Legal Precedents Regarding Waterboarding

[jreeves]

ROFLMNAO... So "I said so..." is a negative? Really? Seems more an affirmation...

Again, like I told the other idiot... if you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

No, you jackass.

You're citation was the "because I said so" part of the summary and the "prove a negative" was the second part where you wanted a negative to be proven with respect to the Kennedy challenge even though you are the one who made the positive assertion first yet never backed it up.

Weak.

It was actually JReeves who first made the assertion that JFK authorized torture but he disappeared and PI grabbed the banner.

Disappeared, don't you mean JReeves works?

Here you go...
Waterboarding Historically Controversial - washingtonpost.com
A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

 

[Article 15]

Disappeared, don't you mean JReeves works?

Here you go...
Waterboarding Historically Controversial - washingtonpost.com
A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

Thanks.

What is described there is not waterboarding because the person is not being denied oxygen but I do think that it could still be considered torture.

 

[jreeves]

Disappeared, don't you mean JReeves works?

Here you go...
Waterboarding Historically Controversial - washingtonpost.com
A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

Thanks.

What is described there is not waterboarding because the person is not being denied oxygen but I do think that it could still be considered torture.

JFK, only authorized, electric shock, sleep deprevation, stripping detainees naked....etc... The process laid out before is very similar to waterboarding, in that suspects are deprived of Oxygen. But my question is this, why the outrage now? The US has used "enhanced" interrogations in the past, why now? The only thing I could come up with is BDS....

 

[Article 15]

Disappeared, don't you mean JReeves works?

Here you go...
Waterboarding Historically Controversial - washingtonpost.com
A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

Thanks.

What is described there is not waterboarding because the person is not being denied oxygen but I do think that it could still be considered torture.

JFK, only authorized, electric shock, sleep deprevation, stripping detainees naked....etc... The process laid out before is very similar to waterboarding, in that suspects are deprived of Oxygen. But my question is this, why the outrage now? The US has used "enhanced" interrogations in the past, why now? The only thing I could come up with is BDS....

The process laid out does not deny oxygen.

Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing.

My answer to you is that I wasn't even a twinkle in my Dad's eye in 1963. If I was alive back then and learned that information I would have been outraged been very outspoken about it. Just like I would have had it been <insert president here>. Sorry, but you can't put a label on me where it doesn't apply, I'm against this no matter who does it.

 

[jreeves]

Thanks.

What is described there is not waterboarding because the person is not being denied oxygen but I do think that it could still be considered torture.

JFK, only authorized, electric shock, sleep deprevation, stripping detainees naked....etc... The process laid out before is very similar to waterboarding, in that suspects are deprived of Oxygen. But my question is this, why the outrage now? The US has used "enhanced" interrogations in the past, why now? The only thing I could come up with is BDS....

The process laid out does not deny oxygen.

Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing.

My answer to you is that I wasn't even a twinkle in my Dad's eye in 1963. If I was alive back then and learned that information I would have been outraged been very outspoken about it. Just like I would have had it been <insert president here>. Sorry, but you can't put a label on me where it doesn't apply, I'm against this no matter who does it.

Which process is worse, waterboarding or electric shock?

 

[Article 15]

JFK, only authorized, electric shock, sleep deprevation, stripping detainees naked....etc... The process laid out before is very similar to waterboarding, in that suspects are deprived of Oxygen. But my question is this, why the outrage now? The US has used "enhanced" interrogations in the past, why now? The only thing I could come up with is BDS....

The process laid out does not deny oxygen.

Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing.

My answer to you is that I wasn't even a twinkle in my Dad's eye in 1963. If I was alive back then and learned that information I would have been outraged been very outspoken about it. Just like I would have had it been <insert president here>. Sorry, but you can't put a label on me where it doesn't apply, I'm against this no matter who does it.

Which process is worse, waterboarding or electric shock?

I dunno.

 

[jreeves]

The process laid out does not deny oxygen.



My answer to you is that I wasn't even a twinkle in my Dad's eye in 1963. If I was alive back then and learned that information I would have been outraged been very outspoken about it. Just like I would have had it been <insert president here>. Sorry, but you can't put a label on me where it doesn't apply, I'm against this no matter who does it.

Which process is worse, waterboarding or electric shock?

I dunno.

LOL, come on would you rather be shocked and stripped naked for sexual humilation or have water poured in your face? Certainly you have an opinion?

 

[Article 15]

Which process is worse, waterboarding or electric shock?

I dunno.

LOL, come on would you rather be shocked and stripped naked for sexual humilation or have water poured in your face? Certainly you have an opinion?

If were to happen just once I'd go with being waterboarded.

If it were to happen repeatedly then I'd take the juice.

 

[jreeves]

I dunno.

LOL, come on would you rather be shocked and stripped naked for sexual humilation or have water poured in your face? Certainly you have an opinion?

If were to happen just once I'd go with being waterboarded.

If it were to happen repeatedly then I'd take the juice.

Fair enough, now if you were terrorist knowing that your terror organization was about to kill thousands and take down the enemy. Which process would be more likely to make you divulge details of the planned attack?

1. An interrogator ask you repeatedly to divulge the details of the attack.

2. An interrogator waterboards you repeatedly....

Now from a third person's perspective. Which is actually a higher moral road to take, to save thousands of lives or avoid waterboarding and watch thousands die knowing that you could have saved those lives?

 

[Article 15]

LOL, come on would you rather be shocked and stripped naked for sexual humilation or have water poured in your face? Certainly you have an opinion?

If were to happen just once I'd go with being waterboarded.

If it were to happen repeatedly then I'd take the juice.

Fair enough, now if you were terrorist knowing that your terror organization was about to kill thousands and take down the enemy. Which process would be more likely to make you divulge details of the planned attack?

1. An interrogator ask you repeatedly to divulge the details of the attack.

2. An interrogator waterboards you repeatedly....

Option 2

 

[Article 15]

Let's say you are being interrogated and do not have information about an attack that is going to kill thousands and there is in fact no such attack coming. Despite this, the interrogator waterboards you repeatedly insisting that you divulge this information that you do not have.

1.) Would you consider yourself in the process of being tortured?

2.) Would you say whatever you thought you could, including lying or making something up, in hopes that it would get the waterboarding to stop?

 

[jreeves]

Let's say you are being interrogated and do not have information about an attack that is going to kill thousands and there is in fact no such attack coming. Despite this, the interrogator waterboards you repeatedly insisting that you divulge this information that you do not have.

1.) Would you consider yourself being tortured?

2.) Would you say whatever you thought you could, including lying or making something up, in hopes that it would get the waterboarding to stop?

Let's say your KSM and you know a second wave to 9/11 is coming? Your interrogators try to question you conventionally and you tell them they "will soon know". Then after being waterboarded repeatedly you divulge information...oh wait why go through hypotheticals? Here you go...
CNSNews.com - CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

KSM was the mastermind of the first “hijacked-airliner” attacks on the United States, which struck the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia on Sept. 11, 2001.

After KSM was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators. Nor was another top al Qaeda leader named Zubaydah. KSM, Zubaydah, and a third terrorist named Nashiri were the only three persons ever subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. (Additional terrorist detainees were subjected to other “enhanced techniques” that included slapping, sleep deprivation, dietary limitations, and temporary confinement to small spaces -- but not to water-boarding.)

This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. “The ‘waterboard,’ which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,” explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. “It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ‘credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent’; ‘substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack’; and ‘[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.’”

The quotations in this part of the Justice memo were taken from an Aug. 2, 2004 letter that CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo sent to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

 

[Article 15]

Let's say you are being interrogated and do not have information about an attack that is going to kill thousands and there is in fact no such attack coming. Despite this, the interrogator waterboards you repeatedly insisting that you divulge this information that you do not have.

1.) Would you consider yourself being tortured?

2.) Would you say whatever you thought you could, including lying or making something up, in hopes that it would get the waterboarding to stop?

*snipped*

Answer my questions, please.

 

[jreeves]

Let's say you are being interrogated and do not have information about an attack that is going to kill thousands and there is in fact no such attack coming. Despite this, the interrogator waterboards you repeatedly insisting that you divulge this information that you do not have.

1.) Would you consider yourself being tortured?

2.) Would you say whatever you thought you could, including lying or making something up, in hopes that it would get the waterboarding to stop?

Let's say your KSM and you know a second wave to 9/11 is coming? Your interrogators try to question you conventionally and you tell them they "will soon know". Then after being waterboarded repeatedly you divulge information...oh wait why go through hypotheticals? Here you go...
CNSNews.com - CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, &#8220;Soon, you will know.&#8221;

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the &#8220;Second Wave&#8221;-- planned &#8220; &#8216;to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into&#8217; a building in Los Angeles.&#8221;

KSM was the mastermind of the first &#8220;hijacked-airliner&#8221; attacks on the United States, which struck the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia on Sept. 11, 2001.

After KSM was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators. Nor was another top al Qaeda leader named Zubaydah. KSM, Zubaydah, and a third terrorist named Nashiri were the only three persons ever subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. (Additional terrorist detainees were subjected to other &#8220;enhanced techniques&#8221; that included slapping, sleep deprivation, dietary limitations, and temporary confinement to small spaces -- but not to water-boarding.)

This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. &#8220;The &#8216;waterboard,&#8217; which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,&#8221; explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. &#8220;It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has &#8216;credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent&#8217;; &#8216;substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack&#8217;; and &#8216;[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.&#8217;&#8221;

The quotations in this part of the Justice memo were taken from an Aug. 2, 2004 letter that CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo sent to the Justice Department&#8217;s Office of Legal Counsel.

Answer my questions, please.

But under the criteria that the CIA used I wouldn't have been interrogated using waterboarding because I am not a high value detainee with credible indicators that would prevent, disrupt or deny an attack. Or in other words I'm not a terrorist claiming I have information of an attack.

 

[Article 15]

Let's say your KSM and you know a second wave to 9/11 is coming? Your interrogators try to question you conventionally and you tell them they "will soon know". Then after being waterboarded repeatedly you divulge information...oh wait why go through hypotheticals? Here you go...
CNSNews.com - CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, &#8220;Soon, you will know.&#8221;

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the &#8220;Second Wave&#8221;-- planned &#8220; &#8216;to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into&#8217; a building in Los Angeles.&#8221;

KSM was the mastermind of the first &#8220;hijacked-airliner&#8221; attacks on the United States, which struck the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia on Sept. 11, 2001.

After KSM was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators. Nor was another top al Qaeda leader named Zubaydah. KSM, Zubaydah, and a third terrorist named Nashiri were the only three persons ever subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. (Additional terrorist detainees were subjected to other &#8220;enhanced techniques&#8221; that included slapping, sleep deprivation, dietary limitations, and temporary confinement to small spaces -- but not to water-boarding.)

This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. &#8220;The &#8216;waterboard,&#8217; which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,&#8221; explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. &#8220;It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has &#8216;credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent&#8217;; &#8216;substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack&#8217;; and &#8216;[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.&#8217;&#8221;

The quotations in this part of the Justice memo were taken from an Aug. 2, 2004 letter that CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo sent to the Justice Department&#8217;s Office of Legal Counsel.

Answer my questions, please.

But under the criteria that the CIA used I wouldn't have been interrogated using waterboarding because I am not a high value detainee with credible indicators that would prevent, disrupt or deny an attack. Or in other words I'm not a terrorist claiming I have information of an attack.

Not good enough.

Answer the questions, please.

 

[jreeves]

Answer my questions, please.

But under the criteria that the CIA used I wouldn't have been interrogated using waterboarding because I am not a high value detainee with credible indicators that would prevent, disrupt or deny an attack. Or in other words I'm not a terrorist claiming I have information of an attack.

Not good enough.

Answer the questions, please.

I just did answer your questions in the context that waterboarding was used. Lets deal with how waterboarding was used in actuality not how it could have been used hypothetically. It was used on high level terrorist with credible indicators that enhanced interrogations would prevent, disrupt or deny an attack. KSM basically told them I have information but

 

[Article 15]

But under the criteria that the CIA used I wouldn't have been interrogated using waterboarding because I am not a high value detainee with credible indicators that would prevent, disrupt or deny an attack. Or in other words I'm not a terrorist claiming I have information of an attack.

Not good enough.

Answer the questions, please.

I just did answer your questions in the context that waterboarding was used. Lets deal with how waterboarding was used in actuality not how it could have been used hypothetically. It was used on high level terrorist with credible indicators that enhanced interrogations would prevent, disrupt or deny an attack. KSM basically told them I have information but

I don't trust that the gov't will use these methods soley in the circumstances in which they claim they do. I am not down with giving them the power to do that.

Now I am using a line of questioning to make a point that waterboarding is torture and someone subjected to torture will tell you anything and everything if they think it will make it stop.

I conceded the point that if I had information of an immenent attack that waterboarding would get me to talk. I didn't try to squirm or anything. I answered your questions honestly and without any injected stipulation or commentary. Now, please, respond in kind ... I thought we were having a reasonable conversation here.

 

[jreeves]

Not good enough.

Answer the questions, please.

I just did answer your questions in the context that waterboarding was used. Lets deal with how waterboarding was used in actuality not how it could have been used hypothetically. It was used on high level terrorist with credible indicators that enhanced interrogations would prevent, disrupt or deny an attack. KSM basically told them I have information but

I don't trust that the gov't will use these methods soley in the circumstances in which they claim they do. I am not down with giving them the power to do that.

Now I am using a line of questioning to make a point that waterboarding is torture and someone subjected to torture will tell you anything and everything if they think it will make it stop.

I conceded the point that if I had information of an immenent attack that waterboarding would get me to talk. I didn't try to squirm or anything. I answered your questions honestly and without any injected stipulation or commentary. Now, please, respond in kind ... I thought we were having a reasonable conversation here.

I answered the questions honestly, I wouldn't put myself in the position of being a high level terrorist with information pertaining to an imminent attack. This is how the DOJ memo stated that the waterboardings took place. If you have facts or other information that this criteria is false then please present them. If not then the only possible conclusion that we can come to is that the CIA only waterboarded high level detainees with credible indicators that they possessed information that would prevent, disrupt or deny an attack. This is an answer to your question, even though you may not be satisfied with the answer.

 

[Article 15]

I just did answer your questions in the context that waterboarding was used. Lets deal with how waterboarding was used in actuality not how it could have been used hypothetically. It was used on high level terrorist with credible indicators that enhanced interrogations would prevent, disrupt or deny an attack. KSM basically told them I have information but

I don't trust that the gov't will use these methods soley in the circumstances in which they claim they do. I am not down with giving them the power to do that.

Now I am using a line of questioning to make a point that waterboarding is torture and someone subjected to torture will tell you anything and everything if they think it will make it stop.

I conceded the point that if I had information of an immenent attack that waterboarding would get me to talk. I didn't try to squirm or anything. I answered your questions honestly and without any injected stipulation or commentary. Now, please, respond in kind ... I thought we were having a reasonable conversation here.

I answered the questions honestly, I wouldn't put myself in the position of being a high level terrorist with information pertaining to an imminent attack. This is how the DOJ memo stated that the waterboardings took place. If you have facts or other information that this criteria is false then please present them. If not then the only possible conclusion that we can come to is that the CIA only waterboarded high level detainees with credible indicators that they possessed information that would prevent, disrupt or deny an attack. This is an answer to your question, even though you may not be satisfied with the answer.

That's a cop out. I could have said that I wouldn't put myself in the position of being a terrorist knowing that my terrorist organization was about to kill thousands and take down the enemy when you asked me this:

Fair enough, now if you were terrorist knowing that your terror organization was about to kill thousands and take down the enemy. Which process would be more likely to make you divulge details of the planned attack?

But I didn't.

So much for an honest conversation. I gotta say, I'm disappointed.

 

[jreeves]

I don't trust that the gov't will use these methods soley in the circumstances in which they claim they do. I am not down with giving them the power to do that.

Now I am using a line of questioning to make a point that waterboarding is torture and someone subjected to torture will tell you anything and everything if they think it will make it stop.

I conceded the point that if I had information of an immenent attack that waterboarding would get me to talk. I didn't try to squirm or anything. I answered your questions honestly and without any injected stipulation or commentary. Now, please, respond in kind ... I thought we were having a reasonable conversation here.

I answered the questions honestly, I wouldn't put myself in the position of being a high level terrorist with information pertaining to an imminent attack. This is how the DOJ memo stated that the waterboardings took place. If you have facts or other information that this criteria is false then please present them. If not then the only possible conclusion that we can come to is that the CIA only waterboarded high level detainees with credible indicators that they possessed information that would prevent, disrupt or deny an attack. This is an answer to your question, even though you may not be satisfied with the answer.

That's a cop out. I could have said that I wouldn't put myself in the position of being a terrorist knowing that my terrorist organization was about to kill thousands and take down the enemy when you asked me this:

Fair enough, now if you were terrorist knowing that your terror organization was about to kill thousands and take down the enemy. Which process would be more likely to make you divulge details of the planned attack?

But I didn't.

So much for an honest conversation. I gotta say, I'm disappointed.

Tell me in what way, my hypothetical operated outside the realm of how interrogations were conducted?