A Conservative's view on waterboarding

[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!

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.

You dumbass, to give the closest possible sense of what real torture would be like, without actually taking it to that level.

Christ, you liberals are fuckin' idiots!

 

[Vanquish]

So if you keep repeating the same shit about liberals being idiots over and over and over...that equates to a win for you, right?

God you're a fucking idiot.

 

[Barb]

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.

You dumbass, to give the closest possible sense of what real torture would be like, without actually taking it to that level.

Christ, you liberals are fuckin' idiots!

So, it IS torture. take a nap. You've had a long day.

 

[Wicked Jester]

So if you keep repeating the same shit about liberals being idiots over and over and over...that equates to a win for you, right?

God you're a fucking idiot.

No, it's called the truth.......Just read through this thread. Most liberals are fuckin' clueless on what our method is. They've never been trough it, but somehow they're experts and automatically ASSUME it's torture.

And why is that?.....Because their beloved liberal loon hero's, too include Barry Sotero, have been cackling like caged hens that it's torture because it was a Bush policy. And now that we've found it worked, they are even more desperate to make their ignorant case.

It's that bleeding heart BS, that most liberals claim....Which is comical in itself, seeing as though they are perfectly fine with the chopping up of innocent life, to be summarily sucked from the womb in lil' pieces.

Yeah, liberals are fuckin' idiots.......Hypocritical idiots to the core.

 

[Wicked Jester]

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.

You dumbass, to give the closest possible sense of what real torture would be like, without actually taking it to that level.

Christ, you liberals are fuckin' idiots!

So, it IS torture. take a nap. You've had a long day.

Nice try at twisting words. As usual, YOU miserably failed.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

The Geneva Conventions apply to prisoners of war between nations.

 

[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

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

really?

what does this mean then?


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

 

[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.

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.

I was quoting John McCain.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I was quoting John McCain.

There's really not much difference between a Democrat and John McCain.

I wonder though. Would you folks consider depriving prisoners of television, radio, reading material, and/or any form of recreation to be torture?

Would putting somebody in the 'hole' in the dark for a day or more than a day be torture?

As a discplinary measure, is putting a prisoner on nothing but bread and water and vitamin supplements for a period of time torture?

Is depriving a prisoner of a soft bed or putting him in a tent or requiring him to wear pink underwear and clothing torture?

Is requiring prisoners to do manual labor torture?

Is keeping a prisoner isolated and unable to communicate with other prisoners torture?

Is making any kind of threat that generates fear torture?

Is putting a prisoner in with the general population where he will be subject to sexual assault, beatings, or other mistreatment torture?

Is any form of discomfort or unpleasantry forced on a prisoner torture?

 

[bodecea]

So if you keep repeating the same shit about liberals being idiots over and over and over...that equates to a win for you, right?

God you're a fucking idiot.

No, it's called the truth.......Just read through this thread. Most liberals are fuckin' clueless on what our method is. They've never been trough it, but somehow they're experts and automatically ASSUME it's torture.

And why is that?.....Because their beloved liberal loon hero's, too include Barry Sotero, have been cackling like caged hens that it's torture because it was a Bush policy. And now that we've found it worked, they are even more desperate to make their ignorant case.

It's that bleeding heart BS, that most liberals claim....Which is comical in itself, seeing as though they are perfectly fine with the chopping up of innocent life, to be summarily sucked from the womb in lil' pieces.

Yeah, liberals are fuckin' idiots.......Hypocritical idiots to the core.

Deflection to Obama started there.

 

[Ravi]

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.

I was quoting John McCain.

There's really not much difference between a Democrat and John McCain.

I wonder though. Would you folks consider depriving prisoners of television, radio, reading material, and/or any form of recreation to be torture?

Would putting somebody in the 'hole' in the dark for a day or more than a day be torture?

As a discplinary measure, is putting a prisoner on nothing but bread and water and vitamin supplements for a period of time torture?

Is depriving a prisoner of a soft bed or putting him in a tent or requiring him to wear pink underwear and clothing torture?

Is requiring prisoners to do manual labor torture?

Is keeping a prisoner isolated and unable to communicate with other prisoners torture?

Is making any kind of threat that generates fear torture?

Is putting a prisoner in with the general population where he will be subject to sexual assault, beatings, or other mistreatment torture?

Is any form of discomfort or unpleasantry forced on a prisoner torture?

No. But waterboarding is torture.

 

[Wicked Jester]

So if you keep repeating the same shit about liberals being idiots over and over and over...that equates to a win for you, right?

God you're a fucking idiot.

No, it's called the truth.......Just read through this thread. Most liberals are fuckin' clueless on what our method is. They've never been trough it, but somehow they're experts and automatically ASSUME it's torture.

And why is that?.....Because their beloved liberal loon hero's, too include Barry Sotero, have been cackling like caged hens that it's torture because it was a Bush policy. And now that we've found it worked, they are even more desperate to make their ignorant case.

It's that bleeding heart BS, that most liberals claim....Which is comical in itself, seeing as though they are perfectly fine with the chopping up of innocent life, to be summarily sucked from the womb in lil' pieces.

Yeah, liberals are fuckin' idiots.......Hypocritical idiots to the core.

Deflection to Obama started there.

What's the matter Bodey, you don't l;ike the fact that it's been fully proven on this thread that liberals are only calling it torure, because it was a Bush policy, and that your beloved loony liberal heros like Barry Sotero were proven wrong on its effectiveness?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Now, get your lying ass back over to that other thread and explain yourself.

 

[Valerie]

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.

I was quoting John McCain.

There's really not much difference between a Democrat and John McCain.

I wonder though. Would you folks consider depriving prisoners of television, radio, reading material, and/or any form of recreation to be torture?

Would putting somebody in the 'hole' in the dark for a day or more than a day be torture?

As a discplinary measure, is putting a prisoner on nothing but bread and water and vitamin supplements for a period of time torture?

Is depriving a prisoner of a soft bed or putting him in a tent or requiring him to wear pink underwear and clothing torture?

Is requiring prisoners to do manual labor torture?

Is keeping a prisoner isolated and unable to communicate with other prisoners torture?

Is making any kind of threat that generates fear torture?

Is putting a prisoner in with the general population where he will be subject to sexual assault, beatings, or other mistreatment torture?

Is any form of discomfort or unpleasantry forced on a prisoner torture?

Some legal imperatives

The United States Congress ratified both the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions thereby legally compelling the U. S. Armed Forces to comply with their strictures. The Third Geneva Convention, which covers prisoners of war, says in part:

'No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.'

The Fourth Geneva Convention, which covers 'the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War' from the occupying power has less precise rules on interrogation but still bans all "physical or moral coercion" to obtain information. Soon after 9/11, there was some confusion as to who was a Prisoner of War and/or protected by these Conventions. That was quickly put to rest with the following 7 Feb. 2002 memorandum from President Bush that directs, in part:

'Our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. As a matter of policy, the U.S. armed forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.'

Regardless of where you place the threshold between torture and, the lesser offense, coercion, they are both equally banned by the Fourth and Fifth Geneva Conventions and anathema to President Bush' order to 'treat detainees humanely.'

American Thinker: Torture as an interrogation technique

 

[Wicked Jester]

I was quoting John McCain.

There's really not much difference between a Democrat and John McCain.

I wonder though. Would you folks consider depriving prisoners of television, radio, reading material, and/or any form of recreation to be torture?

Would putting somebody in the 'hole' in the dark for a day or more than a day be torture?

As a discplinary measure, is putting a prisoner on nothing but bread and water and vitamin supplements for a period of time torture?

Is depriving a prisoner of a soft bed or putting him in a tent or requiring him to wear pink underwear and clothing torture?

Is requiring prisoners to do manual labor torture?

Is keeping a prisoner isolated and unable to communicate with other prisoners torture?

Is making any kind of threat that generates fear torture?

Is putting a prisoner in with the general population where he will be subject to sexual assault, beatings, or other mistreatment torture?

Is any form of discomfort or unpleasantry forced on a prisoner torture?

No. But waterboarding is torture.

No, it's not!

Get a fucking clue.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I was quoting John McCain.

There's really not much difference between a Democrat and John McCain.

I wonder though. Would you folks consider depriving prisoners of television, radio, reading material, and/or any form of recreation to be torture?

Would putting somebody in the 'hole' in the dark for a day or more than a day be torture?

As a discplinary measure, is putting a prisoner on nothing but bread and water and vitamin supplements for a period of time torture?

Is depriving a prisoner of a soft bed or putting him in a tent or requiring him to wear pink underwear and clothing torture?

Is requiring prisoners to do manual labor torture?

Is keeping a prisoner isolated and unable to communicate with other prisoners torture?

Is making any kind of threat that generates fear torture?

Is putting a prisoner in with the general population where he will be subject to sexual assault, beatings, or other mistreatment torture?

Is any form of discomfort or unpleasantry forced on a prisoner torture?

Some legal imperatives

The United States Congress ratified both the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions thereby legally compelling the U. S. Armed Forces to comply with their strictures. The Third Geneva Convention, which covers prisoners of war, says in part:

'No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.'

The Fourth Geneva Convention, which covers 'the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War' from the occupying power has less precise rules on interrogation but still bans all "physical or moral coercion" to obtain information. Soon after 9/11, there was some confusion as to who was a Prisoner of War and/or protected by these Conventions. That was quickly put to rest with the following 7 Feb. 2002 memorandum from President Bush that directs, in part:

'Our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. As a matter of policy, the U.S. armed forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.'

Regardless of where you place the threshold between torture and, the lesser offense, coercion, they are both equally banned by the Fourth and Fifth Geneva Conventions and anathema to President Bush' order to 'treat detainees humanely.'

American Thinker: Torture as an interrogation technique

That pertains to the U.S. ARMED FORCES

 

[Care4all]

There's really not much difference between a Democrat and John McCain.

I wonder though. Would you folks consider depriving prisoners of television, radio, reading material, and/or any form of recreation to be torture?

Would putting somebody in the 'hole' in the dark for a day or more than a day be torture?

As a discplinary measure, is putting a prisoner on nothing but bread and water and vitamin supplements for a period of time torture?

Is depriving a prisoner of a soft bed or putting him in a tent or requiring him to wear pink underwear and clothing torture?

Is requiring prisoners to do manual labor torture?

Is keeping a prisoner isolated and unable to communicate with other prisoners torture?

Is making any kind of threat that generates fear torture?

Is putting a prisoner in with the general population where he will be subject to sexual assault, beatings, or other mistreatment torture?

Is any form of discomfort or unpleasantry forced on a prisoner torture?

No. But waterboarding is torture.

No, it's not!

Get a fucking clue.

waterboarding is chinese water torture with a new name.

we prosecuted a soldier during vietnam, for using torture and the torture he used was.........................

WATERBOARDING!

HE WAS COVICTED and court martialed for using it.....

 

[bodecea]

No, it's called the truth.......Just read through this thread. Most liberals are fuckin' clueless on what our method is. They've never been trough it, but somehow they're experts and automatically ASSUME it's torture.

And why is that?.....Because their beloved liberal loon hero's, too include Barry Sotero, have been cackling like caged hens that it's torture because it was a Bush policy. And now that we've found it worked, they are even more desperate to make their ignorant case.

It's that bleeding heart BS, that most liberals claim....Which is comical in itself, seeing as though they are perfectly fine with the chopping up of innocent life, to be summarily sucked from the womb in lil' pieces.

Yeah, liberals are fuckin' idiots.......Hypocritical idiots to the core.

Deflection to Obama started there.

What's the matter Bodey, you don't l;ike the fact that it's been fully proven on this thread that liberals are only calling it torure, because it was a Bush policy, and that your beloved loony liberal heros like Barry Sotero were proven wrong on its effectiveness?

Oh...we aren't calling it torture now? (Hint: Bush is no longer president)

Yeah, that's what I thought.

That's some funny stuff right there!

Now, get your lying ass back over to that other thread and explain yourself.

Good lords, are you STILL crying? Are you sure you aren't Glenn Beck? Or our current Speaker of the House?

 

[bodecea]

There's really not much difference between a Democrat and John McCain.

I wonder though. Would you folks consider depriving prisoners of television, radio, reading material, and/or any form of recreation to be torture?

Would putting somebody in the 'hole' in the dark for a day or more than a day be torture?

As a discplinary measure, is putting a prisoner on nothing but bread and water and vitamin supplements for a period of time torture?

Is depriving a prisoner of a soft bed or putting him in a tent or requiring him to wear pink underwear and clothing torture?

Is requiring prisoners to do manual labor torture?

Is keeping a prisoner isolated and unable to communicate with other prisoners torture?

Is making any kind of threat that generates fear torture?

Is putting a prisoner in with the general population where he will be subject to sexual assault, beatings, or other mistreatment torture?

Is any form of discomfort or unpleasantry forced on a prisoner torture?

No. But waterboarding is torture.

No, it's not!

Get a fucking clue.

In your world, you applaud Amerika as a torturing nation. You probably would like to watch.

 

[Wicked Jester]

No. But waterboarding is torture.

No, it's not!

Get a fucking clue.

waterboarding is chinese water torture with a new name.

we prosecuted a soldier during vietnam, for using torture and the torture he used was.........................

WATERBOARDING!

HE WAS COVICTED and court martialed for using it.....

No it's not........Our version is totally different.

And yes, that soldier had no business using any form, torturous or not.

 

[Valerie]

There's really not much difference between a Democrat and John McCain.

I wonder though. Would you folks consider depriving prisoners of television, radio, reading material, and/or any form of recreation to be torture?

Would putting somebody in the 'hole' in the dark for a day or more than a day be torture?

As a discplinary measure, is putting a prisoner on nothing but bread and water and vitamin supplements for a period of time torture?

Is depriving a prisoner of a soft bed or putting him in a tent or requiring him to wear pink underwear and clothing torture?

Is requiring prisoners to do manual labor torture?

Is keeping a prisoner isolated and unable to communicate with other prisoners torture?

Is making any kind of threat that generates fear torture?

Is putting a prisoner in with the general population where he will be subject to sexual assault, beatings, or other mistreatment torture?

Is any form of discomfort or unpleasantry forced on a prisoner torture?

Some legal imperatives

The United States Congress ratified both the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions thereby legally compelling the U. S. Armed Forces to comply with their strictures. The Third Geneva Convention, which covers prisoners of war, says in part:

'No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.'

The Fourth Geneva Convention, which covers 'the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War' from the occupying power has less precise rules on interrogation but still bans all "physical or moral coercion" to obtain information. Soon after 9/11, there was some confusion as to who was a Prisoner of War and/or protected by these Conventions. That was quickly put to rest with the following 7 Feb. 2002 memorandum from President Bush that directs, in part:

'Our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. As a matter of policy, the U.S. armed forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.'

Regardless of where you place the threshold between torture and, the lesser offense, coercion, they are both equally banned by the Fourth and Fifth Geneva Conventions and anathema to President Bush' order to 'treat detainees humanely.'

American Thinker: Torture as an interrogation technique

That pertains to the U.S. ARMED FORCES

Still, the meaning and message is clear, it is only the legal boundaries that change...

You've heard of rendition..............?

What is rendition?

Developed in the mid-1990s during the Clinton administration, the CIA's rendition program allowed the agency to capture high-value targets anywhere in the world and bring them to a third country for interrogation. Critics argue that rendition is "outsourcing torture"; suspects are believed to have been taken to countries including Egypt, Morocco, Syria and Jordan, which have all been accused by the U.S. State Department and human rights organizations of torture.

Michael Scheuer was one of the architects of the rendition program. He told FRONTLINE that it is a legal process: "First, we had to identify a person who was worth incarcerating," he explains. "Second, that person had to be in a country that was willing to help us arrest him. Third, that person had to be wanted in a third country in a legal process. Either a warrant had to be issued for him, or he had been tried in absentia. … It wasn't just reaching out and grabbing someone. Lord knows there are hundreds of Al Qaeda people we would have liked to take off the street, but we couldn't do it because we couldn't make them fit into the mold of acceptable operations."

One suspect believed to have been rendered is Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who ran Al Qaeda's Khalden training camp in Afghanistan and who was captured in Pakistan in late 2001. Al-Libi was the subject of a bitter dispute between the FBI, which wanted to interrogate him using its practiced methods designed to elicit information that would hold up in court, and the CIA, which wanted to get as much information out of him as quickly as possible. The battle reached the White House and the CIA was ultimately awarded custody of the suspect. Al-Libi was reportedly taken to Egypt.

Frequently Asked Questions | The Torture Question | FRONTLINE | PBS

9th Circuit throws out CIA torture lawsuit for national security reasons
The decision by a divided appeals court says the risk of state secrets being exposed outweighs the alleged victims' right to seek damages from a Boeing subsidiary they say aided in the renditions.

Cia Torture | 9th Circuit throws out CIA torture lawsuit for national security reasons - Los Angeles Times