Bob Barr At CPAC: 'How Would You Like To Be Waterboarded?'

[Claudette]

Claudette, you simply have not carried your argument.

I do agree that our soldiers should not be persecuted and should be held to the standards of the UCMJ.

I want neither radical nor reactionary posturing from either side of the political spectrum: that does not serve the welfare of our troops or the safety of our country.

Jake. Don't really care if you think I carred my argument or not.

You have your opinion and I have mine. Thats just the way it is.

 

[maineman]

So. You find my thoughts pretty silly and irrelevant?? Well, I find yours way silly and equally as irrelvant since our enemy isn't a standing army representing a country.

I think anyone we capture is treated pretty damned good. The dirtbags at Gitmo never had it so good. In fact, the terrorist tell their members that if they are captured they will be well treated. They are. They are treated much better than those they capture. Danny Pearl comes to my mind, how about yours????

These terrorists are not a uniformed army. They are not signatories of the Geneva Convention. They do not follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. They have only one rule. Kill any and all that you can. Yet you and folks like you think they should be treated as though they do. Silly?? I think that describes you and those that think like you.

As for the supreme law of our land. Well last I heard it was our Constitution and our Supreme court. Not the UN or the Geneva Convention. Correct me if I'm wrong but was it not on this board no less that Bush's attorneys were cleared of any wrong doing in the matter of waterboarding??

NO. YOu and folks like you need to get off your damned high horse and step down into the real world. The world where you can be killed in your local pizza shot, movie theatre or just walking down the street when one of these dirtbags kills himself and as many as he can take with him. Thats what worries me every day. It should worry you because it could happen.

The only good terrorist is a dead one. Just my silly thoughts.

I am fully aware that our enemy today is not a standing army. That was never my contention. The fact remains that any future enemies will look to see how we treat our prisoners today and will consider that our tacit permission to treat any of our troops that they capture in exactly the same way. And I will correct you on the UN Convention. It is the supreme law of the land. I suggest you obey it. If you need a constitutional reference, I would point you to Article VI. I certainly know that I took an oath to support and defend it against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. People who would ignore our treaty obligations are pissing on our constitution.

and as an addendum: I really don't need someone like YOU to tell me to step down into the real world. I have served this country for a quarter of a century in uniform and I have served in harm's way in the middle east mediating conflicts between arabs and UN troops. I know full well what there is to worry about in this world....a hell of lot more completely than you do, that is for damned sur.

Your service is well appreciated by me. My whole family is military oriented. Three wars wortth.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree about the way these terrorists are handled. I have my opinion, no matter how silly you may think it is, and you have yours. So be it.

so be it? can you not address the FACT that we have a UN Convention which we SIGNED that states that NOBODY - member of a standing army or terrorist - shall be subjected to Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity?

you are saying that your opinion is to say you don't give a shit about what the constitution says? that's your argument?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Claudette is simply agreeing with the President and his administration at the time that authorized the use of waterboarding on three suspects. She and I (and many many others) believe it was the correct thing to do and that it saved innocent American lives. That is the bottom line. It was considered to be legal and within the Constitution at that time, and no amount of arguing will change that.

At the same time those who mistreated prisoners in Abu Graib were prosecuted and punished.

 

[CMike]

I am fully aware that our enemy today is not a standing army. That was never my contention. The fact remains that any future enemies will look to see how we treat our prisoners today and will consider that our tacit permission to treat any of our troops that they capture in exactly the same way. And I will correct you on the UN Convention. It is the supreme law of the land. I suggest you obey it. If you need a constitutional reference, I would point you to Article VI. I certainly know that I took an oath to support and defend it against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. People who would ignore our treaty obligations are pissing on our constitution.

and as an addendum: I really don't need someone like YOU to tell me to step down into the real world. I have served this country for a quarter of a century in uniform and I have served in harm's way in the middle east mediating conflicts between arabs and UN troops. I know full well what there is to worry about in this world....a hell of lot more completely than you do, that is for damned sur.

Your service is well appreciated by me. My whole family is military oriented. Three wars wortth.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree about the way these terrorists are handled. I have my opinion, no matter how silly you may think it is, and you have yours. So be it.

so be it? can you not address the FACT that we have a UN Convention which we SIGNED that states that NOBODY - member of a standing army or terrorist - shall be subjected to Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity?

you are saying that your opinion is to say you don't give a shit about what the constitution says? that's your argument?

I can field that question.

http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf

Page 8 Section 3


Medical and psychological professionals from the CIA's Office ofMedIcal Services
("OMS") carefully evaluate detaInees before any enhanced technique is authorized in order to
ensure that the detainee "is not likely to suffer any severe physical or menti;1 pain Of suffering as
a result of interrogation." Techniques at 4; see OMSGuidelines on Medical and Psychological
Support to Detainee Rendition, Interrogation and Detention at 9 (Dec. 2004) (HOMS
Guideline.f'). In addition, OMS officials continuously rnonitorthe detainee's c·ondition
throughout any interrogation using enhanced techniques, and the interrogation team will stop the
use ofparticular techniques or the interrogation altogether lithe detainee's medical or
psychological condition indicates that the detainee might suffer signWcant physical or mental
harm. See Techniques at 5-6. OMS has, in fact, prohibited the use ofcertain techniques in the
interrogations of certain detainees: .See id.at 5. Thus, no technique is used in tbtlinterrogation
detainee----no matter how valuable the information the CIA believes the detainee has~if
medic·a! andpsychologica!evall.lations or oIigoing monitoring suggest thafthG detainee is
to suffer serious bann. Careful records are kept bfeach interrogation, which ensures
accountability and allows for ongoing evaluation of the efficacy of each technique and its
potential for any unintended or inappropriate results. See id

 

[Claudette]

I am fully aware that our enemy today is not a standing army. That was never my contention. The fact remains that any future enemies will look to see how we treat our prisoners today and will consider that our tacit permission to treat any of our troops that they capture in exactly the same way. And I will correct you on the UN Convention. It is the supreme law of the land. I suggest you obey it. If you need a constitutional reference, I would point you to Article VI. I certainly know that I took an oath to support and defend it against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. People who would ignore our treaty obligations are pissing on our constitution.

and as an addendum: I really don't need someone like YOU to tell me to step down into the real world. I have served this country for a quarter of a century in uniform and I have served in harm's way in the middle east mediating conflicts between arabs and UN troops. I know full well what there is to worry about in this world....a hell of lot more completely than you do, that is for damned sur.

Your service is well appreciated by me. My whole family is military oriented. Three wars wortth.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree about the way these terrorists are handled. I have my opinion, no matter how silly you may think it is, and you have yours. So be it.

so be it? can you not address the FACT that we have a UN Convention which we SIGNED that states that NOBODY - member of a standing army or terrorist - shall be subjected to Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity?

you are saying that your opinion is to say you don't give a shit about what the constitution says? that's your argument?

If your referring to the quote you have from the UN Convention. I believe that if both warring parties abided by it then it would mean something to me. Since we are the only party that has to tow the line, I think its ridiculous.

Does the UN have a way to go after the terrorists for their many violations?? Don't think so.
NOr do I think they would even try.

What does our Constitution have to do with the UN Convention???

 

[bodecea]

Sometimes I weep at the direction I see our country going due to the FEAR instilled by 9/11. The terrorists have indeed won if their intent was to turn us to be just like them.

Funny how Germany and Japan with all their might did not do so.

We are the weaker generation, apparently. And the Crueler.

 

[Claudette]

Your service is well appreciated by me. My whole family is military oriented. Three wars wortth.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree about the way these terrorists are handled. I have my opinion, no matter how silly you may think it is, and you have yours. So be it.

so be it? can you not address the FACT that we have a UN Convention which we SIGNED that states that NOBODY - member of a standing army or terrorist - shall be subjected to Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity?

you are saying that your opinion is to say you don't give a shit about what the constitution says? that's your argument?

I can field that question.

http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf

Page 8 Section 3


Medical and psychological professionals from the CIA's Office ofMedIcal Services
("OMS") carefully evaluate detaInees before any enhanced technique is authorized in order to
ensure that the detainee "is not likely to suffer any severe physical or menti;1 pain Of suffering as
a result of interrogation." Techniques at 4; see OMSGuidelines on Medical and Psychological
Support to Detainee Rendition, Interrogation and Detention at 9 (Dec. 2004) (HOMS
Guideline.f'). In addition, OMS officials continuously rnonitorthe detainee's c·ondition
throughout any interrogation using enhanced techniques, and the interrogation team will stop the
use ofparticular techniques or the interrogation altogether lithe detainee's medical or
psychological condition indicates that the detainee might suffer signWcant physical or mental
harm. See Techniques at 5-6. OMS has, in fact, prohibited the use ofcertain techniques in the
interrogations of certain detainees: .See id.at 5. Thus, no technique is used in tbtlinterrogation
detainee----no matter how valuable the information the CIA believes the detainee has~if
medic·a! andpsychologica!evall.lations or oIigoing monitoring suggest thafthG detainee is
to suffer serious bann. Careful records are kept bfeach interrogation, which ensures
accountability and allows for ongoing evaluation of the efficacy of each technique and its
potential for any unintended or inappropriate results. See id

Thanks Mike. I'm working while doing this so it take me a while.

 

[maineman]

so be it? can you not address the FACT that we have a UN Convention which we SIGNED that states that NOBODY - member of a standing army or terrorist - shall be subjected to Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity?

you are saying that your opinion is to say you don't give a shit about what the constitution says? that's your argument?

I can field that question.

http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf

Page 8 Section 3


Medical and psychological professionals from the CIA's Office ofMedIcal Services
("OMS") carefully evaluate detaInees before any enhanced technique is authorized in order to
ensure that the detainee "is not likely to suffer any severe physical or menti;1 pain Of suffering as
a result of interrogation." Techniques at 4; see OMSGuidelines on Medical and Psychological
Support to Detainee Rendition, Interrogation and Detention at 9 (Dec. 2004) (HOMS
Guideline.f'). In addition, OMS officials continuously rnonitorthe detainee's c·ondition
throughout any interrogation using enhanced techniques, and the interrogation team will stop the
use ofparticular techniques or the interrogation altogether lithe detainee's medical or
psychological condition indicates that the detainee might suffer signWcant physical or mental
harm. See Techniques at 5-6. OMS has, in fact, prohibited the use ofcertain techniques in the
interrogations of certain detainees: .See id.at 5. Thus, no technique is used in tbtlinterrogation
detainee----no matter how valuable the information the CIA believes the detainee has~if
medic·a! andpsychologica!evall.lations or oIigoing monitoring suggest thafthG detainee is
to suffer serious bann. Careful records are kept bfeach interrogation, which ensures
accountability and allows for ongoing evaluation of the efficacy of each technique and its
potential for any unintended or inappropriate results. See id

Thanks Mike. I'm working while doing this so it take me a while.

that is just as funny today as it was when you posted it yesterday, Mike....

do you REALLY expect anyone to believe that, if some doctor had examined KSM and said that he felt that the prisoner would suffer mental pain from waterboarding , the Bush administration would NOT have waterboarded him? WHen Yew is writing opinions that say that physical abuse up to and including organ failure was acceptable to the administration, you really think that ANYONE would have halted the waterboarding of KSM?

lmfao

 

[JakeStarkey]

Claudette, you simply have not carried your argument.

I do agree that our soldiers should not be persecuted and should be held to the standards of the UCMJ.

I want neither radical nor reactionary posturing from either side of the political spectrum: that does not serve the welfare of our troops or the safety of our country.

Jake. Don't really care if you think I carred my argument or not.

You have your opinion and I have mine. Thats just the way it is.

Not all opinions are equal, and yours has certainly failed. Move along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your service is well appreciated by me. My whole family is military oriented. Three wars wortth.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree about the way these terrorists are handled. I have my opinion, no matter how silly you may think it is, and you have yours. So be it.

so be it? can you not address the FACT that we have a UN Convention which we SIGNED that states that NOBODY - member of a standing army or terrorist - shall be subjected to Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity?

you are saying that your opinion is to say you don't give a shit about what the constitution says? that's your argument?

If your referring to the quote you have from the UN Convention. I believe that if both warring parties abided by it then it would mean something to me. Since we are the only party that has to tow the line, I think its ridiculous.

Does the UN have a way to go after the terrorists for their many violations?? Don't think so.
NOr do I think they would even try.

What does our Constitution have to do with the UN Convention???

You are truly clueless.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I can field that question.

http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf

Page 8 Section 3


Medical and psychological professionals from the CIA's Office ofMedIcal Services
("OMS") carefully evaluate detaInees before any enhanced technique is authorized in order to
ensure that the detainee "is not likely to suffer any severe physical or menti;1 pain Of suffering as
a result of interrogation." Techniques at 4; see OMSGuidelines on Medical and Psychological
Support to Detainee Rendition, Interrogation and Detention at 9 (Dec. 2004) (HOMS
Guideline.f'). In addition, OMS officials continuously rnonitorthe detainee's c·ondition
throughout any interrogation using enhanced techniques, and the interrogation team will stop the
use ofparticular techniques or the interrogation altogether lithe detainee's medical or
psychological condition indicates that the detainee might suffer signWcant physical or mental
harm. See Techniques at 5-6. OMS has, in fact, prohibited the use ofcertain techniques in the
interrogations of certain detainees: .See id.at 5. Thus, no technique is used in tbtlinterrogation
detainee----no matter how valuable the information the CIA believes the detainee has~if
medic·a! andpsychologica!evall.lations or oIigoing monitoring suggest thafthG detainee is
to suffer serious bann. Careful records are kept bfeach interrogation, which ensures
accountability and allows for ongoing evaluation of the efficacy of each technique and its
potential for any unintended or inappropriate results. See id

Thanks Mike. I'm working while doing this so it take me a while.

that is just as funny today as it was when you posted it yesterday, Mike....

do you REALLY expect anyone to believe that, if some doctor had examined KSM and said that he felt that the prisoner would suffer mental pain from waterboarding , the Bush administration would NOT have waterboarded him? WHen Yew is writing opinions that say that physical abuse up to and including organ failure was acceptable to the administration, you really think that ANYONE would have halted the waterboarding of KSM?

lmfao

Yes you should believe it since it is the memorandum signed by the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States. It's good enough for me. Sort of goes along with what was considered legal at the time and as far as I know no court has changed that.

 

[bodecea]

Claudette, you simply have not carried your argument.

I do agree that our soldiers should not be persecuted and should be held to the standards of the UCMJ.

I want neither radical nor reactionary posturing from either side of the political spectrum: that does not serve the welfare of our troops or the safety of our country.

Jake. Don't really care if you think I carred my argument or not.

You have your opinion and I have mine. Thats just the way it is.

Not all opinions are equal, and yours has certainly failed. Move along.

No, her's is the kind of opinion our laws of due process, the 8th Amendment and what used to be known as American decency was supposed to protect us against.


Everyone can ALWAYS find a reason to torture other people. ALWAYS. That doesn't make it moral, right, or even effective. It just makes you evil.

 

[bodecea]

Thanks Mike. I'm working while doing this so it take me a while.

that is just as funny today as it was when you posted it yesterday, Mike....

do you REALLY expect anyone to believe that, if some doctor had examined KSM and said that he felt that the prisoner would suffer mental pain from waterboarding , the Bush administration would NOT have waterboarded him? WHen Yew is writing opinions that say that physical abuse up to and including organ failure was acceptable to the administration, you really think that ANYONE would have halted the waterboarding of KSM?

lmfao

Yes you should believe it since it is the memorandum signed by the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States. It's good enough for me. Sort of goes along with what was considered legal at the time and as far as I know no court has changed that.

Modern version of "we were just following orders."

 

[CMike]

I can field that question.

http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf

Page 8 Section 3


Medical and psychological professionals from the CIA's Office ofMedIcal Services
("OMS") carefully evaluate detaInees before any enhanced technique is authorized in order to
ensure that the detainee "is not likely to suffer any severe physical or menti;1 pain Of suffering as
a result of interrogation." Techniques at 4; see OMSGuidelines on Medical and Psychological
Support to Detainee Rendition, Interrogation and Detention at 9 (Dec. 2004) (HOMS
Guideline.f'). In addition, OMS officials continuously rnonitorthe detainee's c·ondition
throughout any interrogation using enhanced techniques, and the interrogation team will stop the
use ofparticular techniques or the interrogation altogether lithe detainee's medical or
psychological condition indicates that the detainee might suffer signWcant physical or mental
harm. See Techniques at 5-6. OMS has, in fact, prohibited the use ofcertain techniques in the
interrogations of certain detainees: .See id.at 5. Thus, no technique is used in tbtlinterrogation
detainee----no matter how valuable the information the CIA believes the detainee has~if
medic·a! andpsychologica!evall.lations or oIigoing monitoring suggest thafthG detainee is
to suffer serious bann. Careful records are kept bfeach interrogation, which ensures
accountability and allows for ongoing evaluation of the efficacy of each technique and its
potential for any unintended or inappropriate results. See id

Thanks Mike. I'm working while doing this so it take me a while.

that is just as funny today as it was when you posted it yesterday, Mike....

do you REALLY expect anyone to believe that, if some doctor had examined KSM and said that he felt that the prisoner would suffer mental pain from waterboarding , the Bush administration would NOT have waterboarded him? WHen Yew is writing opinions that say that physical abuse up to and including organ failure was acceptable to the administration, you really think that ANYONE would have halted the waterboarding of KSM?

lmfao

Yes.

 

[CMike]

that is just as funny today as it was when you posted it yesterday, Mike....

do you REALLY expect anyone to believe that, if some doctor had examined KSM and said that he felt that the prisoner would suffer mental pain from waterboarding , the Bush administration would NOT have waterboarded him? WHen Yew is writing opinions that say that physical abuse up to and including organ failure was acceptable to the administration, you really think that ANYONE would have halted the waterboarding of KSM?

lmfao

Yes you should believe it since it is the memorandum signed by the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States. It's good enough for me. Sort of goes along with what was considered legal at the time and as far as I know no court has changed that.

Modern version of "we were just following orders."

Do you have any proof that it didn't happen this way?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks Mike. I'm working while doing this so it take me a while.

that is just as funny today as it was when you posted it yesterday, Mike....

do you REALLY expect anyone to believe that, if some doctor had examined KSM and said that he felt that the prisoner would suffer mental pain from waterboarding , the Bush administration would NOT have waterboarded him? WHen Yew is writing opinions that say that physical abuse up to and including organ failure was acceptable to the administration, you really think that ANYONE would have halted the waterboarding of KSM?

lmfao

Yes you should believe it since it is the memorandum signed by the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States. It's good enough for me. Sort of goes along with what was considered legal at the time and as far as I know no court has changed that.

The AAG could write that pederastry is OK and that would no more make it right then the AAG saying that torture is right. The AAG colluded with others to undermine law and justice. For shame, Ollie.

 

[CMike]

that is just as funny today as it was when you posted it yesterday, Mike....

do you REALLY expect anyone to believe that, if some doctor had examined KSM and said that he felt that the prisoner would suffer mental pain from waterboarding , the Bush administration would NOT have waterboarded him? WHen Yew is writing opinions that say that physical abuse up to and including organ failure was acceptable to the administration, you really think that ANYONE would have halted the waterboarding of KSM?

lmfao

Yes you should believe it since it is the memorandum signed by the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States. It's good enough for me. Sort of goes along with what was considered legal at the time and as far as I know no court has changed that.

The AAG could write that pederastry is OK and that would no more make it right then the AAG saying that torture is right. The AAG colluded with others to undermine law and justice. For shame, Ollie.

And your proof of this is?

Amazing how libs just make shit up, and pass it off as facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read the report, son. As a Christian and a Republican, I find torture abhorrent. If I were a juror sitting on any American charged with the crime, if the evidence was clear, I would vote "guilty" and push for the maximum sentence.

 

[SFC Ollie]

that is just as funny today as it was when you posted it yesterday, Mike....

do you REALLY expect anyone to believe that, if some doctor had examined KSM and said that he felt that the prisoner would suffer mental pain from waterboarding , the Bush administration would NOT have waterboarded him? WHen Yew is writing opinions that say that physical abuse up to and including organ failure was acceptable to the administration, you really think that ANYONE would have halted the waterboarding of KSM?

lmfao

Yes you should believe it since it is the memorandum signed by the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States. It's good enough for me. Sort of goes along with what was considered legal at the time and as far as I know no court has changed that.

The AAG could write that pederastry is OK and that would no more make it right then the AAG saying that torture is right. The AAG colluded with others to undermine law and justice. For shame, Ollie.

Jake, did you pull your head out of Obamas ass to get some air?

 

[CMike]

Incredible. I post facts and documentation.

And the libs response -- it's all lies. Nothing to base that on, they just say it