu diesem wissen.

danke schoen

alle hagel unserer glorreichen vaterland!

bester pfosten in diesem faden, bis jetzt.

 

[jillian]

A Man of Principles my ass ya you keep your Principles I'm sure you think appeasement will stop the killing. I would rather more direct course of action be taken. And for the record Drock I'm fine with whatever is done to end the killing I don't feel the least bit sorry for these animals.

anyone who thinks we should stoop to their level is no better than they are.

Complying with our treaties and our own laws is not appeasement.... Well, except to dumb-as-toast neocon losers

 

[Too Tall]

A Man of Principles my ass ya you keep your Principles I'm sure you think appeasement will stop the killing. I would rather more direct course of action be taken. And for the record Drock I'm fine with whatever is done to end the killing I don't feel the least bit sorry for these animals.

anyone who thinks we should stoop to their level is no better than they are.

Complying with our treaties and our own laws is not appeasement.... Well, except to dumb-as-toast neocon losers

I agree completely. No way should we resort to cutting their heads off, nor have we done so that I am aware of.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

A Man of Principles my ass ya you keep your Principles I'm sure you think appeasement will stop the killing. I would rather more direct course of action be taken. And for the record Drock I'm fine with whatever is done to end the killing I don't feel the least bit sorry for these animals.

anyone who thinks we should stoop to their level is no better than they are.

Complying with our treaties and our own laws is not appeasement.... Well, except to dumb-as-toast neocon losers

No one is suggesting we behead our enemies.

Can you show evidence that terrorist use waterboarding as a way of getting information?

I didn't think so. Therefore the use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques is NOT stooping to their level.

For the record, the Geneva Convention does not apply in the case of the war on terror.

Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense, in a Feb. 8, 2002 Department of Defense press briefing, stated:

"The President has…now determined that the Geneva Convention does apply to the conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan. It does not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda, whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere. He also determined that under the Geneva Convention, Taliban detainees do not meet the criteria for prisoner of war status. When the Geneva Convention was signed in the mid-20th century, it was crafted by sovereign states to deal with conflicts between sovereign states. Today the war on terrorism, in which our country was attacked by and is defending itself against terrorist networks that operate in dozens of countries, was not contemplated by the framers of the convention."

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC District Court), wrote in its July 15, 2005 ruling in the case:

"We...hold that the 1949 Geneva Convention does not confer upon Hamdan a right to enforce its provisions in court. Even if the 1949 Geneva Convention could be enforced in court, this would not assist Hamdan. One problem for Hamdan is that he does not fit the Article 4 definition of a 'prisoner of war' entitled to the protection of the Convention. He does not purport to be a member of a group who displayed 'a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance' and who conducted 'their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.'"

 

[del]

A Man of Principles my ass ya you keep your Principles I'm sure you think appeasement will stop the killing. I would rather more direct action be taken. And for the record Drock I'm fine with whatever is done to end the killing I don't feel the least bit sorry for these animals.

es ist gut, um Ihre Position zu diesem wissen.

danke schoen

alle hagel unserer glorreichen vaterland!

bester pfosten in diesem faden, bis jetzt.

die nacht ist jung.

 

[Care4all]

the supreme court over ruled the District court I believe?

[edit] District and Appeals Court rulings

After reviewing Hamdan's habeas petition, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan's favor, finding that the United States could not hold a military commission unless it was first shown that the detainee was not a prisoner of war.[10][11][12]

On July 15, 2005, a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit three-judge panel of Arthur Raymond Randolph, John G. Roberts, Jr. and Stephen F. Williams, unanimously reversed the decision of the District Court.[13] Judge Randolph, who wrote the decision, cited the following reasons for the legality of the military commission:

Military commissions are legitimate forums to try enemy combatants because they have been approved by Congress.
The Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies.
Even if the Geneva Convention could be enforced in U.S. courts, it would not be of assistance to Hamdan at the time because, for a conflict such as the war against al-Qaeda that is not between two countries, it guarantees only a certain standard of judicial procedure—a "competent tribunal"—without speaking to the jurisdiction in which the prisoner must be tried.
Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, al Qaeda and its members are not covered.
Congress authorized such activity by statute.
The judicial branch of the United States government cannot enforce the Convention, thus invalidating Hamdan's argument that he cannot be tried until after his prisoner of war status is determined.[2]

[edit] The Supreme Court's decision

On 7 November 2005, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to hear the case.[14] The petition was filed on behalf of Hamdan by Neal Katyal of Georgetown University Law Center and Seattle University School of Law alumnus Lt. Commander Charles Swift of the U.S. Navy. Seattle law firm, Perkins Coie provided the additional legal counsel for Hamdan.

The case was argued before the court on 28 March 2006. Katyal argued on behalf of Hamdan, and Paul Clement, the Solicitor General of the United States, argued on behalf of the government.[15] Chief Justice Roberts recused himself because he had previously ruled on this case as part of the three judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Critics called for Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, since he had made allegedly improper comments about the decision of the case prior to hearing oral arguments ("I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy")[16] but he chose not to do so.

The Supreme Court announced its decision on 29 June 2006. The Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, holding that President George W. Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and finding the special military commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Conventions.[17][18]
[edit] Stevens' opinion for the Court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

 

[slukasiewski]

I have to believe your title of Dr. is self assigned.

I always wonder why people are so scared to answer that question.


If it works on terror suspects, why wouldn't you want it done to rape or murder suspects?

Wouldn't it be good to waterboard someone to find out where they buried a body?

If they raped a kid?

Give me the argument why it's ok against terrorists and not ok with the others.

because the crime has already happened with rape, and the person is already dead with murder. Torture is about preventing things. these people who are already caught are going to be facing time anyways. Torturing them will produce nothing.

Why don't you enlist faggot, and save the world with your brilliance.

 

[Barb]

I always wonder why people are so scared to answer that question.


If it works on terror suspects, why wouldn't you want it done to rape or murder suspects?

Wouldn't it be good to waterboard someone to find out where they buried a body?

If they raped a kid?

Give me the argument why it's ok against terrorists and not ok with the others.

because the crime has already happened with rape, and the person is already dead with murder. Torture is about preventing things. these people who are already caught are going to be facing time anyways. Torturing them will produce nothing.

Why don't you enlist faggot, and save the world with your brilliance.

The professionals, who don't "enlist" but never get to retire, already agree. Sadly, often the smartest people in the room are out shouted by the loudest, who, oddly enough, also are saying the very same things that people in power want heard; which is also why they, unlike...say...Code Pink (as just one example) are NOT escorted out of public political forums in handcuffs.

 

[Sheldon]

I always wonder why people are so scared to answer that question.


If it works on terror suspects, why wouldn't you want it done to rape or murder suspects?

Wouldn't it be good to waterboard someone to find out where they buried a body?

If they raped a kid?

Give me the argument why it's ok against terrorists and not ok with the others.

because the crime has already happened with rape, and the person is already dead with murder. Torture is about preventing things. these people who are already caught are going to be facing time anyways. Torturing them will produce nothing.

Why don't you enlist faggot, and save the world with your brilliance.

You seem to have problems.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Whether you call it torture or enhanced integration methods, it's using physical methods to extract information which is not the best method to use. The quality of information extracted in this manner is always questionable. It validates the enemies propaganda and makes martyrs of the prisoners. Once physical methods are used to extract information, court conviction becomes much more difficult.

How does it make "Martyrs" of the prisoners?......They are not being killed, They are being made uncomfortable.So, under your surmise, blowing a bullet through Bin Ladens head is one in the same, correct?


Liberal logic is a funny thing.

They are being made uncomfortable. Gotta love the rephrasing involved with excusing torture.

Reminds me of slavery being referred to as "our peculiar institution".

Our form of Waterboarding isn't torture.........You ignorant liberal twit.....If it were, it wouldn't be used in SERE.

Forced sleep deprevation, hunger, cold, exposure to loud music, are not forms of torture either....you ignorant liberal twit.

"if Bodey only had a brain!"


Christ, liberals are fuckin' idiots!

 

[jillian]

A Man of Principles my ass ya you keep your Principles I'm sure you think appeasement will stop the killing. I would rather more direct course of action be taken. And for the record Drock I'm fine with whatever is done to end the killing I don't feel the least bit sorry for these animals.

anyone who thinks we should stoop to their level is no better than they are.

Complying with our treaties and our own laws is not appeasement.... Well, except to dumb-as-toast neocon losers

I agree completely. No way should we resort to cutting their heads off, nor have we done so that I am aware of.

nor should we violate the letter and spirit of the geneva conventions.

 

[jillian]

because the crime has already happened with rape, and the person is already dead with murder. Torture is about preventing things. these people who are already caught are going to be facing time anyways. Torturing them will produce nothing.

Why don't you enlist faggot, and save the world with your brilliance.

You seem to have problems.

too many to count.

 

[Sheldon]

How does it make "Martyrs" of the prisoners?......They are not being killed, They are being made uncomfortable.So, under your surmise, blowing a bullet through Bin Ladens head is one in the same, correct?


Liberal logic is a funny thing.

They are being made uncomfortable. Gotta love the rephrasing involved with excusing torture.

Reminds me of slavery being referred to as "our peculiar institution".

Our form of Waterboarding isn't torture.........You ignorant liberal twit.....If it were, it wouldn't be used in SERE.

Forced sleep deprevation, hunger, cold, exposure to loud music, are not forms of torture either....you ignorant liberal twit.

"if Bodey only had a brain!"


Christ, liberals are fuckin' idiots!

I've never actually been waterboarded so I'm kind of speaking from ignorance here, but two reasons why I feel it is torture is because I've read statements by people who have done it and undergone it say unequivocally that it is torture, and also because I look at as, if I saw an American soldier get water-boarded by some al-Qaeda freaks I'd see it as him being tortured.

I have to admit that I am kind of interested to just what it feels like though. It doesn't really look like it would be that intense but then you see people come out of it looking like they just got fucked in the ear--for lack of a better term.

 

[Barb]

How does it make "Martyrs" of the prisoners?......They are not being killed, They are being made uncomfortable.So, under your surmise, blowing a bullet through Bin Ladens head is one in the same, correct?


Liberal logic is a funny thing.

They are being made uncomfortable. Gotta love the rephrasing involved with excusing torture.

Reminds me of slavery being referred to as "our peculiar institution".

Our form of Waterboarding isn't torture.........You ignorant liberal twit.....If it were, it wouldn't be used in SERE.

Forced sleep deprevation, hunger, cold, exposure to loud music, are not forms of torture either....you ignorant liberal twit.

"if Bodey only had a brain!"


Christ, liberals are fuckin' idiots!

If it weren't a method of torture, WTF would SERE use it as training for, um, oh, I dunno, TORTURE situations? Ignorant twit doesn't seem to touch you. Your stupidity seems more like blunt trauma to the head.

 

[Ravi]

They are being made uncomfortable. Gotta love the rephrasing involved with excusing torture.

Reminds me of slavery being referred to as "our peculiar institution".

Our form of Waterboarding isn't torture.........You ignorant liberal twit.....If it were, it wouldn't be used in SERE.

Forced sleep deprevation, hunger, cold, exposure to loud music, are not forms of torture either....you ignorant liberal twit.

"if Bodey only had a brain!"


Christ, liberals are fuckin' idiots!

If it weren't a method of torture, WTF would SERE use it as training for, um, oh, I dunno, TORTURE situations? Ignorant twit doesn't seem to touch you. Your stupidity seems more like blunt trauma to the head.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

the supreme court over ruled the District court I believe?

[edit] District and Appeals Court rulings

After reviewing Hamdan's habeas petition, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan's favor, finding that the United States could not hold a military commission unless it was first shown that the detainee was not a prisoner of war.[10][11][12]

On July 15, 2005, a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit three-judge panel of Arthur Raymond Randolph, John G. Roberts, Jr. and Stephen F. Williams, unanimously reversed the decision of the District Court.[13] Judge Randolph, who wrote the decision, cited the following reasons for the legality of the military commission:

Military commissions are legitimate forums to try enemy combatants because they have been approved by Congress.
The Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies.
Even if the Geneva Convention could be enforced in U.S. courts, it would not be of assistance to Hamdan at the time because, for a conflict such as the war against al-Qaeda that is not between two countries, it guarantees only a certain standard of judicial procedure—a "competent tribunal"—without speaking to the jurisdiction in which the prisoner must be tried.
Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, al Qaeda and its members are not covered.
Congress authorized such activity by statute.
The judicial branch of the United States government cannot enforce the Convention, thus invalidating Hamdan's argument that he cannot be tried until after his prisoner of war status is determined.[2]

[edit] The Supreme Court's decision

On 7 November 2005, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to hear the case.[14] The petition was filed on behalf of Hamdan by Neal Katyal of Georgetown University Law Center and Seattle University School of Law alumnus Lt. Commander Charles Swift of the U.S. Navy. Seattle law firm, Perkins Coie provided the additional legal counsel for Hamdan.

The case was argued before the court on 28 March 2006. Katyal argued on behalf of Hamdan, and Paul Clement, the Solicitor General of the United States, argued on behalf of the government.[15] Chief Justice Roberts recused himself because he had previously ruled on this case as part of the three judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Critics called for Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, since he had made allegedly improper comments about the decision of the case prior to hearing oral arguments ("I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy")[16] but he chose not to do so.

The Supreme Court announced its decision on 29 June 2006. The Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, holding that President George W. Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and finding the special military commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Conventions.[17][18]
[edit] Stevens' opinion for the Court

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly as I stated. The Geneva Convention does not apply.

 

[Wicked Jester]

They are being made uncomfortable. Gotta love the rephrasing involved with excusing torture.

Reminds me of slavery being referred to as "our peculiar institution".

Our form of Waterboarding isn't torture.........You ignorant liberal twit.....If it were, it wouldn't be used in SERE.

Forced sleep deprevation, hunger, cold, exposure to loud music, are not forms of torture either....you ignorant liberal twit.

"if Bodey only had a brain!"


Christ, liberals are fuckin' idiots!

I've never actually been waterboarded so I'm kind of speaking from ignorance here, but two reasons why I feel it is torture is because I've read statements by people who have done it and undergone it say unequivocally that it is torture, and also because I look at as, if I saw an American soldier get water-boarded by some al-Qaeda freaks I'd see it as him being tortured.

I have to admit that I am kind of interested to just what it feels like though. It doesn't really look like it would be that intense but then you see people come out of it looking like they just got fucked in the ear--for lack of a better term.

There's no physical pain. It's a series of very short senses of possibly drowning. It's scary as all hell, and extremely exhausting..........It's very uncomfortable, but not torture.....If it were, it would not be used on our troops......It's meant to wear a person down. Meant in that it's not something you want to experience again, and would be best off talking, or possibly face going through it again.

Ya see, people just automatically assume it's the same way as the Japanese or Vietnamese used it.....That is not the case......Their versions were torture, based on how they did it.