Cheney Admits He Authorized Torture Against Guantanamo Detainees

[Chris]

no argument here.

Whatever....

 

[chrismac]

I don't know. I kind of hate to admit it, but I don't have a huge problem using water torture against terrorists who would seek to hurt us. I think it's actually a humane way of getting them to talk, considering the litany of alternative options. So for that, I can appreciate Cheney's ruthlessness. On the other hand, this administration's ruthlessness -- to the point of lawlessness -- has been the result of policies I disagree with.

 

[garyd]

First it is accepted by you that Waterboarding is torture , not by everyone and it worked quite well according to Tenet the Clinton Appointee. In fact torture in general works quite well if properly done i.e. you have to cross check everything you get.

You don't just beat some one or ask leading questions. What you people on the left don't know about interrogation could and likely has filled several manuals on proceedure.

 

[Xenophon]

He explained it quite well,

No, he did not, as he doesn't know what he's talking about.

you are just talking shit.

It on;y seems that way to you, because you also don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Lycurgus]

IMO..............

In terms of more extreme methods for gaining information, I don't feel it should be standard practice, but, I also do not believe that it should be off the table. In this particular case when you are dealing with people capable of the acts they committed, water boarding pales in comparison and if you have a high value detainee then everything should be on the table.

Should it be standard practice? No.
Should regular military handle these people and methods? No.
Should the choice to go to this level come from only the president? Yes.
Does the dropping of the twin towers and all lives lost on 9/11 justify taking this step? Yes.

War is dirty business. Be it war on a city street or war in a far away land. A person completely set on being a martyr will not break under normal methods. This mentality is even more dedicated than that of kamikaze.

Should it be our preference? Of course not. Should we take all steps and methods to avoid going to a extreme method? Yes, absolutely. Are American lives worth these more extreme measures? Hell yes!

Naturally we can always find words to justify our actions. We can pamper our own minds to make what others may seem extreme. However, this is very real life and death and opposed to what many would like to think, terrorism against American's is not new. In fact, it is a very old method used against our citizens for many years. Only now, it has hit home. Now the blood from it is on American soil.

We need to use every method available, from civic, to political, to military, to under the table black ops. We can fight this with all our resources or we can die.

Just my feelings on it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The old saying goes " Anything's fair in love and war"! And this interaction with Al Qaida is certainly no love affair! I really have no problem with torturing.

Dude - you just justified torture with cliches. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

which for your benefit I will assume refers to an enemy who has not abided by international standards af war conduct.

According to whom?

The problem is with this example, however, is that it occurred in 1901, or 45 years prior to the GC.

Why is that a problem?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

LOL! No, that's definitely not the answer.

Yes it is youngster, no 'court' has authority over the executive branch, try reading the Constitution some time.

I do occasionally reread it, thanks for reminding me. By the way, you are wrong. You completely made up the above "fact". The Constitution does not state that the executive branch is not subject to judicial authority. You quite literally just made that up.

As I have told you several times, this is all above your head, you need to do a lot of reading and become familar with how the USA works and it would save you a lot of embarrassment that you are now recieving.

Why do I need to do a lot of reading when I could just make shit up and pretend its true like you do?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I don't know. I kind of hate to admit it, but I don't have a huge problem using water torture against terrorists who would seek to hurt us.

How do you know they are terrorists?

I think it's actually a humane way of getting them to talk,

then you are inhuman.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

First it is accepted by you that Waterboarding is torture , not by everyone .

The only people that don't accept waterboarding as torture are people that want to torture using waterboarding and get away with it - or their spineless apologists such as yourself

 

[SpidermanTuba]

IMO..............

In terms of more extreme methods for gaining information, I don't feel it should be standard practice, but, I also do not believe that it should be off the table. In this particular case when you are dealing with people capable of the acts they committed, water boarding pales in comparison and if you have a high value detainee then everything should be on the table.
.

What is the legal definition of "the table" ?

Or would you prefer our men in arms take action based on cliched metaphors instead of rigid legal definitions?

 

[DiveCon]

LOL! No, that's definitely not the answer.

Yes it is youngster, no 'court' has authority over the executive branch, try reading the Constitution some time.

I do occasionally reread it, thanks for reminding me. By the way, you are wrong. You completely made up the above "fact". The Constitution does not state that the executive branch is not subject to judicial authority. You quite literally just made that up.

As I have told you several times, this is all above your head, you need to do a lot of reading and become familar with how the USA works and it would save you a lot of embarrassment that you are now recieving.

Why do I need to do a lot of reading when I could just make shit up and pretend its true like you do?

what court has authority over the executive?
not the SCOTUS
they are co-equal branches
same as congress

 

[SpidermanTuba]

what court has authority over the executive?
not the SCOTUS
they are co-equal branches
same as congress

Are you trying to imply that ambassadors aren't members of the executive branch, or that you haven't read the constitution?

 

[DiveCon]

what court has authority over the executive?
not the SCOTUS
they are co-equal branches
same as congress

Are you trying to imply that ambassadors aren't members of the executive branch, or that you haven't read the constitution?

and what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

 

[Gunny]

The old saying goes " Anything's fair in love and war"! And this interaction with Al Qaida is certainly no love affair! I really have no problem with torturing.

Dude - you just justified torture with cliches. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Nah. The dumbest is the title of this thread.

 

[garyd]

A crime committed on foreign soil is not in fact under the juridiction of the US legal system hence The abusers at Abu Graib faced a military trial rather than a civilian one.

Watertboarding is no more torture than is solitary confinement. By the way done correctly certain tyes of punishment work quite well tuba. You and other people whistling this bullshiot in the dark don't know a damn thing about interrogation techniques or you'd no better than to voice such nonsense.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

A crime committed on foreign soil is not in fact under the juridiction of the US legal system hence .

According to what law or court decision? Or did you just make that up?

18 U.S.C. § 2441

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

18 U.S.C. § 1203

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

what court has authority over the executive?
not the SCOTUS
they are co-equal branches
same as congress

Are you trying to imply that ambassadors aren't members of the executive branch, or that you haven't read the constitution?

and what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

You said the SCOTUS doesn't have authority over the executive. The Constitution explicitly gives the SCOTUS jurisdiction over the actions of ambassadors. So I figured either you didn't think ambassadors were part of the executive or you hadn't read the Constitution.

 

[DiveCon]

Are you trying to imply that ambassadors aren't members of the executive branch, or that you haven't read the constitution?

and what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

You said the SCOTUS doesn't have authority over the executive. The Constitution explicitly gives the SCOTUS jurisdiction over the actions of ambassadors. So I figured either you didn't think ambassadors were part of the executive or you hadn't read the Constitution.

again, what the fuck does that have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

and what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

You said the SCOTUS doesn't have authority over the executive. The Constitution explicitly gives the SCOTUS jurisdiction over the actions of ambassadors. So I figured either you didn't think ambassadors were part of the executive or you hadn't read the Constitution.

again, what the fuck does that have to do with the topic at hand?

YOU are the one who erroneously mentioned the SCOTUS doesn't have authority over the executive, were you just babbling? See,. you said:

"what court has authority over the executive?
not the SCOTUS
they are co-equal branches
same as congress"


We you not talking about the topic at hand?