Cheney Calls for full Release of Memos

[Iriemon]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Clinton mocks Cheney demand « - Blogs from CNN.com



Guess what, Dick Cheney? I don't CARE how effective waterboarding is. We're Americans, WE DON'T DO THAT. That is not the way I want my country's secret services to operate. I don't care how effective it is. There are always other ways. If the choice is between having that information, and being a country that uses those kinds of torture tactics, and living without that information and suffering another attack, I would RATHER SUFFER ANOTHER ATTACK than become a country that tortures prisoners.

SO LET ME CLAIRIFY SOMETHING: I just want a YES or NO answer from you. Then we can determine your mindset: In fact, I want all you liberals that are against WATERBOARDING to answer this question:

Let say someone in your family. Someone that you love more than life--is kidnapped by a terrorist organization. The CIA captures one of them--& they are 100% certain that he knows where your loved one is. This terrorist has told you & the CIA that your loved one only has hours to live. You give him another donut & cup of coffee & all he is doing--is sitting there with this big 's...t eating grin on his face watching those minutes tick by.

Would you tell the CIA not to waterboard this terrorist to save your loved ones life? Answer only YES or NO.

If you answer YES--you're so full of s...t it's coming out your ears. If you then agree to the waterboarding in this instance--then what we can assume is that you're O.K. with it--when it comes to saving someone you love, & are only against when others use this enhanced technic to save theirs.

Appeal to emotion.

You can use that logic to justify almost anything.

Just ask Hitler.

Not to mention a completely unrealistic scenario.

 

[Shadow]

Because the other atrocities weren't pertinent to the current discussion.

Obviously...however they are not remotely the same...which you apparently already knew..but is just sounds better to throw this crap out there and see if folks are paying attention...right.

Waterboarding was pertinent. This isn't a discussion about Japanese War crimes. They were simply referenced. If the US was lobbing off peoples heads with a guillotine, I would reference Robespierre. Get it? Waterboarding was pertinent. The other shit they did was not.

I disagree since waterboarding was not the sole reason they were charged and tried. You may not be saying this...but several posters were implying it until they were called out..

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then..

 

[Iriemon]

Then why when asked as to what other attrocities they committed....you said that was an "irrelevant" question? They obviously were not "tried" and "hung" for waterboarding....

They were tried for waterboarding. No one was hung for it to my knowledge. A couple sources stated the penalty for waterboarding was 15 years hard lobor.

A form of waterboarding the USA does not use. Where the person is hung with his feet in the air while water is poured in his nostrils to make him pass out. However that was again,not all they were tired for.

Repetitive. I posted the testimony of the US soldier or airman who was waterboarded and the techniques used by the CIA that shows the same technique was used.

 

[Shadow]

Because the other atrocities weren't pertinent to the current discussion.

Obviously...however they are not remotely the same...which you apparently already knew..but is just sounds better to throw this crap out there and see if folks are paying attention...right.

What the hell are you talking about. I never threw that crap out.

Yes you did, by stating that anything the Japanese did other than waterboarding was irrelevent as to why they were convicted.

 

[Iriemon]

Obviously...however they are not remotely the same...which you apparently already knew..but is just sounds better to throw this crap out there and see if folks are paying attention...right.

Waterboarding was pertinent. This isn't a discussion about Japanese War crimes. They were simply referenced. If the US was lobbing off peoples heads with a guillotine, I would reference Robespierre. Get it? Waterboarding was pertinent. The other shit they did was not.

I disagree since waterboarding was not the sole reason they were charged and tried. You may not be saying this...but several posters were implying it until they were called out..

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then..

At least a couple of the articles I cited stated that some Japanese were prosecuted solely for waterboarding.

Not that it matters; whether they were prosecuted for other things or not it shows that the US treated waterboarding as a war crime in and of itself.

 

[Iriemon]

Obviously...however they are not remotely the same...which you apparently already knew..but is just sounds better to throw this crap out there and see if folks are paying attention...right.

What the hell are you talking about. I never threw that crap out.

Yes you did, by stating that anything the Japanese did other than waterboarding was irrelevent as to why they were convicted.

I never said that. I said that anything the Japanes did other than waterboarding was irrelevent to the point we are discussing. Which it is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

At least a couple of the articles I cited stated that some Japanese were prosecuted solely for waterboarding.

Not that it matters; whether they were prosecuted for other things or not it shows that the US treated waterboarding as a war crime in and of itself.

 

[Shadow]

What the hell are you talking about. I never threw that crap out.

Yes you did, by stating that anything the Japanese did other than waterboarding was irrelevent as to why they were convicted.

I never said that. I said that anything the Japanes did other than waterboarding was irrelevent to the point we are discussing. Which it is.

Not when convictions and executions were handed out do to lots of other attrocities not because of "waterboarding". Which you were trying to imply. The main reason for the trials was due to the fact that they were murdering people. Which you convienintly omit.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

You know, my third year in law school, I had a proffessor that had spent his first career as a prosecutor. He was anti death penalty, but spent his entire career seeking the death penalty in cases in which it was prudent to do so. The man was an enigma, but he told us one thing about the death penalty that i will never ever forget. He polled the class to see where we stood on the death penalty. He took those that were against it aside and gave them a hypothetical.

Suppose you are the Govenor in a state that has the death penalty. You mother is raped and murdered in such a brutal way that the thought of it gives you nightmares. Now suppose that his case comes across your desk and you alone have the power to commute his sentence. Would you commute his sentence?

Not a single person that was anti death penalty said that they would commute his sentence. Everyone of the "bleeding heart liberals" sent the man to the execution chamber. Then he told us that is exactly why family members in that situation don't get to make that decision. Emotion clouds sound judgement. That is the lesson.

Every single hypothetical that has come up in this thread is useless. What if your family member this? What your fellow soldiers that? None of it is relevant. Decisions about the morality of things that are based on emotion will have no moral basis at all.

And with that, I am done with this thread.

 

[Article 15]

Yes you did, by stating that anything the Japanese did other than waterboarding was irrelevent as to why they were convicted.

I never said that. I said that anything the Japanes did other than waterboarding was irrelevent to the point we are discussing. Which it is.

Not when convictions and executions were handed out do to lots of other attrocities not because of "waterboarding". Which you were trying to imply. The main reason for the trials was due to the fact that they were murdering people. Which you convienintly omit.

Dude, really, this is getting a bit silly.

 

[elvis]

I never said that. I said that anything the Japanes did other than waterboarding was irrelevent to the point we are discussing. Which it is.

Not when convictions and executions were handed out do to lots of other attrocities not because of "waterboarding". Which you were trying to imply. The main reason for the trials was due to the fact that they were murdering people. Which you convienintly omit.

Dude, really, this is getting a bit silly.

I think the point people are trying to make is that if waterboarding was considered a warcrime in regards to the Japanese, it should be a warcrime in regards to the US. The other things they were charged would have to do with sentencing.

 

[Article 15]

Not when convictions and executions were handed out do to lots of other attrocities not because of "waterboarding". Which you were trying to imply. The main reason for the trials was due to the fact that they were murdering people. Which you convienintly omit.

Dude, really, this is getting a bit silly.

I think the point people are trying to make is that if waterboarding was considered a warcrime in regards to the Japanese, it should be a warcrime in regards to the US. The other things they were charged would have to do with sentencing.

I get that but I'm not so sure that is what Shadow is trying say.

 

[elvis]

Dude, really, this is getting a bit silly.

I think the point people are trying to make is that if waterboarding was considered a warcrime in regards to the Japanese, it should be a warcrime in regards to the US. The other things they were charged would have to do with sentencing.

I get that but I'm not so sure that is what Shadow is trying say.

I think he is getting the arguments of charging and sentencing mixed up.

 

[Shadow]

Actually I'm not. Posters here were claiming that the Japanese were tried and hung because of waterboarding. Once called on it,they changed their tune and tried to pretend otherwise.

However..I still think this issue is a bunch of political BS.


Democrats were briefed on waterboarding prior to it's implimentation..even asked if the CIA thought it was "doing enough". Now they convienintly try to run from the topic and tar others with it. I'm not buying into this...first it was legal..now that we can use it as a political tool... it's not crapola from the Dems in congress..




"Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who in 2002 was the ranking Democrat on the House committee, has said in public statements that she recalls being briefed on the methods, including waterboarding. She insists, however, that the lawmakers were told only that the C.I.A. believed the methods were legal — not that they were going to be used.

By contrast, the ranking Republican on the House committee at the time, Porter J. Goss of Florida, who later served as C.I.A. director, recalls a clear message that the methods would be used.

"We were briefed, and we certainly understood what C.I.A. was doing," Mr. Goss said in an interview. "Not only was there no objection, there was actually concern about whether the agency was doing enough."

Several Dems signed off on these techiques. Including Pelosi..

 

[elvis]

Actually I'm not. Posters here were claiming that the Japanese were tried and hung because of waterboarding. Once called on it,they changed their tune and tried to pretend otherwise.

However..I still think this issue is a bunch of political BS.


Democrats were briefed on waterboarding prior to it's implimentation..even asked if the CIA thought it was "doing enough". Now they convienintly try to run from the topic and tar others with it. I'm not buying into this...first it was legal..now that we can use it as a political tool... it's not crapola from the Dems in congress..




"Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who in 2002 was the ranking Democrat on the House committee, has said in public statements that she recalls being briefed on the methods, including waterboarding. She insists, however, that the lawmakers were told only that the C.I.A. believed the methods were legal — not that they were going to be used.

By contrast, the ranking Republican on the House committee at the time, Porter J. Goss of Florida, who later served as C.I.A. director, recalls a clear message that the methods would be used.

"We were briefed, and we certainly understood what C.I.A. was doing," Mr. Goss said in an interview. "Not only was there no objection, there was actually concern about whether the agency was doing enough."

Several Dems signed off on these techiques. Including Pelosi..

If you are replying to those who say the Japanese were hanged because of waterboarding, then your argument has merit.

 

[Article 15]

Actually I'm not. Posters here were claiming that the Japanese were tried and hung because of waterboarding. Once called on it,they changed their tune and tried to pretend otherwise.

Whatever, dude, nobody called anybody out and you are living in a fantasy world if you think people changed their tune. A statement was clarified but don't be so arrogant to think that you actually changed the argument in any way.

The fact remains that we put Japanese on trial and convicted them after WWII for the war crime of waterboarding. You wanted to bring up everything else to try to murky the argument and epically failed. No matter how hard you try you can't escape the facts.

 

[Shadow]

They were tried for waterboarding. No one was hung for it to my knowledge. A couple sources stated the penalty for waterboarding was 15 years hard lobor.

A form of waterboarding the USA does not use. Where the person is hung with his feet in the air while water is poured in his nostrils to make him pass out. However that was again,not all they were tired for.

Repetitive. I posted the testimony of the US soldier or airman who was waterboarded and the techniques used by the CIA that shows the same technique was used.

actually no..

The memos released by Obama make a very clear legal argument that waterboarding could posibly be considered torture if done continuously which is why it was then limited to one session per day, with sessions of water application no more thant 6 10 second applications at that time.


ETA...the analysis used and signed off on by Pelosi and crew consisted of a huge book they had written on the subject to support their findings on the issue. You may not like it but, it is not the "same" technique and it it is not illegal either.

 

[Shadow]

Actually I'm not. Posters here were claiming that the Japanese were tried and hung because of waterboarding. Once called on it,they changed their tune and tried to pretend otherwise.

Whatever, dude, nobody called anybody out and you are living in a fantasy world if you think people changed their tune. A statement was clarified but don't be so arrogant to think that you actually changed the argument in any way.

The fact remains that we put Japanese on trial and convicted them after WWII for the war crime of waterboarding. You wanted to bring up everything else to try to murky the argument and epically failed. No matter how hard you try you can't escape the facts.

Except it's okay for you to leave out details apparently. Such as the reason for the "trials" was the mass murder of innocent people. And the waterboarding in question, ie that we used on terrorists ...was not the same thing used by the Japanese either.

 

[Article 15]

Actually I'm not. Posters here were claiming that the Japanese were tried and hung because of waterboarding. Once called on it,they changed their tune and tried to pretend otherwise.

Whatever, dude, nobody called anybody out and you are living in a fantasy world if you think people changed their tune. A statement was clarified but don't be so arrogant to think that you actually changed the argument in any way.

The fact remains that we put Japanese on trial and convicted them after WWII for the war crime of waterboarding. You wanted to bring up everything else to try to murky the argument and epically failed. No matter how hard you try you can't escape the facts.

Except it's okay for you to leave out details apparently. Such as the reason for the "trials" was the mass murder of innocent people. And the waterboarding in question, ie that we used on terrorists ...was not the same thing used by the Japanese either.

No what you are doing is trying to steer the focus away from the FACT that the japanese were tried for waterboarding as a war crime. There were many reasons why they were put on trial, one of which was that they were waterboarding people. If it wasn't a war crime and wasn't wrong they wouldn't have included waterboarding in the charges they brought forward. It's really that simple and everything else you are throwing at it is just smoke and mirrors.

 

[Shadow]

Whatever, dude, nobody called anybody out and you are living in a fantasy world if you think people changed their tune. A statement was clarified but don't be so arrogant to think that you actually changed the argument in any way.

The fact remains that we put Japanese on trial and convicted them after WWII for the war crime of waterboarding. You wanted to bring up everything else to try to murky the argument and epically failed. No matter how hard you try you can't escape the facts.

Except it's okay for you to leave out details apparently. Such as the reason for the "trials" was the mass murder of innocent people. And the waterboarding in question, ie that we used on terrorists ...was not the same thing used by the Japanese either.

No what you are doing is trying to steer the focus away from the FACT that the japanese were tried for waterboarding as a war crime. There were many reasons why they were put on trial, one of which was that they were waterboarding people. If it wasn't a war crime and wasn't wrong they wouldn't have included waterboarding in the charges they brought forward. It's really that simple and everything else you are throwing at it is just smoke and mirrors.

What part of "not the same thing" are you having a problem with? Did you actually read the memos Obama released or not?