What does the liberals think about enhanced interrogation now?

[Bigfoot]

I'm not recalling how that's defined. Also, convicted combatants? or all suspected combatants?

If they run they are a combatant. If they stand still they are a well disciplined combatant and you don't have to lead them so much.

I'm asking a serious question. Who, in your view, is subject to torture? You say you're ok with torturing terrorists, but that begs the question of who we're calling 'terrorists'. If you're advocating torturing suspected terrorists, before they've been proven guilty of actually being terrorists, then you're putting all of us at risk. Any of us could be accused of terrorism and tortured before we're able to prove our innocence.

Db the serious answer is that it's a totally different world after you have been in the field for awhile. Things are much clearer and simpler and one makes very simple choices made by very simple circumstances. One's combat sight becomes very, very clear and things are not complex, they are simple. There is no way to explain it on a message board.

 

[CMike]

Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prisoners of war

Main article: Prisoners of war

The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949 (GCIII) of 1949 defines the requirements for a captive to be eligible for treatment as a POW. A lawful combatant is a person who commits belligerent acts, and, when captured, is treated as a POW. An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify for POW status under GCIII Articles 4 and 5.


Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:


1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews [of civil ships and aircraft], who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.


6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country... ...

 

[CMike]

I'm not recalling how that's defined. Also, convicted combatants? or all suspected combatants?

If they run they are a combatant. If they stand still they are a well disciplined combatant and you don't have to lead them so much.

I'm asking a serious question. Who, in your view, is subject to torture? You say you're ok with torturing terrorists, but that begs the question of who we're calling 'terrorists'. If you're advocating torturing suspected terrorists, before they've been proven guilty of actually being terrorists, then you're putting all of us at risk. Any of us could be accused of terrorism and tortured before we're able to prove our innocence.

If there is credible information that dunking them is going to stop a terrorist attack and save American civilian lives and no other method worked that is more than good enough for me.

The CIA had specific guidelines which I posted when to use waterboarding.

 

[dblack]

Db the serious answer is that it's a totally different world after you have been in the field for awhile. Things are much clearer and simpler and one makes very simple choices made by very simple circumstances. One's combat sight becomes very, very clear and things are not complex, they are simple. There is no way to explain it on a message board.

I think I can imagine, though I've been fortunate not to be in that position, how that must feel. If I were faced with similar circumstances, I might react exactly that way. But the broader situation is not immediate and personal. The question is whether we can afford to endorse torture as a matter of policy. If we do, it's not just terrorists who are threatened, it's all of us.

 

[CMike]

This is from the memo that I posted.

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.’”

 

[asaratis]

I don't know, what does the liberals think; my informed guess is liberals don't all think alike.

Exactly no foundation of absolutes with Liberals.

It is all how you feel and rationalize to reconcile with those feelings.

You right. Liberals think one thing one day and the opposite the next. They will take both sides of an issue depending on who is in the audience. John Kerry was great at that. Obama did quite well, also.

In regard to the OP question, though the grammar is questionable...the average liberal doesn't think at all...he regurgitates whatever his nearby buddies just said.

 

[CMike]

What is immoral is letting american civilians die in a terrorist attacks because liberals are too squeamish to let arch terrorists die.

They would much rather Americans die painful deaths from a major terrorist attack.

 

[dblack]

If there is credible information that dunking them is going to stop a terrorist attack and save American civilian lives and no other method worked that is more than good enough for me.

The CIA had specific guidelines which I posted when to use waterboarding.

But you're not addressing my question. How do you know? The answer is due process. That's the entire point of the requirement, to protect innocent people from premature punishment and harassment. Due process is not, as it's so often miscast, a perk for the criminals. It's a vital protection for all of us to ensure that we don't get treated as criminals before we can prove our innocence.

Once we're content that we've got the right culprit, and they're actually terrorists, I don't mind so much. String 'em up and have your way with them. But giving government the power to lock up people and torture them on a hunch is patently insane.

 

[CMike]

If there is credible information that dunking them is going to stop a terrorist attack and save American civilian lives and no other method worked that is more than good enough for me.

The CIA had specific guidelines which I posted when to use waterboarding.

But you're not addressing my question. How do you know? The answer is due process. That's the entire point of the requirement, to protect innocent people from premature punishment and harassment. Due process is not, as it's so often miscast, a perk for the criminals. It's a vital protection for all of us to ensure that we don't get treated as criminals before we can prove our innocence.

Once we're content that we've got the right culprit, and they're actually terrorists, I don't mind so much. String 'em up and have your way with them. But giving government the power to lock up people and torture them on a hunch is patently insane.

Due process doesn't work with foreign terrorists.

1) They would have the right to remain silent. However to stop an imminent terrorist attack we need them to talk right now. After the terrorist attack is over is too late.

2) How do we get witnesses? They are comrades in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, etc.

The justice system's purpose is for the most fair trial not for fighting a war against terrorists.

 

[Bigfoot]

Db the serious answer is that it's a totally different world after you have been in the field for awhile. Things are much clearer and simpler and one makes very simple choices made by very simple circumstances. One's combat sight becomes very, very clear and things are not complex, they are simple. There is no way to explain it on a message board.

I think I can imagine, though I've been fortunate not to be in that position, how that must feel. If I were faced with similar circumstances, I might react exactly that way. But the broader situation is not immediate and personal. The question is whether we can afford to endorse torture as a matter of policy. If we do, it's not just terrorists who are threatened, it's all of us.

I do not agree that it puts everyone outside of a small group at risk. I think that to many broad strokes have been drawn as part of the political picture.

 

[dblack]

The justice system's purpose is for the most fair trial not for fighting a war against terrorists.

This, along with other issues of state convenience, is why the neo-cons so stridently sought to define the terrorism problem as a 'war'. Words mean things. By allowing them to frame it thusly, we've indulged a conception of "war" that knows no limits, no boundaries and has no end. We're not just sacrificing constitutional protections temporarily, on the battlefield. We're sacrificing them from here on, everywhere we go.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If they run they are a combatant. If they stand still they are a well disciplined combatant and you don't have to lead them so much.

I'm asking a serious question. Who, in your view, is subject to torture? You say you're ok with torturing terrorists, but that begs the question of who we're calling 'terrorists'. If you're advocating torturing suspected terrorists, before they've been proven guilty of actually being terrorists, then you're putting all of us at risk. Any of us could be accused of terrorism and tortured before we're able to prove our innocence.

Db the serious answer is that it's a totally different world after you have been in the field for awhile. Things are much clearer and simpler and one makes very simple choices made by very simple circumstances. One's combat sight becomes very, very clear and things are not complex, they are simple. There is no way to explain it on a message board.

That sums up the right's problem. You cannot solve complex problems......and ours are very complex.....with a yearning for simple answers.

After you have been in the field for a while......you need to return to the world as it really is.

And....what is the excuse that nutters who have never been in the field use for their shortsightedness?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

knowing what i know, i personally don't care if we torture. Just be open and honest about it.
Hey you want to fuck with us, we are going to torture you if we catch you.

Seeing-as-how we're (typically) in someone-else's Country, you're (of course) extending that option to them, as well, right??​

 

[rightwinger]

What is immoral is letting american civilians die in a terrorist attacks because liberals are too squeamish to let arch terrorists die.

They would much rather Americans die painful deaths from a major terrorist attack.

What is immoral is acting outside the rule of law and subjecting Americans to the same treatment

US has forfeited the moral high ground

We can no longer take our case to the world court of opinion that our soldiers and citizens are being tortured by some other nation

The response will be.......It was OK when you did it

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I don't know, what does the liberals think; my informed guess is liberals don't all think alike.

Exactly no foundation of absolutes with Liberals.

It is all how you feel and rationalize to reconcile with those feelings.

You right. Liberals think one thing one day and the opposite the next. They will take both sides of an issue depending on who is in the audience. John Kerry was great at that. Obama did quite well, also.

In regard to the OP question, though the grammar is questionable...the average liberal doesn't think at all...he regurgitates whatever his nearby buddies just said.

You FAUX Noise/Porky Limbaugh fans are tooooooooooooo predictable.....

 

[CMike]

What is immoral is letting american civilians die in a terrorist attacks because liberals are too squeamish to let arch terrorists die.

They would much rather Americans die painful deaths from a major terrorist attack.

What is immoral is acting outside the rule of law and subjecting Americans to the same treatment

You truely think that any country with a sane leadership is not going to waterboard an arch terrorist if it means stopping a terrorist attacks that could cost the lives of thousands of it's citizens' lives?

US has forfeited the moral high ground

Let's say the US didn't waterboard the three arch terrorists and they succeeded in their terrorist attacks.

How many of American's would have suffered an agonizing death because of a dirty (radioactive) bomb going off in Washington DC?

If another 911 attack occurred in LA how many American's would have been tortured by fire and dying a horrible death?

Yet, you seem to think it's okay for the terrorists to be able to taunt interrogators, and for them to not be put in unpleasant situations to make them talk.

The moral high ground has been surrendered by the Obama and his minions who put arch terrorists before American civilian lives.

We can no longer take our case to the world court of opinion that our soldiers and citizens are being tortured by some other nation

The response will be.......It was OK when you did it

You think Al Qaida gives a shit about the court of public opinion

Also by definition torture is inflicting severe pain.

Waterbarding simulates drowning. It's very scary but it doesn't inflict pain.

In fact, CIA operatives are waterboarded in their own training.

If there is a planned terrorist attack that is going to take out American civilians the moral highground is making terrorists talk and stopping the attack.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Just watched 0 dark 30
Very accurate according to seal who wrote book
Without GWB interrogation okay
no UBL
Movie mad point to state that libs came close to blowing the whole deal

Will give BHO kudos in the end, he did the right thing

BTW Cheney's assassination squad?
really?

Go team 6
god bless all of them

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns​

By Craig Whitlock
January 01, 2013


The three European men with Somali roots were arrested on a murky pretext in August as they passed through the small African country of Djibouti. But the reason soon became clear when they were visited in their jail cells by a succession of American interrogators.

U.S. agents accused the men — two of them Swedes, the other a longtime resident of Britain — of supporting al-Shabab, an Islamist militia in Somalia that Washington considers a terrorist group. Two months after their arrest, the prisoners were secretly indicted by a federal grand jury in New York, then clandestinely taken into custody by the FBI and flown to the United States to face trial.

The secret arrests and detentions came to light Dec. 21 when the suspects made a brief appearance in a Brooklyn courtroom.

The men are the latest example of how the Obama administration has embraced rendition — the practice of holding and interrogating terrorism suspects in other countries without due process — despite widespread condemnation of the tactic in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Renditions are taking on renewed significance because the administration and Congress have not reached agreement on a consistent legal pathway for apprehending terrorism suspects overseas and bringing them to justice.

Congress has thwarted President Obama’s pledge to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and has created barriers against trying al-Qaeda suspects in civilian courts, including new restrictions in a defense authorization bill passed last month. The White House, meanwhile, has resisted lawmakers’ efforts to hold suspects in military custody and try them before military commissions.

The impasse and lack of detention options, critics say, have led to a de facto policy under which the administration finds it easier to kill terrorism suspects, a key reason for the surge of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Renditions, though controversial and complex, represent one of the few alternatives.

“In a way, rendition has become even more important than before,” said Clara Gutteridge, director of the London-based Equal Justice Forum, a human rights group that investigates national security cases and that opposes the practice.

Because of the secrecy involved, it is not known how many renditions have taken place during Obama’s first term. But his administration has not disavowed the practice. In 2009, a White House task force on interrogation and detainee transfers recommended that the government be allowed to continue using renditions, but with greater oversight, so that suspects were not subject to harsh interrogation techniques, as some were during the George W. Bush administration.

Scarce details in case

The U.S. government has revealed little about the circumstances under which the three alleged al-Shabab supporters were arrested. Most court papers remain under seal.

In a statement, the FBI and federal prosecutors for the Eastern District of New York said the defendants were “apprehended in Africa by local authorities while on their way to Yemen” in early August. The statement did not spell out where they were detained or why.

The FBI made no mention of any U.S. involvement with the suspects until Oct. 18, when a federal grand jury handed up the sealed indictment. The FBI said its agents took custody of the men on Nov. 14, but the bureau did not specify where or from whom. A spokesman for federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York did not respond to a phone message and e-mail seeking comment.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns - Washington Post

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Why was it wrong for the Bush administration to conduct "Rendition" while no one discusses or refutes "Rendition" conducted by Clinton and the Oblamer administrations. Oh, I forgot they're Liberal Democrats. Like Democrats and the KKK. That was okay too. But let's blame the Republicans.
Hypocrites the name Progressive Liberals continue to wear on their sleeves beside their Marxism.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What is immoral is letting american civilians die in a terrorist attacks because liberals are too squeamish to let arch terrorists die.

They would much rather Americans die painful deaths from a major terrorist attack.

You truely think that any country with a sane leadership is not going to waterboard an arch terrorist if it means stopping a terrorist attacks that could cost the lives of thousands of it's citizens' lives?



Let's say the US didn't waterboard the three arch terrorists and they succeeded in their terrorist attacks.

How many of American's would have suffered an agonizing death because of a dirty (radioactive) bomb going off in Washington DC?

If another 911 attack occurred in LA how many American's would have been tortured by fire and dying a horrible death?

Yet, you seem to think it's okay for the terrorists to be able to taunt interrogators, and for them to not be put in unpleasant situations to make them talk.

The moral high ground has been surrendered by the Obama and his minions who put arch terrorists before American civilian lives.

We can no longer take our case to the world court of opinion that our soldiers and citizens are being tortured by some other nation

The response will be.......It was OK when you did it

You think Al Qaida gives a shit about the court of public opinion

Also by definition torture is inflicting severe pain.

Waterbarding simulates drowning. It's very scary but it doesn't inflict pain.

Keep movin'-along, there, Skippy......

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efh_6_-tHgY]Torture Session: Christopher Hitchens On The Waterboard - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pAB0l9yYJ8]O'Reilly/Hitchens on torture and water-boarding - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzK5FNjBsrA]Sean Hannity Volunteers To Be Waterboarded!!! - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[dblack]

Makes me sick to my stomach that my country has come to this point.