"Torture"???

[PoliticalChic]

I am glad to see some fools backing off the torture shit.

Are you pretending that I didn't challenge you to name the torture?

Oh....right....you are the Great Pretender.

I was talking to someone else, but I have no trouble stating that Sean Hannitty and you are wrong.

Waterboarding and Torture
There is a debate among policymakers over whether waterboarding is really torture. This seems like a profoundly stupid question; if waterboarding weren't torture, why would interrogators bother to use it at all?

But policymakers aren't having an ethical, philosophical debate. What they're really asking is whether waterboarding falls under the U.S. legal code's definition of torture--in other words, whether or not it's illegal. There is also significant debate over the degree to which military officials are regulated by less narrowly-written international laws prohibiting the use of torture.
Torture Under U.S. Law
Under 18 USC Section 2340A, torture is defined as "[an] act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." But there are two complicating factors:

Policymakers can debate all day over whether a specific form of torture causes "severe" physical or mental pain, and
The law applies only to U.S. nationals and to torture conducted in the United States.

There are also numerous state laws prohibiting torture within their respective jurisdictions--and one federal law that holds us to an unspecified degree of compliance with international law.

Waterboarding and Torture - Torture and the Waterboarding Debate

Waterboarding.....?????

P'shaw!

I bet the very thought practically knocked your shawl off!!!


Waterboarding (Bybee memo, August 1, 2002)
"Finally, you would like to use a technique called the 'waterboard.’ “..air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds."

Here is the biggie, waterboarding, or as we called it, Chug-a-Lug:[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RUbkI0ve_c]koolaid chugalug - YouTube[/ame]



And this is what stands between terrorist-suffering....and saving American lives????

An eight-year-old American boy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you pretending that I didn't challenge you to name the torture?

Oh....right....you are the Great Pretender.

I was talking to someone else, but I have no trouble stating that Sean Hannitty and you are wrong.

Waterboarding and Torture
There is a debate among policymakers over whether waterboarding is really torture. This seems like a profoundly stupid question; if waterboarding weren't torture, why would interrogators bother to use it at all?
But policymakers aren't having an ethical, philosophical debate. What they're really asking is whether waterboarding falls under the U.S. legal code's definition of torture--in other words, whether or not it's illegal. There is also significant debate over the degree to which military officials are regulated by less narrowly-written international laws prohibiting the use of torture.
Torture Under U.S. Law
Under 18 USC Section 2340A, torture is defined as "[an] act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." But there are two complicating factors:

Policymakers can debate all day over whether a specific form of torture causes "severe" physical or mental pain, and
The law applies only to U.S. nationals and to torture conducted in the United States.

There are also numerous state laws prohibiting torture within their respective jurisdictions--and one federal law that holds us to an unspecified degree of compliance with international law.

Waterboarding and Torture - Torture and the Waterboarding Debate

how stupid can you get? according to you any form of interrogation is torture.

The US government determined and ruled that waterboarding was not torture. That issue is over.

Haven't you seen Jakal's posts?
...any form of interrogation instituted by a Republican....

 

[JakeStarkey]

I was talking to someone else, but I have no trouble stating that Sean Hannitty and you are wrong.

Waterboarding and Torture
There is a debate among policymakers over whether waterboarding is really torture. This seems like a profoundly stupid question; if waterboarding weren't torture, why would interrogators bother to use it at all?
But policymakers aren't having an ethical, philosophical debate. What they're really asking is whether waterboarding falls under the U.S. legal code's definition of torture--in other words, whether or not it's illegal. There is also significant debate over the degree to which military officials are regulated by less narrowly-written international laws prohibiting the use of torture.
Torture Under U.S. Law
Under 18 USC Section 2340A, torture is defined as "[an] act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." But there are two complicating factors:

Policymakers can debate all day over whether a specific form of torture causes "severe" physical or mental pain, and
The law applies only to U.S. nationals and to torture conducted in the United States.

There are also numerous state laws prohibiting torture within their respective jurisdictions--and one federal law that holds us to an unspecified degree of compliance with international law.

Waterboarding and Torture - Torture and the Waterboarding Debate

how stupid can you get? according to you any form of interrogation is torture.

The US government determined and ruled that waterboarding was not torture. That issue is over.

Haven't you seen Jakal's posts?
...any form of interrogation instituted by a Republican....

Tough nuggies, guys. Read the source, sillies. Torture is torture. And if a lefty was torturing you, PC, I would rescue you. Redfish, I would let him 'experience' his stupidity for a bit, then rescue him, too. Then turn him over to the police for a stupidity violation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Are you pretending that I didn't challenge you to name the torture?

Oh....right....you are the Great Pretender.

I was talking to someone else, but I have no trouble stating that Sean Hannitty and you are wrong.

Waterboarding and Torture
There is a debate among policymakers over whether waterboarding is really torture. This seems like a profoundly stupid question; if waterboarding weren't torture, why would interrogators bother to use it at all?
But policymakers aren't having an ethical, philosophical debate. What they're really asking is whether waterboarding falls under the U.S. legal code's definition of torture--in other words, whether or not it's illegal. There is also significant debate over the degree to which military officials are regulated by less narrowly-written international laws prohibiting the use of torture.
Torture Under U.S. Law
Under 18 USC Section 2340A, torture is defined as "[an] act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." But there are two complicating factors:

Policymakers can debate all day over whether a specific form of torture causes "severe" physical or mental pain, and
The law applies only to U.S. nationals and to torture conducted in the United States.

There are also numerous state laws prohibiting torture within their respective jurisdictions--and one federal law that holds us to an unspecified degree of compliance with international law.

Waterboarding and Torture - Torture and the Waterboarding Debate

how stupid can you get? according to you any form of interrogation is torture.

The US government determined and ruled that waterboarding was not torture. That issue is over.

The torturers don't get to redefine torture.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The defenders of torturing don't get to define it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution allows the death penalty.

I have always believed the no penalty is "unusual" if it was the one the felon was convicted of using on his victims.

What you believe is not in sync with the Constitution.

You are incorrect.

The view you suggest is of Supreme Court Justices, not the Constitution.

This is a very important distinction.

The Eighth Amendment clearly says you're wrong, and that there are indeed cruel and unusual punishments. Otherwise that particular line would not be included in the Bill of Rights at all. Supreme Court Justices may have defined what constitutes "cruel and unusual," but your claim was that there's no such thing in the first place. Which is obviously incorrect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

how stupid can you get? according to you any form of interrogation is torture.

The US government determined and ruled that waterboarding was not torture. That issue is over.

Haven't you seen Jakal's posts?
...any form of interrogation instituted by a Republican....

Tough nuggies, guys. Read the source, sillies. Torture is torture. And if a lefty was torturing you, PC, I would rescue you. Redfish, I would let him 'experience' his stupidity for a bit, then rescue him, too. Then turn him over to the police for a stupidity violation.

" Today it is many on the left who resist any changes in the law of war or human rights. They deny the reality that the war against terrorism is any way different from conventional wars of the past, or that the old laws must be adapted to the new threats. The result is often an unreasonable debate of extremes: the hard left insists that the old laws should not be tampered with in the least; the hard right insists that the old laws are entirely inapplicable to the new threats, and that democratic governments should be entirely free to do whatever it takes to combat terrorism, without regard to anachronistic laws. Both extremes are dangerous. What is needed is a new set of laws, based on the principles of the old laws of war and human rights - the protection of civilians - but adapted to the new threats against civilian victims of terrorism.

The laws must be changed to permit democracies to fight fairly and effectively against those who threaten its citizens. To paraphrase Robert Jackson, who served as the United States chief prosecutor at Nuremberg - the law must not be "a suicide pact".
Alan M Dershowitz is Professor of Law at Harvard University, and the author of Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways (Norton, £15.99)
Alan Dershowitz: Should we fight terror with torture? - Americas - World - The Independent

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was talking to someone else, but I have no trouble stating that Sean Hannitty and you are wrong.

Waterboarding and Torture
There is a debate among policymakers over whether waterboarding is really torture. This seems like a profoundly stupid question; if waterboarding weren't torture, why would interrogators bother to use it at all?
But policymakers aren't having an ethical, philosophical debate. What they're really asking is whether waterboarding falls under the U.S. legal code's definition of torture--in other words, whether or not it's illegal. There is also significant debate over the degree to which military officials are regulated by less narrowly-written international laws prohibiting the use of torture.
Torture Under U.S. Law
Under 18 USC Section 2340A, torture is defined as "[an] act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." But there are two complicating factors:

Policymakers can debate all day over whether a specific form of torture causes "severe" physical or mental pain, and
The law applies only to U.S. nationals and to torture conducted in the United States.

There are also numerous state laws prohibiting torture within their respective jurisdictions--and one federal law that holds us to an unspecified degree of compliance with international law.

Waterboarding and Torture - Torture and the Waterboarding Debate

how stupid can you get? according to you any form of interrogation is torture.

The US government determined and ruled that waterboarding was not torture. That issue is over.

The torturers don't get to redefine torture.

No prob.....there was no torture.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The defenders of torturing don't get to define it.

A new documentary released by Al Jazeera exposes the use of children’s songs and heavy metal music to torture prisoners at Guantanamo Bay — a tactic that came about not long after President George W. Bush created the camp to detain prisoners in the “war on terror” against Al Qaeda.

Read more: ?Sesame Street? songs and heavy metal blasted to torture Guantanamo detainees: report** - NY Daily News

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, there was torture, PC, and no you don't get to redefine it.

The law is the law. There is no question in the long run your Dear Leader Obama and Scruffy Bush will never be tried.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What you believe is not in sync with the Constitution.

You are incorrect.

The view you suggest is of Supreme Court Justices, not the Constitution.

This is a very important distinction.

The Eighth Amendment clearly says you're wrong, and that there are indeed cruel and unusual punishments. Otherwise that particular line would not be included in the Bill of Rights at all. Supreme Court Justices may have defined what constitutes "cruel and unusual," but your claim was that there's no such thing in the first place. Which is obviously incorrect.

As I stated, Justices decided what is 'cruel and unusual'....in their view.
There are no specifications in the document as to what that would be.

Justices are often wrong.


Did you know that Justices claimed that the death penalty itself was 'cruel and unusual' before their wrists were slapped?


I never found that applying the term 'Justice' to a lawyer made his view more correct than mine.

Even you....I may be stretching a point.....but even you might find some Supreme Court decisions incorrect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup, there was torture, PC, and no you don't get to redefine it.

The law is the law. There is no question in the long run your Dear Leader Obama and Scruffy Bush will never be tried.

Bogus.


"Over the last 100 years, anyone paying attention to the political landscape understands that the only way the “Progressives”, ( the liberals and most Democrats in Washington), have been successful, has been through the re-interpretation of the English language.

For example, “torture”, known by anyone intellectually honest enough to read a dictionary as the infliction of pain, breaking of bones, leaving scars or permanent damage or death now encompasses scaring people. Scaring someone is not torture, period.

We are better than them, which is exactly why we should keep waterboarding. We have a way to extract the information we need from our enemy, saving lives and country, without damaging or violating their bodies in any way? The prisoner, (or our soldiers, we do this to them in training), can get up, unharmed, immediately?"
We Need To Emulate The Left, Change The Rules, Focus

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

how stupid can you get? according to you any form of interrogation is torture.

The US government determined and ruled that waterboarding was not torture. That issue is over.

The torturers don't get to redefine torture.

No prob.....there was no torture.

It was torture when the Spanish did it, and it was torture when the Germans did it. It's still torture when Americans do it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The torturers don't get to redefine torture.

No prob.....there was no torture.

It was torture when the Spanish did it, and it was torture when the Germans did it. It's still torture when Americans do it.

So.....which of the enhanced interrogation methods did your examples use?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are incorrect.

The view you suggest is of Supreme Court Justices, not the Constitution.

This is a very important distinction.

The Eighth Amendment clearly says you're wrong, and that there are indeed cruel and unusual punishments. Otherwise that particular line would not be included in the Bill of Rights at all. Supreme Court Justices may have defined what constitutes "cruel and unusual," but your claim was that there's no such thing in the first place. Which is obviously incorrect.

As I stated, Justices decided what is 'cruel and unusual'....in their view.
There are no specifications in the document as to what that would be.

Justices are often wrong.


Did you know that Justices claimed that the death penalty itself was 'cruel and unusual' before their wrists were slapped?


I never found that applying the term 'Justice' to a lawyer made his view more correct than mine.

Even you....I may be stretching a point.....but even you might find some Supreme Court decisions incorrect. (HintS)

I find many Supreme Court decisions incorrect, and I'm no fan of the Court in general. Regardless, your claim was that you didn't believe there is such a thing as "unusual" punishments. I said your view is not in line with the Constitution, then you came up with this argument regarding Justices which is irrelevant. The Constitution recognizes, in the Eighth Amendment, that there are cruel and unusual punishments, regardless of whether you think they exist or not. Now we can disagree what constitutes cruel and unusual, of course, but your claim was that they don't exist.

Now I would certainly say blowing up a convicted criminal is cruel and unusual, and I feel comfortable saying the framers would agree with me. They certainly never employed such a punishment.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No prob.....there was no torture.

It was torture when the Spanish did it, and it was torture when the Germans did it. It's still torture when Americans do it.

So.....which of the enhanced interrogation methods did your examples use?

Waterboarding.

 

[turzovka]

One news organization has reported that the second terrorist has been surrouonded.
I sure hope so.

Just yesterday, one of our resident hand-wringers posted that some group claimed Bush had used torture.

If they have this beast.....I fervently hope that every one of the so-called 'torture procedures' used by President Bush is used to track down every member of his cell-network of savages.

You just lost any moral authority you had.

Torture is used by Lawless, Third World, Dictator run countries. Besides, Bush admitted to torture, it's a fact. Bush: "A Lawyer said it was legal". That's what an idiot who cares not a whit about Due Process or the Constitution says.
Watch George W. Bush Admits He Authorized Torture | Center for Constitutional Rights Episodes | Learning Videos | Blip

Yeah, it's fun to imagine chaining an accused child molester up and going to work on him with a baseball bat like in the movie "Inglorious Basterds", but we have a Constitution and People have Rights. Unlike in other countries.

I'll bet you would confess to anything if you were being tortured.

I see you like to define what we intend as torture and upon who it is used? Sounds like more communist propaganda to me.

On the other hand, if I have a known captured terrorist in my camp who has knowledge of other terrorists who have this sick idea of killing innocents to advance their cause ---- I am perfectly fine with torturing and inflicting pain upon that captured to extract information. You, it seems, like to prop oneself up with this sanctimonious game of "the higher moral ground" which becomes harder and harder to even define, much less defend.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It was torture when the Spanish did it, and it was torture when the Germans did it. It's still torture when Americans do it.

So.....which of the enhanced interrogation methods did your examples use?

Waterboarding.

While the title was the same, research will show that the waterboarding to which you erroneously compare the American enhanced interrogation was in no way similar.

They filled stomachs with water, and then jumped on the victim.

Your claim is either slander or error....please advise which.


"What Americans need to understand is that under liberals' own "laws of war," they will invent apocryphal incidents from history in order to give aid and comfort to America's enemies and to undermine those who kept us safe for the past eight years."
Ann Coulter - May 6, 2009 - WATCHING MSNBC IS TORTURE

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So.....which of the enhanced interrogation methods did your examples use?

Waterboarding.

While the title was the same, research will show that the waterboarding to which you erroneously compare the American enhanced interrogation was in no way similar.

They filled stomachs with water, and then jumped on the victim.

Your claim is either slander or error....please advise which.


"What Americans need to understand is that under liberals' own "laws of war," they will invent apocryphal incidents from history in order to give aid and comfort to America's enemies and to undermine those who kept us safe for the past eight years."
Ann Coulter - May 6, 2009 - WATCHING MSNBC IS TORTURE

Where is the research?

 

[Redfish]

Waterboarding.

While the title was the same, research will show that the waterboarding to which you erroneously compare the American enhanced interrogation was in no way similar.

They filled stomachs with water, and then jumped on the victim.

Your claim is either slander or error....please advise which.


"What Americans need to understand is that under liberals' own "laws of war," they will invent apocryphal incidents from history in order to give aid and comfort to America's enemies and to undermine those who kept us safe for the past eight years."
Ann Coulter - May 6, 2009 - WATCHING MSNBC IS TORTURE

Where is the research?

The USA waterboarded 3 (three) muslim terrorist murderers. None of them suffered any permanent mental or physical harm.

The info obtained from them saved american lives---maybe yours.

waterboarding done by the USA to those three assholes was not torture. I am sure they did not enjoy it, but it was not torture.