Legal Precedents Regarding Waterboarding

[submarinepainter]

Why don't we just not waterboard ever again? I am not so worried that we waterboarded or whether it is legal or who knew, lets just quit doing it .

 

[jreeves]

Your argument would be valid if you had stated the CIA employed a process that was similar to waterboarding.

But you said JFK authorized waterboarding. A complete lie you made to support your argument.

Whatever I think most reasonable people would say the two are barely distinguishable. Your play on semantics seems to me an attempt to make up for your lack of explaination why JFK authorized torture(according to you).

Funny.

How so? Its the truth..

 

[Bullypulpit]

Oh... GOD that's precious... Again friends, the premise is to dismiss EVERYTHING which is relevant... and push equivocation.... If 'we' do it to them, they'll do it to us...

Golly... that's a toughy. 'Cause we sure wouldn't want to do anything which might make "THEM" do something irresponsible... so the conclusion which this member is advancing must be that if 'we don't want no trouble, we best not start trouble...'

If "THEM" feel that those women are in possession of time critical information which is essential to stopping Mass Murder on innocent people... then they're damn well obligated to induce the cooperation of those two women...

Of course, there is no actual valid, reasoned basis for believing such, thus there's no actual basis for such techniques to be applied...

Of course, their was no valid, reason basis for the above acts... either, yet they executed then anyway; so we should do what needs to be done to stop these idiots... and listening to the feminized left and their irrational, invalid reasoning, isn't conducive to such.

To the contrary; it's counter productive.

Given that there is no valid evidence that torture produces anything more than false confessions, the continued support of torture by Bush administration apologists is another example of their moral bankruptcy. Likewise, the claims that torture 'saves lives' is contradicted by Army, FBI and CIA officials who have interrogated Al Qaeda captives absent the use of torture.

As explained here...

...(D)oes torture work? The question has been asked many times since Sept. 11, 2001. I'm repeating it, however, because the Gonzales hearings inspired more articles about our lax methods ("Too Nice for Our Own Good" was one headline), because similar comments may follow this week's trial of Spec. Charles Graner, the alleged Abu Ghraib ringleader, and because I still cannot find a positive answer. I've heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians "really know how to get these things done." I've heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I've heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway. "Liberals," argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, "have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective." But it's also true that "realists," whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else.

By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea." - The Washington Post

Never mind the blow-back against US troops captured in the field by forces whose members have been tortured in US custody...Reciprocity then becomes inevitable. "But the terrorists will kill our people anyways!" the right wing-nuts mewl. So we cede the moral high ground to the terrorists who can claim they are fighting the "Great Satan" and rally more recruits to their cause. And, if they know they will be tortured, they have no reason to surrender and every reason to fight to their last breath, killing and maiming more of our soldiers as they do so.

PubliiusIgnavus, and the rest of his ilk, are motivated by fear in their stance on torture. They fear the harm that may come to them as a natural consequence of living up to the standards that are established by the Constitution. They find it easier to throw aside the rule of law in times of trouble and indulge in the lawlessness of our enemies. They find it too difficult and too dangerous to live up to the principles that made this country great. In their fear, they would destroy the Republic behind the guise of saving it, never understanding that you cannot save a thing by destroying it.

Thomas Jefferson stated that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." PubliiusIgnavus and his craven fellow travelers aren't, however, down so much with the blood of patriots as they are with the blood of tyrants, and in the case of torture, anyone who has the misfortune to be caught up in the net, regardless of their guilt or innocence. They just want blood, so long as its not theirs, and theirs is a path of simple, bloody vengeance for any wrong, real or perceived. Justice is irrelevant to them. Cowards they are, as they and their kind will always be.

 

[jreeves]

Oh... GOD that's precious... Again friends, the premise is to dismiss EVERYTHING which is relevant... and push equivocation.... If 'we' do it to them, they'll do it to us...

Golly... that's a toughy. 'Cause we sure wouldn't want to do anything which might make "THEM" do something irresponsible... so the conclusion which this member is advancing must be that if 'we don't want no trouble, we best not start trouble...'

If "THEM" feel that those women are in possession of time critical information which is essential to stopping Mass Murder on innocent people... then they're damn well obligated to induce the cooperation of those two women...

Of course, there is no actual valid, reasoned basis for believing such, thus there's no actual basis for such techniques to be applied...

Of course, their was no valid, reason basis for the above acts... either, yet they executed then anyway; so we should do what needs to be done to stop these idiots... and listening to the feminized left and their irrational, invalid reasoning, isn't conducive to such.

To the contrary; it's counter productive.

Given that there is no valid evidence that torture produces anything more than false confessions, the continued support of torture by Bush administration apologists is another example of their moral bankruptcy. Likewise, the claims that torture 'saves lives' is contradicted by Army, FBI and CIA officials who have interrogated Al Qaeda captives absent the use of torture.

As explained here...

...(D)oes torture work? The question has been asked many times since Sept. 11, 2001. I'm repeating it, however, because the Gonzales hearings inspired more articles about our lax methods ("Too Nice for Our Own Good" was one headline), because similar comments may follow this week's trial of Spec. Charles Graner, the alleged Abu Ghraib ringleader, and because I still cannot find a positive answer. I've heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians "really know how to get these things done." I've heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I've heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway. "Liberals," argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, "have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective." But it's also true that "realists," whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else.

By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea." - The Washington Post

Never mind the blow-back against US troops captured in the field by forces whose members have been tortured in US custody...Reciprocity then becomes inevitable. "But the terrorists will kill our people anyways!" the right wing-nuts mewl. So we cede the moral high ground to the terrorists who can claim they are fighting the "Great Satan" and rally more recruits to their cause. And, if they know they will be tortured, they have no reason to surrender and every reason to fight to their last breath, killing and maiming more of our soldiers as they do so.

PubliiusIgnavus, and the rest of his ilk, are motivated by fear in their stance on torture. They fear the harm that may come to them as a natural consequence of living up to the standards that are established by the Constitution. They find it easier to throw aside the rule of law in times of trouble and indulge in the lawlessness of our enemies. They find it too difficult and too dangerous to live up to the principles that made this country great. In their fear, they would destroy the Republic behind the guise of saving it, never understanding that you cannot save a thing by destroying it.

Thomas Jefferson stated that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." PubliiusIgnavus and his craven fellow travelers aren't, however, down so much with the blood of patriots as they are with the blood of tyrants, and in the case of torture, anyone who has the misfortune to be caught up in the net, regardless of their guilt or innocence. They just want blood, so long as its not theirs, and theirs is a path of simple, bloody vengeance for any wrong, real or perceived. Justice is irrelevant to them. Cowards they are, as they and their kind will always be.

Of course the information is unreliable when waterboarding is used...
CNSNews.com - CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Of course the information is unreliable when waterboarding is used...
CNSNews.com - CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Oh dear...Those specious right wing talking points again. The timeline doesn't match at all. For Khalid Sheik Mohammed to have revealed anything, if he actually new anything at all about this supposed plot, all parties would have to have boarded a time machine for a trip back to 2002. Y'see, KSM wasn't captured until 2003. So if this plot was foiled in 2002, as the Bush administration claimed, how could they have tortured KSM before he was in custody? And if KSM was tortured after being taken into custody for this information, it was a pointless act. More of an exercise in sadism than of supposed intelligence gathering.

For you, PubliusIgnavus, and the rest of the pack of cravens that continue to advocate for torture, you have no moral or intellectual ground to stand on. You are like drowning people grasping at any straw in order to avoid drowning in your own shit. You would destroy the Republic in order to "save" it. You are cowards all.

 

[Iriemon]

Whatever I think most reasonable people would say the two are barely distinguishable. Your play on semantics seems to me an attempt to make up for your lack of explaination why JFK authorized torture(according to you).

Funny.

How so? Its the truth..

It is? Amazing what some people call the truth.

Where was that cite for proof that JFK authorized waterboarding you asserted and now claim is the truth?

We still haven't seen it.

 

[jreeves]

Funny.

How so? Its the truth..

It is? Amazing what some people call the truth.

Where was that cite for proof that JFK authorized waterboarding you asserted and now claim is the truth?

We still haven't seen it.

I did provide proof, would you like the cite again?

 

[jreeves]

Of course the information is unreliable when waterboarding is used...
CNSNews.com - CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Oh dear...Those specious right wing talking points again. The timeline doesn't match at all. For Khalid Sheik Mohammed to have revealed anything, if he actually new anything at all about this supposed plot, all parties would have to have boarded a time machine for a trip back to 2002. Y'see, KSM wasn't captured until 2003. So if this plot was foiled in 2002, as the Bush administration claimed, how could they have tortured KSM before he was in custody? And if KSM was tortured after being taken into custody for this information, it was a pointless act. More of an exercise in sadism than of supposed intelligence gathering.

For you, PubliusIgnavus, and the rest of the pack of cravens that continue to advocate for torture, you have no moral or intellectual ground to stand on. You are like drowning people grasping at any straw in order to avoid drowning in your own shit. You would destroy the Republic in order to "save" it. You are cowards all.

Ah yes and they made up a Justice Department memo that Obama released. Which they thought that the public would never see. That's the reason this guy said that EIT's provided valuable information right?
Blair Says Bush Interrogation Methods Worked
But, as first reported by the New York Times' Peter Baker Tuesday night, President Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, former Admiral Dennis Blair, wrote a memo to his staff last week in which he said the methods, some of which are said to be torture by legal and human rights groups, were effective.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country," Blair wrote.

 

[DiveCon]

Of course the information is unreliable when waterboarding is used...
CNSNews.com - CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Oh dear...Those specious right wing talking points again. The timeline doesn't match at all. For Khalid Sheik Mohammed to have revealed anything, if he actually new anything at all about this supposed plot, all parties would have to have boarded a time machine for a trip back to 2002. Y'see, KSM wasn't captured until 2003. So if this plot was foiled in 2002, as the Bush administration claimed, how could they have tortured KSM before he was in custody? And if KSM was tortured after being taken into custody for this information, it was a pointless act. More of an exercise in sadism than of supposed intelligence gathering.

For you, PubliusIgnavus, and the rest of the pack of cravens that continue to advocate for torture, you have no moral or intellectual ground to stand on. You are like drowning people grasping at any straw in order to avoid drowning in your own shit. You would destroy the Republic in order to "save" it. You are cowards all.

Ah yes and they made up a Justice Department memo that Obama released. Which they thought that the public would never see. That's the reason this guy said that EIT's provided valuable information right?
Blair Says Bush Interrogation Methods Worked
But, as first reported by the New York Times' Peter Baker Tuesday night, President Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, former Admiral Dennis Blair, wrote a memo to his staff last week in which he said the methods, some of which are said to be torture by legal and human rights groups, were effective.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country," Blair wrote.

this blair guy must be a Bushie

 

[Iriemon]

How so? Its the truth..

It is? Amazing what some people call the truth.

Where was that cite for proof that JFK authorized waterboarding you asserted and now claim is the truth?

We still haven't seen it.

I did provide proof, would you like the cite again?

You mean the cite that showed the CIA did immersion techniques that didn't simulate drowning?

No, I'm talking about proof of your "truthful" claim that JFK authorized waterboarding. Thanks.

 

[jreeves]

It is? Amazing what some people call the truth.

Where was that cite for proof that JFK authorized waterboarding you asserted and now claim is the truth?

We still haven't seen it.

I did provide proof, would you like the cite again?

You mean the cite that showed the CIA did immersion techniques that didn't simulate drowning?

No, I'm talking about proof of your "truthful" claim that JFK authorized waterboarding. Thanks.

But you don't claim, that JFK didn't authorize torture (as defined by you), correct?

Electric shock, stripping suspects, and etc.....

Lets not get caught up on semantics here?

 

[Chris]

Cheney is now trying to pin the blame on Bush.

 

[DiveCon]

Cheney is now trying to pin the blame on Bush.

source?


or did you get that where you get most of your posts?

 

[Iriemon]

I did provide proof, would you like the cite again?

You mean the cite that showed the CIA did immersion techniques that didn't simulate drowning?

No, I'm talking about proof of your "truthful" claim that JFK authorized waterboarding. Thanks.

But you don't claim, that JFK didn't authorize torture (as defined by you), correct?

Electric shock, stripping suspects, and etc.....

Lets not get caught up on semantics here?

Yes, let's not. I don't claim anything, except that you made stuff up.

You claimed JFK authorized waterboarding.

Prove my claim is wrong.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I did provide proof, would you like the cite again?

You mean the cite that showed the CIA did immersion techniques that didn't simulate drowning?

No, I'm talking about proof of your "truthful" claim that JFK authorized waterboarding. Thanks.

But you don't claim, that JFK didn't authorize torture (as defined by you), correct?

Electric shock, stripping suspects, and etc.....

Lets not get caught up on semantics here?

Get caught up in it?

JR... Her entire argument is NOTHING BUT INVALID, ABSURD, IRRATIONAL SEMANTICS...

That's how the idiot up on ignore... she serves NO PURPOSE here beyond seeing herself post.

Her argument is DEAD... it has NO WHERE left to go, she has NO MOVES remaining except to move this absurd semantical pawn about the board, which has absolutely NO means to defend the POINT!

Ignore the idiot and be done with it.

 

[jreeves]

You mean the cite that showed the CIA did immersion techniques that didn't simulate drowning?

No, I'm talking about proof of your "truthful" claim that JFK authorized waterboarding. Thanks.

But you don't claim, that JFK didn't authorize torture (as defined by you), correct?

Electric shock, stripping suspects, and etc.....

Lets not get caught up on semantics here?

Yes, let's not. I don't claim anything, except that you made stuff up.

You claimed JFK authorized waterboarding.

Prove my claim is wrong.

I have already and I also proved he authorized far worse interrogation methods than Bush ever thought about authorizing. But continue with your distractions its quite entertaining....

 

[Iriemon]

But you don't claim, that JFK didn't authorize torture (as defined by you), correct?

Electric shock, stripping suspects, and etc.....

Lets not get caught up on semantics here?

Yes, let's not. I don't claim anything, except that you made stuff up.

You claimed JFK authorized waterboarding.

Prove my claim is wrong.

I have already and I also proved he authorized far worse interrogation methods than Bush ever thought about authorizing. But continue with your distractions its quite entertaining....

Glad you're entertained; I'm bored. The record is clear as to what you claimed and proved.

 

[Iriemon]

You mean the cite that showed the CIA did immersion techniques that didn't simulate drowning?

No, I'm talking about proof of your "truthful" claim that JFK authorized waterboarding. Thanks.

But you don't claim, that JFK didn't authorize torture (as defined by you), correct?

Electric shock, stripping suspects, and etc.....

Lets not get caught up on semantics here?

Get caught up in it?

JR... Her entire argument is NOTHING BUT INVALID, ABSURD, IRRATIONAL SEMANTICS...

That's how the idiot up on ignore... she serves NO PURPOSE here beyond seeing herself post.

Her argument is DEAD... it has NO WHERE left to go, she has NO MOVES remaining except to move this absurd semantical pawn about the board, which has absolutely NO means to defend the POINT!

Ignore the idiot and be done with it.

Heh heh, watch out, he who shall not be named is going to get you!

I AM LORD IRIEMORT

​

Bwhahahahahaha

 

[Ravi]

But you don't claim, that JFK didn't authorize torture (as defined by you), correct?

Electric shock, stripping suspects, and etc.....

Lets not get caught up on semantics here?

Yes, let's not. I don't claim anything, except that you made stuff up.

You claimed JFK authorized waterboarding.

Prove my claim is wrong.

I have already and I also proved he authorized far worse interrogation methods than Bush ever thought about authorizing. But continue with your distractions its quite entertaining....

I don't think so.

 

[DiveCon]

Yes, let's not. I don't claim anything, except that you made stuff up.

You claimed JFK authorized waterboarding.

Prove my claim is wrong.

I have already and I also proved he authorized far worse interrogation methods than Bush ever thought about authorizing. But continue with your distractions its quite entertaining....

I don't think.

fixed so it is correct