Water boarding IS torture...

[bullypulpit]

...Said Eric Holder, Barack Obama's nominee for Attorney General in clear, unambiguous and unequivocal terms. And since both Bush and Cheney have both admitted to authorizing and/or advocating the use of water-boarding, it only remains to be seen whether or not the Department of Justice, under Mr. Holder, will seek to enforce the law on the matter by prosecuting any and all in the outgoing administration who authorized the use of water-boarding.

<center><a href=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-holder_16jan16,0,7316121.story>Eric Holder: Waterboarding is torture</a></center>

[Noir]

I think it is torture.

But they won't charge any of the leaving admin, it'll just be left alone.

Tis good to see that the incoming admin will not support such torture and so it's use will cease.

[PostmodernProphet]

...Said Eric Holder, Barack Obama's nominee for Attorney General in clear, unambiguous and unequivocal terms. And since both Bush and Cheney have both admitted to authorizing and/or advocating the use of water-boarding, it only remains to be seen whether or not the Department of Justice, under Mr. Holder, will seek to enforce the law on the matter by prosecuting any and all in the outgoing administration who authorized the use of water-boarding.

<center><a href=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-holder_16jan16,0,7316121.story>Eric Holder: Waterboarding is torture</a></center>

/shugs....just another indication of why he isn't qualified for the job......

[stephanie]

So, this is the biggest thing in this idiots mind, whether a terrorist is waterboarded..just remember, the next terrorist attack will be on the little Marxist administrations head..then Eric Holder can sit down with them and ask them , can you please tell us if there are going to be other attacks, pretty please..

[Yurt]

was it illegal when bush/cheney water boarding occurred? if not, you lose bully....

i know it is going to break your heart when you finally accept obama is not going to allow anyone to go after bush/cheney...obama has the power now and will not seek at all to diminish any presidential power :poke:

[stephanie]

Shocking Video Unearthed 1999 Attorney General Eric Holder Testimony On FALN Terrorists Clemency



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JkTsPo_0xHs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JkTsPo_0xHs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkTsPo_0xHs&eurl=http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/01/eric-holder-recommended-pardons-of-faln.html

[bullypulpit]

was it illegal when bush/cheney water boarding occurred? if not, you lose bully....

i know it is going to break your heart when you finally accept obama is not going to allow anyone to go after bush/cheney...obama has the power now and will not seek at all to diminish any presidential power :poke:

Ummm...Yeah, it always has been. Congress took no action to repeal US law on the matter nor withdraw from any of the treaties the US is signatory to. And if Obama fails to seek prosecution of any and all who authorized and conducted torture, then the Republic truly is dead and we may as well use the Constitution as kindling for its funeral pyre.

[red states rule]

...Said Eric Holder, Barack Obama's nominee for Attorney General in clear, unambiguous and unequivocal terms. And since both Bush and Cheney have both admitted to authorizing and/or advocating the use of water-boarding, it only remains to be seen whether or not the Department of Justice, under Mr. Holder, will seek to enforce the law on the matter by prosecuting any and all in the outgoing administration who authorized the use of water-boarding.

<center><a href=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-holder_16jan16,0,7316121.story>Eric Holder: Waterboarding is torture</a></center>

Is this the same Eric Holder who said this BP?

The same guy Obama wants to be the US AG?

As a lawyer he is trying to get his client off with this defense - "there is no law against funding terrorists and terror groups"

Oh boy, I am feeling so much safer seeing how this administration is taking shape


Eric Holder: The Man from Banana?

With news of Eric Holder's possible nomination as AG, we've been paying attention to his role in the March Rich case. Apparently, there's another issue: Holder's been busy making money at that Washington repository of grassroots people power, Covington & Burling, and has ended up representing Chiquita Brands International on some nasty human rights matters.

Like any lawyer, of course, Holder has to argue positions for his client that he may not agree with. On the other hand, it's not exactly a frivolous issue. You choose your cases. You don't have to represent anyone. You can represent poor people facing eviction, or defend Chiquita on human rights abuses. Chiquita pays better.

A press release from Earth Rights International:

"While Mr. Holder has a distinguished record of public service, in his more recent private practice he has questioned fundamental principles of liability for international human rights abuses and for acts of terrorism.
"Mr. Holder is the lead attorney defending Chiquita Brands International against five lawsuits seeking redress for the banana company's abetting of murder and terrorism in financing Colombia's notorious paramilitary death squads, the United Self-Defense Committee (AUC). Chiquita has admitted funding the AUC for a period of at least seven years, from 1997 until 2004, which helped to enable the AUC to carry out hundreds or thousands of assassinations of banana union leaders, politicians, indigenous peoples' advocates, and other "undesirables" and to generally exercise control over Colombia's banana-growing region.

"Indeed, in March 2007, Chiquita pled guilty to the federal crime of supporting the AUC, a designated foreign terrorist organization. EarthRights International represents the families of these victims in Doe v. Chiquita Brands International, a class action filed in July 2007.

"In defending Chiquita, Mr. Holder has written briefs questioning basic tenets of international human rights and antiterrorism law. In his motion to dismiss one of the lawsuits against Chiquita, Mr. Holder wrote that 'aiding and abetting [violations of human rights law] by a private corporation does not constitute an established violation of international law.' This position runs counter to nearly every court ruling on the subject, and would allow a corporation to escape liability for knowingly assisting others in committing acts such as slavery, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

"In a more recent brief, Mr. Holder argued that there is no 'rule of international law establishing civil liability for providing material support to terrorism,' which would exonerate those who finance terrorist organizations such as the AUC despite knowing that these groups have no legitimate activities and exist only to commit illegal acts of violence.

To his credit, Mr. Holder advised Chiquita to stop financing the AUC while the illegal payments were continuing, and he then helped negotiate its plea bargain with the federal government. Nonetheless, his position that Chiquita should bear no civil liability for the murders that it abetted raises serious questions about the potential future policy of the Justice Department on human rights, antiterrorism, and corporate accountability. EarthRights International hopes that Mr. Holder’s views on these issues will be carefully scrutinized in the coming weeks and months."

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/loca...rom_banan.html

[5stringJeff]

While I think Holder is a horrible choice for AG, I have to agree with him on waterboarding. It most certainly is torture, and Americans should not use it in interrogations.

[red states rule]

While I think Holder is a horrible choice for AG, I have to agree with him on waterboarding. It most certainly is torture, and Americans should not use it in interrogations.

Sure, let the terrorist attacks happen, and innocent people die. Principals are what really win wars right Jeff?

[5stringJeff]

Sure, let the terrorist attacks happen, and innocent people die. Principals are what really win wars right Jeff?

Frankly, I would rather not sacrifice my principles to win a war. But, ever since Lincoln, that seems to have become the American Way.

But your whole argument is a red herring, because you assume that the only way to gather intelligence is through torture, which is clearly wrong.

[red states rule]

Frankly, I would rather not sacrifice my principles to win a war. But, ever since Lincoln, that seems to have become the American Way.

But your whole argument is a red herring, because you assume that the only way to gather intelligence is through torture, which is clearly wrong.

Jeff, as I pointed out before waterboarding has ONLY been used THREE times

Each time, the terrorist cracked and gave up info that stopped terror attacks

Now some say nearly every tactic is tactic if it makes the terrorist feel uncomfortable

[5stringJeff]

Jeff, as I pointed out before waterboarding has ONLY been used THREE times

Each time, the terrorist cracked and gave up info that stopped terror attacks

Now some say nearly every tactic is tactic if it makes the terrorist feel uncomfortable

If waterboarding isn't torture, than why do you consistently have to defend its use by saying that it was only used three times?

Regardless, it is torture, as it portends a "threat of imminent death," which is the legal definition of torture (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html#1).

[red states rule]

If waterboarding isn't torture, than why do you consistently have to defend its use by saying that it was only used three times?

Regardless, it is torture, as it portends a "threat of imminent death," which is the legal definition of torture (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html#1).

Because people like you make it seem it is a common tactic.

Also, each time it was used the terrorist cracked and gave up info that stopped furture attacks

It SIMULATES drowning Jeff. Your poor little terrorist is not in any danger of dying

[Mr. P]

Is there any other member here besides me that has experienced waterboarding or any variation of the method?

[5stringJeff]

Because people like you make it seem it is a common tactic.

Also, each time it was used the terrorist cracked and gave up info that stopped furture attacks

It SIMULATES drowning Jeff. Your poor little terrorist is not in any danger of dying

First of all, "people like me" are concerned about the encroachment of governmental power on civil rights because today, it's "evil terrorists" who are being tortured; tomorrow, it's "domestic dissidents."

Second, it's irrelevant whether it worked or not. Dissolving Congress may work to allow the President to "defend the country," but you wouldn't propose that, would you?

Third, you can't simulate drowning without pouring water down someone's throat, which, again, is threatening imminent death, which, again, is torture.

Fourthly, it's not my "poor little terrorist." I hope every al Qaeda member out there, actively fighting against my country and my liberty, is shot and killed. But I would also like to see such a war fought on Constitutional grounds.

[red states rule]

First of all, "people like me" are concerned about the encroachment of governmental power on civil rights because today, it's "evil terrorists" who are being tortured; tomorrow, it's "domestic dissidents."

Second, it's irrelevant whether it worked or not. Dissolving Congress may work to allow the President to "defend the country," but you wouldn't propose that, would you?

Third, you can't simulate drowning without pouring water down someone's throat, which, again, is threatening imminent death, which, again, is torture.

Fourthly, it's not my "poor little terrorist." I hope every al Qaeda member out there, actively fighting against my country and my liberty, is shot and killed. But I would also like to see such a war fought on Constitutional grounds.

Bottom line is Jeff, all this heart tugging BS about the treatment of the poor little terrorists is nothing more then people more worried about the comfort of terrorists then defeating them

Ms. Crawford and others of her kind have no clue what real torture is.
I could probably make her spill her guts by scraping my fingernails against a chalkboard for 15 minutes.

The focus of some is entirely bent on undermining the war on terror for partisan political and PC reasons.

[stephanie]

Is there any other member here besides me that has experienced waterboarding or any variation of the method?

Mr. P, would you mind telling us your opinion on it, since you have been through it.?

[5stringJeff]

Bottom line is Jeff, all this heart tugging BS about the treatment of the poor little terrorists is nothing more then people more worried about the comfort of terrorists then defeating them

Ms. Crawford and others of her kind have no clue what real torture is.
I could probably make her spill her guts by scraping my fingernails against a chalkboard for 15 minutes.

The focus of some is entirely bent on undermining the war on terror for partisan political and PC reasons.

Wrong, RSR. It is about the power of government officials over our lives, plain and simple. If the US government can torture "enemy combatants" today, it can torture political opponents tomorrow. That's why it's so important to fight against unconstitutional usurpations of power.

[red states rule]

Wrong, RSR. It is about the power of government officials over our lives, plain and simple. If the US government can torture "enemy combatants" today, it can torture political opponents tomorrow. That's why it's so important to fight against unconstitutional usurpations of power.

You sound so much like MFM right now

He even said he would not watrerboard a terrorist to stop a terror attack - I am beginning to think you would agree with that Jeff

[5stringJeff]

You sound so much like MFM right now

He even said he would not watrerboard a terrorist to stop a terror attack - I am beginning to think you would agree with that Jeff

Nice ad hominem. Care to address the substance of the argument?

[red states rule]

Nice ad hominem. Care to address the substance of the argument?

I did

Seems you are more interested in the "rights" and comfort of terrorists then defeating them

Just like MFM

[5stringJeff]

I did

Seems you are more interested in the "rights" and comfort of terrorists then defeating them

Just like MFM

I'm interested in stopping the encroachment of government powers. Ever read the Eighth Amendment? Do you really think the 21st century US Government would willingly accept a boundary on its power? If torture is OK for "enemy combatants" today, why do you think the government would suddenly disapprove its use on American citizens accused of terrorism? And if its OK to use it on American terrorists, why not other American prisoners?

[red states rule]

I'm interested in stopping the encroachment of government powers. Ever read the Eighth Amendment? Do you really think the 21st century US Government would willingly accept a boundary on its power? If torture is OK for "enemy combatants" today, why do you think the government would suddenly disapprove its use on American citizens accused of terrorism? And if its OK to use it on American terrorists, why not other American prisoners?

Point is, and you do not see to grasp, we do not toture

What do you consider torture Jeff?

Is this torture to you?

"Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister." At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was exposed to freezing temperatures" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores."

[5stringJeff]

Point is, and you do not see to grasp, we do not toture

What do you consider torture Jeff?

Is this torture to you?

"Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister." At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was exposed to freezing temperatures" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores."

I'm not talking about any of this. I'm talking about waterboarding, which, as I've already shown, is the threat of imminent death and legally defined, in US law, as torture.

[red states rule]

I'm not talking about any of this. I'm talking about waterboarding, which, as I've already shown, is the threat of imminent death and legally defined, in US law, as torture.

I do not know how else to explain this to you Jeff

Try readling s-l-o-w-l-y

Waterboarding has not been used for YEARS

It was used only THREE times

It worked everytime it was used

You asked why I keep posting this - well you are one of the reasons. You refuse to understand you are whining about something that is no longer used

[emmett]

Jeff.... I gotta disagree with you on this one brother! I do see a crystal clear image of your point, and it is credible. Anything that would lead to a more intrusive ability on the part of government to influence anyone, question anyone or control anyone, is most certainly a violation of my beliefs......... however..... these are not citizens of the United States, they are suspected warriors against everything that we collectively stand for and are!

FUrthermore, I take issue with the method debate! Waterboarding? Hell, personally if thought for a minute that a person was involved in a terror attack, they had given enough reason to believe such and reasonable conclusion had been reached, I wouldn't stop at waterboarding! Hell, I'd start cutting off body parts.

Interrogation being limited to questioning makes no sense when talking about a military enemy. I see your point about government being given the ability to rectify the torturing of American people, however that is not what we are talking about here. It's not that I do not believe that government could not enpower itself to do these things, hell, I see the encroachment of liberty on our citizens by government every day as you do! Our core beliefs as libertarians compel us to shiver when we see eminant domain, routine traffic stops and bank account monitoring being conducted by our government. It would be logical to assume that a government that has stepped this far from Constitutional beliefs would be capable of exploiting the issue of torture authorization to mean it had the power to do anything that "represented the common good." This is always going to be the case though, as will be denoted by our system.

Terrorists are enemies Jeff! They have actively taken part in an engagement that threatened to hurt America. In doing so they became knowledgeable of how those activities were being conducted, who was conducting them and methods. We need to know these things to properly defend the liberty of Americans. There are two sides to this fence!

For an average citizen who has committed a crime here in our country there are laws that protect their rights long after they are arrested, I agree, and there should be, however a terrorist combatant is different in the sense that they threaten the safety of the entire country. I guess my point is that I do not believe authorizing strong interrogation techniques on enemy combatants would spill over to a belief that it could be carried out on American citizens, political dissidents or even criminals who were citizens. This just shows why we should be as vigilant as we can be to see that we elect responsible people to office who would always be able to clearly see the defining line between the two!

Top of the day to you my friend, have a nice weekend!

[Kathianne]

Jeff.... I gotta disagree with you on this one brother! I do see a crystal clear image of your point, and it is credible. Anything that would lead to a more intrusive ability on the part of government to influence anyone, question anyone or control anyone, is most certainly a violation of my beliefs......... however..... these are not citizens of the United States, they are suspected warriors against everything that we collectively stand for and are!

FUrthermore, I take issue with the method debate! Waterboarding? Hell, personally if thought for a minute that a person was involved in a terror attack, they had given enough reason to believe such and reasonable conclusion had been reached, I wouldn't stop at waterboarding! Hell, I'd start cutting off body parts.

...

Jack Bauer admitted last week to breaking the law! :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Emmett. tried to rep you but could not

I wish I could rep you twice for the post

I say this with all respect, and it's not a joke.

John McCain would have welcomes this kind of treatment when he was captured.

What he went through WAS torture.

Not this Mamby Pamby head games they were playing on these terrorists..

[red states rule]

Jack Bauer admitted last week to breaking the law! :laugh2:

But Jack also said the powers that be can sit there with the smug looks on their faces, but does not apologize for doing his job and keeping the country safe

[Kathianne]

But Jack also said the powers that be can sit there with the smug looks on their faces, but does not apologize for doing his job and keeping the country safe

Jack is make-believe.

[red states rule]

Jack is make-believe.

But the statement fits Kat

Those men and women are doing their job - while being attacked by the people they are keeping safe

[5stringJeff]

I do not know how else to explain this to you Jeff

Try readling s-l-o-w-l-y

Waterboarding has not been used for YEARS

It was used only THREE times

It worked everytime it was used

You asked why I keep posting this - well you are one of the reasons. You refuse to understand you are whining about something that is no longer used

Whoa, whoa, whoa. If it's not torture, as you keep wrongly claiming, then why has it only been used three times? Shouldn't the government use it as often as possible? Why isn't it used any more if it's not torture?!?

Ah, yes... because its use was brought to light, and we see that it is, indeed, torture, and the government shouldn't have been doing it in the first place, because by doing so, it was BREAKING ITS OWN LAWS.

[Mr. P]

Mr. P, would you mind telling us your opinion on it, since you have been through it.?

It's an extremely effective and rapid method of interrogation without physical harm. It does cause extreme short term mental distress which will have you talking in 30 to 60 seconds but breaks no bones, removes no fingernails or body parts, no electric shock to the balls, no blood etc.

I know the mental distress fits the definition of torture but I disagree.

I have no lasting effects EXCEPT the memory of how effective it was/is.
I support it 100%!

[red states rule]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. If it's not torture, as you keep wrongly claiming, then why has it only been used three times? Shouldn't the government use it as often as possible? Why isn't it used any more if it's not torture?!?

Ah, yes... because its use was brought to light, and we see that it is, indeed, torture, and the government shouldn't have been doing it in the first place, because by doing so, it was BREAKING ITS OWN LAWS.

You either refuse or can't get it Jeff. Maybe you would rather hold their hands, and offer them ice cream and cake to break them - I like what has been done so far. No more attacks since 9-11

[stephanie]

It's an extremely effective and rapid method of interrogation without physical harm. It does cause extreme short term mental distress which will have you talking in 30 to 60 seconds but breaks no bones, removes no fingernails or body parts, no electric shock to the balls, no blood etc.

I know the mental distress fits the definition of torture but I disagree.

I have no lasting effects EXCEPT the memory of how effective it was/is.
I support it 100%!

thank you..:salute:

[5stringJeff]

Jeff.... I gotta disagree with you on this one brother! I do see a crystal clear image of your point, and it is credible. Anything that would lead to a more intrusive ability on the part of government to influence anyone, question anyone or control anyone, is most certainly a violation of my beliefs......... however..... these are not citizens of the United States, they are suspected warriors against everything that we collectively stand for and are!

FUrthermore, I take issue with the method debate! Waterboarding? Hell, personally if thought for a minute that a person was involved in a terror attack, they had given enough reason to believe such and reasonable conclusion had been reached, I wouldn't stop at waterboarding! Hell, I'd start cutting off body parts.

Interrogation being limited to questioning makes no sense when talking about a military enemy. I see your point about government being given the ability to rectify the torturing of American people, however that is not what we are talking about here. It's not that I do not believe that government could not enpower itself to do these things, hell, I see the encroachment of liberty on our citizens by government every day as you do! Our core beliefs as libertarians compel us to shiver when we see eminant domain, routine traffic stops and bank account monitoring being conducted by our government. It would be logical to assume that a government that has stepped this far from Constitutional beliefs would be capable of exploiting the issue of torture authorization to mean it had the power to do anything that "represented the common good." This is always going to be the case though, as will be denoted by our system.

Terrorists are enemies Jeff! They have actively taken part in an engagement that threatened to hurt America. In doing so they became knowledgeable of how those activities were being conducted, who was conducting them and methods. We need to know these things to properly defend the liberty of Americans. There are two sides to this fence!

For an average citizen who has committed a crime here in our country there are laws that protect their rights long after they are arrested, I agree, and there should be, however a terrorist combatant is different in the sense that they threaten the safety of the entire country. I guess my point is that I do not believe authorizing strong interrogation techniques on enemy combatants would spill over to a belief that it could be carried out on American citizens, political dissidents or even criminals who were citizens. This just shows why we should be as vigilant as we can be to see that we elect responsible people to office who would always be able to clearly see the defining line between the two!

Top of the day to you my friend, have a nice weekend!

Emmett, I understand your viewpoint. I want to defeat al Qaeda just as much as anyone here. However, if, as you say, the terrorists we have at Gitmo are foreign combatants, then we have the duty, as signatories of the Geneva Convention, to treat them as such. And, no surprise here, the Geneva Conventions do not allow torture. And regardless, American law forbids torture as well. Moreover, we have gotten information out of prisoners without resorting to torture. So to say that we must torture prisoners or face more attacks is a false dilemma.

[emmett]

I do not know how else to explain this to you Jeff

Try readling s-l-o-w-l-y

Waterboarding has not been used for YEARS

It was used only THREE times

It worked everytime it was used

You asked why I keep posting this - well you are one of the reasons. You refuse to understand you are whining about something that is no longer used


I have reservations about anything I say in this debate. While I believe waterboarding or any other torture is OK when positive it is being conducted on a terrorist, I see clearly the point that Jeff makes and you should too. Hell.... I'm sure you do! Empowering government with the belief that "any" potential enemy of the state can be tortured is a scary proposition as it could be interpreted to include political enemies that sought to destroy the govenment. They would be classified as the same as terrorists would they not. The difference to me is that they would be American citizens and thus, it would not be the same.

Touchy discussion. The thing is the threat of what Jeff says doesn't only threaten to become a reality from the left. Communism and Socialism lie out in left field near the warning track. It also looms out in right field near the religious right too. Being able to properly gage the necessary government necessary, the proper torture of military enemies, the proper overseeing of people, the proper amount of law to ensure a peaceful and civil society, all require a common sense approach.

I take issue every day with folks from both sides of the fence in support of my claim that almost everyone has lost their way. Jeff's point is that he fears this will take place if we condone torture techniques of any kind. His concern that it will cancer the core belief of government to begin to rule it owns people in this regard is a ligitimate concern. In 1955, we would have thought it inconceivable that a persons property would be taken away from them when they did not wish to sell it so why would it not then be possible that governments torturing of citizens who disagree with it's role in their lives be an exception, haven been given the OK to torture, thinking at the time it was the right thing to do.

In a nutshell. The US Constitution protects American citizens, not enemy combatants, and this is my argument to Jeff. Having said that, and being a civil ally of Jeff's in the highest regard, I would say that it is more important now than ever for people to learn to identify the true American beliefs we stand for and become true libertarians, like our forefathers, who disagreed on plenty, but always held high the Libertarian belief that all Americans had the rights afforded by the Constitution and woe be onto the enemies of that platform and those who threatened it!

Good Day Sir! Enjoy the weekend!

[5stringJeff]

You either refuse or can't get it Jeff. Maybe you would rather hold their hands, and offer them ice cream and cake to break them - I like what has been done so far. No more attacks since 9-11

It's you, RSR, who don't get it. Your position is untenable.

If waterboarding is not torture, as you claim, then the government should be using it whenever possible to collect information on future/planned terrorist attacks. For that matter, it should be using it on American criminals in order to gather information about their connections. We should waterboard Mafia members, gang leaders, pimps, etc., to get information about their crimes. But they aren't, which is an implicit agreement by the government that waterboarding is torture.

On the other hand, you argue that waterboarding has only been used three times, and its not that bad. You wouldn't have to make such arguments if there wasn't already evidence for waterboarding being torture. In fact, waterboarding portends an imminent threat of death and leads to extreme anguish, which are the legally defining aspects of torture.

You argue that those who oppose waterboarding want to coddle terrorists. That is false. Those who oppose waterboarding oppose the unconstitutional and illegal stretch of government power. The Constitution generallly forbids cruel and unusual punishment; federal law specifically forbids torture. My argument is for the rule of law; your argument is that "the end justifies the means."

[red states rule]

Here is what Jeff and other keep ignoring


Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CI
November 02, 2007 1:25 PM



For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.

Hayden sought and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.

The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed by the CIA.

One U.S. intelligence official said, "It would be wrong to assume that the program of the past moved into the future unchanged."

A CIA spokesman said, as a matter of policy, he would decline to comment on interrogation techniques, "which have been and continue to be lawful," he said.

The practice of waterboarding has been branded as "torture" by human rights groups and a number of leading U.S. officials, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., because it amounted to a "mock execution."

It has been at the center of the debate that threatens to derail the confirmation of President George Bush's attorney general nominee, Michael Mukasey.

As a result of Hayden's decision, officials say, the most extreme technique left available to CIA interrogators would be what is termed "longtime standing," which includes exhaustion and sleep deprivation with prisoners forced to stand handcuffed, with their feet shackled to the floor.

The most effective use of waterboarding, according to current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States.

A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.

Ultimately, KSM took responsibility for the 9/ll attacks and virtually all other al Qaeda terror strikes, including the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

"KSM lasted the longest under waterboarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again," said a former CIA official familiar with KSM's case.

ABC News first reported on waterboarding in November 2005 as part of a George Polk Award-winning series of reports on the agency and its practices. In that report, CIA sources outlined for ABC News a list of harsh interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration in a "Presidential Finding," which authorized the use of the techniques on a narrow range of "high-value" targets.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

[5stringJeff]

Here is what Jeff and other keep ignoring


Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CI
November 02, 2007 1:25 PM

Not only did I not ignore it, I specifically addressed it. But why does it not surprise me that your response is a one-liner followed by a news story?

[red states rule]

Not only did I not ignore it, I specifically addressed it. But why does it not surprise me that your response is a one-liner followed by a news story?

It shows you are wrong when you say the US "tortures" the poor little terrorists

How can we torture them when it has not been used for years?

Again, what do you consider torture Jeff?

[5stringJeff]

It shows you are wrong when you say the US "tortures" the poor little terrorists

How can we torture them when it has not been used for years?

Again, what do you consider torture Jeff?

Please refer to post 39.

[red states rule]

The wussification of some Americans continues.

Are the imates actually being tortured?

Ongoing debate depending what is considered torture.

[5stringJeff]

The wussification of some Americans continues.

Are the imates actually being tortured?

Ongoing debate depending what is considered torture.

And you still addressed no issues in post 39. And there may be debate as to how to redefine 'torture,' but there is currently a legal definition, which is plain as the nose on your face.

[red states rule]

And you still addressed no issues in post 39. And there may be debate as to how to redefine 'torture,' but there is currently a legal definition, which is plain as the nose on your face.

Since we do not waterboard -that is off the table

IS this torture Jeff?

"Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister." At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores."

[5stringJeff]

Since we do not waterboard -that is off the table

Wrong! You just said, in post 40, that the US has used waterboarding three times!!!

[red states rule]

Wrong! You just said, in post 40, that the US has used waterboarding three times!!!

The US has not used it in YEARS

Something you refuse to accept. Like MFM and BP, you are more worried about putting the US on trial then the terrorists

I see for the third time you refused to answer my question Jeff

[5stringJeff]

The US has not used it in YEARS

Something you refuse to accept. Like MFM and BP, you are more worried about putting the US on trial then the terrorists

I'm worried about government encroachment on individual rights. If the government gets away with torturing foreign enemies, what's to stop it from torturing those it declares domestic enemies?


I see for the third time you refused to answer my question Jeff

Your question is irrelevant to the thread topic. But, just for kicks, I'll answer. No, I do not consider it torture, because it doesn't meet the legal definition, which I've provided at least twice today.

[red states rule]

I'm worried about government encroachment on individual rights. If the government gets away with torturing foreign enemies, what's to stop it from torturing those it declares domestic enemies?



Your question is irrelevant to the thread topic. But, just for kicks, I'll answer. No, I do not consider it torture, because it doesn't meet the legal definition, which I've provided at least twice today.

Thank you for admitting your are worried about the rights of terrorists Jeff. Unlike MFM at least you are man enough to fess up

My question was not irrelevant, The so called torture is the reason the terrorist is not being put on trial - yet many like BP and MFM do call it torture

That is how badly the PC crowd has tied the hands of our defense forces

[emmett]

Thank you for admitting your are worried about the rights of terrorists Jeff. Unlike MFM at least you are man enough to fess up

My question was not irrelevant, The so called torture is the reason the terrorist is not being put on trial - yet many like BP and MFM do call it torture

That is how badly the PC crowd has tied the hands of our defense forces

Come on RSR, he said nothing of the sort! He explained his position very clearly, it's Americans rights that concern him and what leeway in this regard could possibly do to the big picture in the future. I disagree somewhat myself but I don't think he is worried about the rights of terrorists.

[red states rule]

Come on RSR, he said nothing of the sort! He explained his position very clearly, it's Americans rights that concern him and what leeway in this regard could possibly do to the big picture in the future. I disagree somewhat myself but I don't think he is worried about the rights of terrorists.

Emmett, that is the way I read it. He sounds just like MFM - who said the same thing

Jeff posted

I'm worried about government encroachment on individual rights. If the government gets away with torturing foreign enemies, what's to stop it from torturing those it declares domestic enemies?


Emmett, how else should I read it except he is worried about the rights of terrorists?

[Roomy]

They torture domestics too, they just don't know who is doing it.

[red states rule]

They torture domestics too, they just don't know who is doing it.

It is Obama. Everytime he is on it is torture to my ears and sanity

[emmett]

Emmett, that is the way I read it. He sounds just like MFM - who said the same thing

Jeff posted

I'm worried about government encroachment on individual rights. If the government gets away with torturing foreign enemies, what's to stop it from torturing those it declares domestic enemies?


Emmett, how else should I read it except he is worried about the rights of terrorists?


Maybe MFM has been gone too long! It might take his return to realize noone is like that. (That was a joke)

This is not! It is a reasonable assertion to be concerned about encroachment on individual rights in my opinion. That's our opinion! Where Jeff and I disagree is in the application. We basically have a three way opinion here. I respect both of the opinions other then mine and feel no need to compare either of the others to anyone to make my point! I let the credibility of my argument speak for itself!

It saddens me to see one of my friends compare another of my friemds to someone whose opinions are almost never credible, full of innuendo and for the most part.... full of shit! In this case each of the three opinions are based on belief in a certain way of doing something or implementing a policy. So be it!

In this instance my friend, we justy have to agree to disagree. I still love ya though!

[red states rule]

Maybe MFM has been gone too long! It might take his return to realize noone is like that. (That was a joke)

This is not! It is a reasonable assertion to be concerned about encroachment on individual rights in my opinion. That's our opinion! Where Jeff and I disagree is in the application. We basically have a three way opinion here. I respect both of the opinions other then mine and feel no need to compare either of the others to anyone to make my point! I let the credibility of my argument speak for itself!

It saddens me to see one of my friends compare another of my friemds to someone whose opinions are almost never credible, full of innuendo and for the most part.... full of shit! In this case each of the three opinions are based on belief in a certain way of doing something or implementing a policy. So be it!

In this instance my friend, we justy have to agree to disagree. I still love ya though!

Emmett, you will always have my respect and hand in friendship

However, we will have to agree to disagree

Jeff does seem to put the rights of terrorists ahead of defeating them. I wonder if Jeff would have waterboarded Atta on 9/10/01

[Mr. P]

I understand Jeffs' opinion..BUT the difference is, I see waterboarding as a weapon in our military arsenal..It's NOT for use in the civilian population and I would NEVER support that, our civil/criminal procedure is well established and for the most part it's effective. I have no fear of this being introduced into our civil system, however, I will always be vigilant.

[Yurt]

Emmett, that is the way I read it. He sounds just like MFM - who said the same thing

Jeff posted

I'm worried about government encroachment on individual rights. If the government gets away with torturing foreign enemies, what's to stop it from torturing those it declares domestic enemies?


Emmett, how else should I read it except he is worried about the rights of terrorists?

i would never compare jeff to hfm

[red states rule]

i would never compare jeff to hfm

ONLY in this instance Yurt

Jeff has a soul and a functioning brain, unlike MFM

[5stringJeff]

Thank you for admitting your are worried about the rights of terrorists Jeff. Unlike MFM at least you are man enough to fess up

My question was not irrelevant, The so called torture is the reason the terrorist is not being put on trial - yet many like BP and MFM do call it torture

That is how badly the PC crowd has tied the hands of our defense forces

I thank Emmett, Mr. P, and Yurt for coming to my defense in my absence.

Now, RSR, if you'll reread the very plain words I posted, you'll see that my worries are not over the conditions of terrorists, but over the extension of government powers. Emmett and Mr. P share this concern, although they disagree with me on this particular issue. That's fine. I think I could count them both as friends of Liberty. But not you, RSR. You consistently paint everyone who disagrees with the neoconservative viewpoint as a "liberal" or a "friend of the terrorists."

Does it concern you at all that the government could extend torture techniques from terrorists to American citizens? Does it concern you that a President of the United States, who is supposed to uphold our laws, conducted a warrantless wiretap program in secret for a year and a half? Does it concern you at all that an American citizen, Jose Padilla, was unconstitutionally denied a writ of habeus corpus until the Supreme Court ordered it done? Do ANY of these encroachments on liberty concern you? Or would you rather live in a police state? Because that's what the War on Terror will turn America into if we do not remain vigilant about our liberties. And, before you ask, yes, I would rather live in a free country with a slightly larger risk of a terrorist attack than to live in a 'terror-free' police lockdown for the rest of my life.

[bullypulpit]

I do not know how else to explain this to you Jeff

Try readling s-l-o-w-l-y

Waterboarding has not been used for YEARS

It was used only THREE times

It worked everytime it was used

You asked why I keep posting this - well you are one of the reasons. You refuse to understand you are whining about something that is no longer used

Lemme 'splain something to you, and I'll use little words so you can understand. It doesn't matter if water-boarding was "only" used three times. It is torture under every definition of torture under US statute and international law. We prosecuted, and then hung those who were found guilty of using the technique against our own troops in WW II. It was a felony each and every time it was authorized by the Bush administration...It doesn't matter if it was one or a hundred times.

Oh, and how do you know it the use of water-boarding wasn't authorized by the Bush adminstration more than those three times that amyone knows of?

[PostmodernProphet]

torture is something that causes injury....not simply something that causes fear.....and we didn't hang anyone for waterboarding.....calling it a felony is idiocy.....

[emmett]

Emmett, you will always have my respect and hand in friendship

However, we will have to agree to disagree

Jeff does seem to put the rights of terrorists ahead of defeating them. I wonder if Jeff would have waterboarded Atta on 9/10/01


Well....... I don't know! I have a feeling he would have ran inside the crumbling buildings to assist others though and I seem to be comfortable with being sure about that!

[emmett]

I understand Jeffs' opinion..BUT the difference is, I see waterboarding as a weapon in our military arsenal..It's NOT for use in the civilian population and I would NEVER support that, our civil/criminal procedure is well established and for the most part it's effective. I have no fear of this being introduced into our civil system, however, I will always be vigilant.


As usual P, you have managed to say basically the same thing as I and use about a thousand less words! :salute:

[Mr. P]

As usual P, you have managed to say basically the same thing as I and use about a thousand less words! :salute:

I try an keep things short an sweet, I could never write a book over a few pages long. :laugh2:

Here's to those that can! :beer:

[red states rule]

Lemme 'splain something to you, and I'll use little words so you can understand. It doesn't matter if water-boarding was "only" used three times. It is torture under every definition of torture under US statute and international law. We prosecuted, and then hung those who were found guilty of using the technique against our own troops in WW II. It was a felony each and every time it was authorized by the Bush administration...It doesn't matter if it was one or a hundred times.

Oh, and how do you know it the use of water-boarding wasn't authorized by the Bush adminstration more than those three times that amyone knows of?

Waterboarding does not meet the definition of torture BP. It only simulates drowning, and the terrorist is not harmed in any way

And how do you know more then 3 were waterboarded? Or are you saying ABC is now on Pres Bush's side?

[5stringJeff]

Waterboarding does not meet the definition of torture BP. It only simulates drowning, and the terrorist is not harmed in any way

And how do you know more then 3 were waterboarded? Or are you saying ABC is now on Pres Bush's side?

Incorrect. The waterboarding subject is harmed physically. And one cannot simulate drowning without pouring water down someone's throat. Do you think that's kosher, RSR? Do you think that having water poured into your lungs for 30-60 seconds is harmless? Because if you do, and you defend its use against terrorists at Gitmo, then you tacitly support its use against domestic prisoners.

Waterboarding clearly meets the legal definition of torture, as stated in US code.