CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attac

[Iriemon]

Irie --

Since you are apparently a great student of history, please compare and contrast the methods of "waterboarding" used by the Japanese etc and the "waterboarding" used by the United States recently.

You are taking advantage of the fact that these two techniques are known by the same name. Comparing waterboarding as done by the US recently to waterboarding done by the Japanese is like saying shooting you with a BB gun is the same as shooting you with a 120 mm Howitzer.

I look forward to your answer.

Japanese verion:

Chase J. Nielsen, one of the U.S. airmen who flew in the Doolittle raid following the attack on Pearl Harbor, was subjected to waterboarding by his Japanese captors.[69] At their trial for war crimes following the war, he testified "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again… I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US version -

This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of ‘suffocation and incipient panic,’ i.e., the perception of drowning. The individual does not breathe any water into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of 12 to 24 inches. ... The sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated.

“Although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. ... Although the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statutory prohibition infliction of severe mental pain or suffering[/B]. ... Indeed, you have advised us that the relief is almost immediate when the cloth is removed from the nose and mouth. In the absence of prolonged mental harm, no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture within the meaning of the statute.”

Interrogation Techniques - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

a footnote to a 2005 memo made it clear that the rules were not always followed. Waterboarding was used “with far greater frequency than initially indicated” and with “large volumes of water” rather than the small quantities in the rules, one memo says, citing a 2004 report by the C.I.A.’s inspector general.

Obama releases details of post-9/11 interrogations | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News

What is the basis for your assertion that the US version of waterboarding was somehow done more humanely?

The instance you cite of Japanese waterboarding is by far the mildest example I've ever heard recounted, but even at that the difference is that death can and did occur during the Japanese version. The reason is that the US tips the waterboardee back so that water cannot enter the lungs of the waterboardee. This prevents death from occurring.

This was the tesimony of Nielsen against the Japanese in the trial for war crimes.

I personally wasn't there so who knows exactly how it was done by the Japanese or US interrogators. The CIA memo states that the "waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death ..." which undermines your point that somehow the American version is safe.

In most cases of waterboarding by the Japanese, they used inundation, dunking and other techniques where prisoners were put under water, usually feet downward so there was a very real possibility of drowning.

Real Japanese Torture techniques

Far from your description of Japanese torture, this unclassified document produced in 1945 for General MacArthur covered what the Japanese actually did. For Example:

- kneeling with a broomstick behind the knees for a couple hours followed by interrogation then decapitation.

- putting a hose into the throat of the PW and filling his stomach with water. Then a plank was placed across the distended stomach and a Japanese soldier on each end would "see-saw" on the PW. This usually resulted in death.

Interestingly, in that document, they did not mention your cited water boarding technique.

Irrelevant. The issue isn't whether there were worse techniques or that they were used by the Japanese.

The relevant point is that the same torture technique -- waterboarding -- that we condemned and prosecuted Japanese as war criminals for, is being claimed legitimate for use by the US today.

Personally, whatever variant you want to assert is used, I would not agree to a rule that legitimize this to be done against American prisoners.

 

[Maple]

Winston Churchill" If you are twenty and you are not a liberal you don't have a heart. If you are forty and still a liberal you don't have a brain."

Winston Churchill," The only argument against a democracy is having a five minute conversation with an average voter."

My take, The only argument against a democracy is a 1 minute conversation with an Obama voter.

 

[DiveCon]

Japanese verion:

Chase J. Nielsen, one of the U.S. airmen who flew in the Doolittle raid following the attack on Pearl Harbor, was subjected to waterboarding by his Japanese captors.[69] At their trial for war crimes following the war, he testified "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again… I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US version -

This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of ‘suffocation and incipient panic,’ i.e., the perception of drowning. The individual does not breathe any water into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of 12 to 24 inches. ... The sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated.

“Although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. ... Although the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statutory prohibition infliction of severe mental pain or suffering[/B]. ... Indeed, you have advised us that the relief is almost immediate when the cloth is removed from the nose and mouth. In the absence of prolonged mental harm, no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture within the meaning of the statute.”

Interrogation Techniques - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

a footnote to a 2005 memo made it clear that the rules were not always followed. Waterboarding was used “with far greater frequency than initially indicated” and with “large volumes of water” rather than the small quantities in the rules, one memo says, citing a 2004 report by the C.I.A.’s inspector general.

Obama releases details of post-9/11 interrogations | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News

What is the basis for your assertion that the US version of waterboarding was somehow done more humanely?

The instance you cite of Japanese waterboarding is by far the mildest example I've ever heard recounted, but even at that the difference is that death can and did occur during the Japanese version. The reason is that the US tips the waterboardee back so that water cannot enter the lungs of the waterboardee. This prevents death from occurring.

This was the tesimony of Nielsen against the Japanese in the trial for war crimes.

I personally wasn't there so who knows exactly how it was done by the Japanese or US interrogators. The CIA memo states that the "waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death ..." which undermines your point that somehow the American version is safe.

In most cases of waterboarding by the Japanese, they used inundation, dunking and other techniques where prisoners were put under water, usually feet downward so there was a very real possibility of drowning.

Real Japanese Torture techniques

Far from your description of Japanese torture, this unclassified document produced in 1945 for General MacArthur covered what the Japanese actually did. For Example:

- kneeling with a broomstick behind the knees for a couple hours followed by interrogation then decapitation.

- putting a hose into the throat of the PW and filling his stomach with water. Then a plank was placed across the distended stomach and a Japanese soldier on each end would "see-saw" on the PW. This usually resulted in death.

Interestingly, in that document, they did not mention your cited water boarding technique.

Irrelevant. The issue isn't whether there were worse techniques or that they were used by the Japanese.

The relevant point is that the same torture technique -- waterboarding -- that we condemned and prosecuted Japanese as war criminals for, is being claimed legitimate for use by the US today.

Personally, whatever variant you want to assert is used, I would not agree to a rule that legitimize this to be done against American prisoners.

WRONG, it WASNT the same technique
thats the problem you guys cant sepperate fact from fiction

 

[Zoom-boing]

Irrelevant. The issue isn't whether there were worse techniques or that they were used by the Japanese.

The relevant point is that the same torture technique -- waterboarding -- that we condemned and prosecuted Japanese as war criminals for, is being claimed legitimate for use by the US today.

Personally, whatever variant you want to assert is used, I would not agree to a rule that legitimize this to be done against American prisoners.

Of course not. American prisoners are not who we are talking about; talking about terrorists.

If harsh interrogation techniques are no longer used, how are they going to gain intel from terrorist prisoners?

 

[Iriemon]

Irrelevant. The issue isn't whether there were worse techniques or that they were used by the Japanese.

The relevant point is that the same torture technique -- waterboarding -- that we condemned and prosecuted Japanese as war criminals for, is being claimed legitimate for use by the US today.

Personally, whatever variant you want to assert is used, I would not agree to a rule that legitimize this to be done against American prisoners.

Of course not. American prisoners are not who we are talking about; talking about terrorists.

If harsh interrogation techniques are no longer used, how are they going to gain intel from terrorist prisoners?

If torture is justified if it might save lives, why shouldn't Americans be tortured?

Why wouldn't you torture Americans if it would save hundreds of thousand blah blah?

You use the same lawful techniques police use. Tickery. Deception. False leads. Other methods that we don't prosecute others for as torture. Methods that we would say are legitimate to use on our captured soldiers or citizens.

 

[DiveCon]

Irrelevant. The issue isn't whether there were worse techniques or that they were used by the Japanese.

The relevant point is that the same torture technique -- waterboarding -- that we condemned and prosecuted Japanese as war criminals for, is being claimed legitimate for use by the US today.

Personally, whatever variant you want to assert is used, I would not agree to a rule that legitimize this to be done against American prisoners.

Of course not. American prisoners are not who we are talking about; talking about terrorists.

If harsh interrogation techniques are no longer used, how are they going to gain intel from terrorist prisoners?

If torture is justified if it might save lives, why shouldn't Americans be tortured?

Why wouldn't you torture Americans if it would save hundreds of thousand blah blah?

You use the same lawful techniques police use. Tickery. Deception. False leads. Other methods that we don't prosecute others for as torture. Methods that we would say are legitimate to use on our captured soldiers or citizens.

no one was tortured

 

[eots]

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever...

George Orwell.

 

[Burp]

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=1&hp

Conveniently left out of the press release?

He also defends those who carried out the interrogations?

Looks like someone in BO government has sense.

It may be true that some useful information can be obtained from torture.

So I assume you'd support torture of American citizens where they may have useful information? An accused gang member perhaps? An accused organized crime member? How about someon who didn't pay his taxes because he says he has no money?

I support torture if it is the only way to get information from someone that will prevent the death of an American citizen.

Did the gang member kidnap someone and bury them alive - with only 2 hour of air? Hell yeah, rip out his fingernails. Same with the organized crime member.

Paying taxes...you know that is a ridiculous question.

Again, I will ask you. If your child was the child the gang member kidnapped? What would be "too harsh" treatment in order to get your child back?

 

[Bullypulpit]

So can all y'all right wing tools tell me why, if waterboarding is soooooo effective, Khalid Sheik Mohammed was treated to the procedure 183 times and Abu Zubaydah waterboarded 83 times.

History shows us that torture has been used for many reasons...Forcing victims to tell what they know or confess to crimes, recant their faith. And there's no debate on the question that torture elicits a response, which is why it's used. But that's also what makes it unreliable. The victims will say anything to bring the pain to an end. That's why US courts throw out any testimony acquired through coercion, i.e. torture.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So can all y'all right wing tools tell me why, if waterboarding is soooooo effective, Khalid Sheik Mohammed was treated to the procedure 183 times and Abu Zubaydah waterboarded 83 times.

History shows us that torture has been used for many reasons...Forcing victims to tell what they know or confess to crimes, recant their faith. And there's no debate on the question that torture elicits a response, which is why it's used. But that's also what makes it unreliable. The victims will say anything to bring the pain to an end. That's why US courts throw out any testimony acquired through coercion, i.e. torture.

For Fun

And the ten techniques were not torture. Why don't you list all ten and tell us why you think they were torture?

 

[Iriemon]

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=1&hp

Conveniently left out of the press release?

He also defends those who carried out the interrogations?

Looks like someone in BO government has sense.

It may be true that some useful information can be obtained from torture.

So I assume you'd support torture of American citizens where they may have useful information? An accused gang member perhaps? An accused organized crime member? How about someon who didn't pay his taxes because he says he has no money?

I support torture if it is the only way to get information from someone that will prevent the death of an American citizen.

Good for you, thought funny thing to say because I could have sworn you were one of those who talked about abiding by the US constitution.

I don't support torturing people.

Paying taxes...you know that is a ridiculous question.

Part jest

Again, I will ask you. If your child was the child the gang member kidnapped? What would be "too harsh" treatment in order to get your child back?

I would personally do a lot of things against the law in that situation, perhaps including torture. I would rob, steal, assault and do any number of illegal activities. That doesn't mean I'd support them being legal to do.

 

[Burp]

It may be true that some useful information can be obtained from torture.

So I assume you'd support torture of American citizens where they may have useful information? An accused gang member perhaps? An accused organized crime member? How about someon who didn't pay his taxes because he says he has no money?

I support torture if it is the only way to get information from someone that will prevent the death of an American citizen.

Good for you, thought funny thing to say because I could have sworn you were one of those who talked about abiding by the US constitution.

I don't support torturing people.

Paying taxes...you know that is a ridiculous question.

Part jest

Again, I will ask you. If your child was the child the gang member kidnapped? What would be "too harsh" treatment in order to get your child back?

I would personally do a lot of things against the law in that situation, perhaps including torture. I would rob, steal, assault and do any number of illegal activities. That doesn't mean I'd support them being legal to do.

But even you admit, in certain situations, those things would be necessary to do.

Pelosi approved them along with many other members of the House and Senate.

Republicans Claim Top Lawmakers Were in the Loop on Interrogations - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

In fact, BO's own director of national intelligence approved and said. “High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al- Qaeda organisation that was attacking this country.”

US official insists he disapproves of torture - The Irish Times - Thu, Apr 23, 2009

 

[Iriemon]

I support torture if it is the only way to get information from someone that will prevent the death of an American citizen.

Good for you, thought funny thing to say because I could have sworn you were one of those who talked about abiding by the US constitution.

I don't support torturing people.

Part jest

Again, I will ask you. If your child was the child the gang member kidnapped? What would be "too harsh" treatment in order to get your child back?

I would personally do a lot of things against the law in that situation, perhaps including torture. I would rob, steal, assault and do any number of illegal activities. That doesn't mean I'd support them being legal to do.

But even you admit, in certain situations, those things would be necessary to do.

Pelosi approved them along with many other members of the House and Senate.

Republicans Claim Top Lawmakers Were in the Loop on Interrogations - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

In fact, BO's own director of national intelligence approved and said. “High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al- Qaeda organisation that was attacking this country.”

US official insists he disapproves of torture - The Irish Times - Thu, Apr 23, 2009

Someone had asked earlier in this thread why not torture?

Another thread is discussing a recent article were there is evidence that the WH pressured interrogators to use "harsh mearsures" to get evidence Hussein was in bed with AQ. Waterboard a guy a few dozen times and what do you think the chances are he'll say that?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...to-prove-aq-sadam-ties-us-intell-officer.html

That's another reason why you don't do it. It can be used too easily as a tool to fabricate "evidence" and facts.

 

[Burp]

Good for you, thought funny thing to say because I could have sworn you were one of those who talked about abiding by the US constitution.

I don't support torturing people.

Part jest



I would personally do a lot of things against the law in that situation, perhaps including torture. I would rob, steal, assault and do any number of illegal activities. That doesn't mean I'd support them being legal to do.

But even you admit, in certain situations, those things would be necessary to do.

Pelosi approved them along with many other members of the House and Senate.

Republicans Claim Top Lawmakers Were in the Loop on Interrogations - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

In fact, BO's own director of national intelligence approved and said. “High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al- Qaeda organisation that was attacking this country.”

US official insists he disapproves of torture - The Irish Times - Thu, Apr 23, 2009

Someone had asked earlier in this thread why not torture?

Another thread is discussing a recent article were there is evidence that the WH pressured interrogators to use "harsh mearsures" to get evidence Hussein was in bed with AQ. Waterboard a guy a few dozen times and what do you think the chances are he'll say that?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...to-prove-aq-sadam-ties-us-intell-officer.html

That's another reason why you don't do it. It can be used too easily as a tool to fabricate "evidence" and facts.

Anyone can use anything to fabricate evidence. Just because someone can use something for an "unjust" end, doesn't mean that it is bad.

You can say that about guns, about fists, about anything.

 

[Iriemon]

But even you admit, in certain situations, those things would be necessary to do.

Pelosi approved them along with many other members of the House and Senate.

Republicans Claim Top Lawmakers Were in the Loop on Interrogations - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

In fact, BO's own director of national intelligence approved and said. “High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al- Qaeda organisation that was attacking this country.”

US official insists he disapproves of torture - The Irish Times - Thu, Apr 23, 2009

Someone had asked earlier in this thread why not torture?

Another thread is discussing a recent article were there is evidence that the WH pressured interrogators to use "harsh mearsures" to get evidence Hussein was in bed with AQ. Waterboard a guy a few dozen times and what do you think the chances are he'll say that?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...to-prove-aq-sadam-ties-us-intell-officer.html

That's another reason why you don't do it. It can be used too easily as a tool to fabricate "evidence" and facts.

Anyone can use anything to fabricate evidence. Just because someone can use something for an "unjust" end, doesn't mean that it is bad.

You can say that about guns, about fists, about anything.

Torture is particularly susceptible to this.

Torture a guys till he says Iraq had WMDs and Hussein was in bed with Iraq. The interrogator passes the word. Then the VP can go on TV and say "We now have evidence of Iraq's nuke program and ties with AQ" or whatever.

It's how the nazis got "confessions."

And it is why in our courts we have a rule against self incrimination. It's not because we don't want the defendant to have to talk. Its because if you allow evidence of self-incrimination, its too tempting for the cops to torture the guy till he fesses up or says what they want to make their case.

 

[Burp]

Someone had asked earlier in this thread why not torture?

Another thread is discussing a recent article were there is evidence that the WH pressured interrogators to use "harsh mearsures" to get evidence Hussein was in bed with AQ. Waterboard a guy a few dozen times and what do you think the chances are he'll say that?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...to-prove-aq-sadam-ties-us-intell-officer.html

That's another reason why you don't do it. It can be used too easily as a tool to fabricate "evidence" and facts.

Anyone can use anything to fabricate evidence. Just because someone can use something for an "unjust" end, doesn't mean that it is bad.

You can say that about guns, about fists, about anything.

Torture is particularly susceptible to this.

Torture a guys till he says Iraq had WMDs and Hussein was in bed with Iraq. The interrogator passes the word. Then the VP can go on TV and say "We now have evidence of Iraq's nuke program and ties with AQ" or whatever.

It's how the nazis got "confessions."

And it is why in our courts we have a rule against self incrimination. It's not because we don't want the defendant to have to talk. Its because if you allow evidence of self-incrimination, its too tempting for the cops to torture the guy till he fesses up or says what they want to make their case.

I accidentally left cigarettes, candy, pizza, a beer, a phone call to your mother and water off the list.

"Tell me what I want to know and I'll give you a ______________."

There are situations that justify torture. We rely on people to dictate what those situations are. You and I agree that torturing a kidnapper to have our child returned is appropriate.

Just because a group of people think that something wasn't right, years after it happened, doesn't mean they are right.

 

[Iriemon]

Anyone can use anything to fabricate evidence. Just because someone can use something for an "unjust" end, doesn't mean that it is bad.

You can say that about guns, about fists, about anything.

Torture is particularly susceptible to this.

Torture a guys till he says Iraq had WMDs and Hussein was in bed with Iraq. The interrogator passes the word. Then the VP can go on TV and say "We now have evidence of Iraq's nuke program and ties with AQ" or whatever.

It's how the nazis got "confessions."

And it is why in our courts we have a rule against self incrimination. It's not because we don't want the defendant to have to talk. Its because if you allow evidence of self-incrimination, its too tempting for the cops to torture the guy till he fesses up or says what they want to make their case.

I accidentally left cigarettes, candy, pizza, a beer, a phone call to your mother and water off the list.

"Tell me what I want to know and I'll give you a ______________."

There are situations that justify torture. We rely on people to dictate what those situations are. You and I agree that torturing a kidnapper to have our child returned is appropriate.

No, I said that in that circumstance *I* would probably do it. I never said it was appropriate as a rule or law, to the contrary.

Just because a group of people think that something wasn't right, years after it happened, doesn't mean they are right.

True, but it doesn't mean they are wrong.

 

[Burp]

Torture is particularly susceptible to this.

Torture a guys till he says Iraq had WMDs and Hussein was in bed with Iraq. The interrogator passes the word. Then the VP can go on TV and say "We now have evidence of Iraq's nuke program and ties with AQ" or whatever.

It's how the nazis got "confessions."

And it is why in our courts we have a rule against self incrimination. It's not because we don't want the defendant to have to talk. Its because if you allow evidence of self-incrimination, its too tempting for the cops to torture the guy till he fesses up or says what they want to make their case.

I accidentally left cigarettes, candy, pizza, a beer, a phone call to your mother and water off the list.

"Tell me what I want to know and I'll give you a ______________."

There are situations that justify torture. We rely on people to dictate what those situations are. You and I agree that torturing a kidnapper to have our child returned is appropriate.

No, I said that in that circumstance *I* would probably do it. I never said it was appropriate as a rule or law, to the contrary.

Just because a group of people think that something wasn't right, years after it happened, doesn't mean they are right.

True, but it doesn't mean they are wrong.

I didn't say appropriate as a rule or law; I said appropriate to YOU.

 

[Iriemon]

I accidentally left cigarettes, candy, pizza, a beer, a phone call to your mother and water off the list.

"Tell me what I want to know and I'll give you a ______________."

There are situations that justify torture. We rely on people to dictate what those situations are. You and I agree that torturing a kidnapper to have our child returned is appropriate.

No, I said that in that circumstance *I* would probably do it. I never said it was appropriate as a rule or law, to the contrary.

Just because a group of people think that something wasn't right, years after it happened, doesn't mean they are right.

True, but it doesn't mean they are wrong.

I didn't say appropriate as a rule or law; I said appropriate to YOU.

You wrote what is bolded, which I was clarifying. But I think we're on the same page.

 

[brownlou]

Waterboarding is torture.
Every American should be shocked that our great country did this.
I find it ironic that torture is being defended by the so called "values voters"
Principles only count when they are inconvient.