Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More lies. According to the CIA, there is no difference. We don't have a kinder, gentler version of waterboarding.
The United States's Office of Legal Counsel stated the CIA's definition of waterboarding in a Top Secret 2002 memorandum as follows:
In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth... During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths... The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout... You have... informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-22
McRino should admit he is a Democrat
after Lieberman admits he's a Republican.
McRino should admit he is a Democrat
after Lieberman admits he's a Republican.
Funny, that Ticket would have beat Obama hands down. Not to say that we still would have been Headless and Fucked, at the same time.
More lies. According to the CIA, there is no difference. We don't have a kinder, gentler version of waterboarding.
The United States's Office of Legal Counsel stated the CIA's definition of waterboarding in a Top Secret 2002 memorandum as follows:
In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth... During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths... The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout... You have... informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-22
What does the Vietnamese Office of Legal Council say about it?
Oh yeah. The NVA didnt give a shit about it being legal. They didnt give a shit if someone died during the process. And they didnt give a shit whether they got information or not.
I guess that pretty much distinguishes torture in Vietnam from the interrogation techniques used by the U.S..
More lies. According to the CIA, there is no difference. We don't have a kinder, gentler version of waterboarding.
The United States's Office of Legal Counsel stated the CIA's definition of waterboarding in a Top Secret 2002 memorandum as follows:
In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth... During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths... The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout... You have... informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-22
What does the Vietnamese Office of Legal Council say about it?
Oh yeah. The NVA didnt give a shit about it being legal. They didnt give a shit if someone died during the process. And they didnt give a shit whether they got information or not.
I guess that pretty much distinguishes torture in Vietnam from the interrogation techniques used by the U.S..
no, that distinguishes end goals. it does nothing to distinguish how the act of waterboarding done by a us official is any different than the act of waterboarding done by anyone else.
I don't blame you for putting him on ignore. You won't have to see him making a fool of you anymore.What does the Vietnamese Office of Legal Council say about it?
Oh yeah. The NVA didnt give a shit about it being legal. They didnt give a shit if someone died during the process. And they didnt give a shit whether they got information or not.
I guess that pretty much distinguishes torture in Vietnam from the interrogation techniques used by the U.S..
no, that distinguishes end goals. it does nothing to distinguish how the act of waterboarding done by a us official is any different than the act of waterboarding done by anyone else.
Like I said. You arent interested in arriving at the truth, just proving a point.
In fact no one has made the claim waterboarding was illegal.
You lose.
And go on iggy.
I don't blame you for putting him on ignore. You won't have to see him making a fool of you anymore.no, that distinguishes end goals. it does nothing to distinguish how the act of waterboarding done by a us official is any different than the act of waterboarding done by anyone else.
Like I said. You arent interested in arriving at the truth, just proving a point.
In fact no one has made the claim waterboarding was illegal.
You lose.
And go on iggy.
You're not very good at hiding your deflecting.There, see. Someone provides something and all you can do is attack it. You aren't interested in the truth. Someone could provide a thousand differences all with proof and you would find something to dispute. That's what makes you a smelly troll.Sounds like an opinion to me.There is one major difference.
When the NVA water boarded people they tied them to a board so they could not move, put a cloth over their face, and physically dunked them in water. We, on the other hand, did not restrain them, and stopped it as soon as they sat up. this entire thing was explained to them in advance, and all they actually had to do to entirely avoid the sensation of drowoning was sit up before the process began.
if that is the case why would we even use it?
i find this very hard to believe. do you have a source?
FACTS!!! WHERE ARE THEY!!! 
He's transparent. He's been asked the same question 3-4 times and all he and his buddy do is type something on their keyboardsyou're in idiot. he didn't provide anything except a statement with no backing. anyone can say anything and say it's true - i'm sure you do it a lot - but without some kind of credible source to back it up that statement and an empty sack is worth an empty sack.There, see. Someone provides something and all you can do is attack it. You aren't interested in the truth. Someone could provide a thousand differences all with proof and you would find something to dispute. That's what makes you a smelly troll.if that is the case why would we even use it?
i find this very hard to believe. do you have a source?
seriously, why does this have to be explained to you? do you just accept everything some anonymous person writes on the internet as true (don't answer that. i'm sure the answer is yes, so long as it backs up your preconceived notions)
and present it as "fact" LOLOL
Speaking on Hugh Hewitts radio show, Santorum, the presidential hopeful and former Pennsylvania senator, says McCain is misguided in his stance against the enhanced interrogation techniques sanctioned during the Bush administration but discontinued by Obama's White House, which has labeled them torture.
I can't believe it. Of all the people in this country, Rick Santorum says "John McCain doesn't understand torture". Of all the people. If John McCain doesn't understand torture, who does?
Oh goodie! A DUMB statement from a DUMB MFing poster. How is it different dumbdumb?Thats rich coming from that dope seeing as how McCain was a POW.
What does McCain having been a POW have to do with it? Our waterboarding technique is NOT the waterboarding used by the Vietnamese. Just sayin'.
It doesn't work that way palooka. Provide links.What does McCain having been a POW have to do with it? Our waterboarding technique is NOT the waterboarding used by the Vietnamese. Just sayin'.
in what ways is it different?
In every single way. Go read an account of US waterboarding and see if that sounds like something the NVA would do.
McCain was a POW during the VietNam conflict and he was tortured but not interrogated. Carrier pilot McCain didn't know anything worth knowing. The VC tortured him enough to force him to appear as a traitor signing documents critical of the US and giving statements critical of his Country. If the V.C. could force a good Navy pilot and the son of an Admiral to appear as a traitor to his Country you have to believe that enhanced interrogation of jihad scum can and did produce results. It's understandable that McCain came back a bitter and perhaps psychologically twisted man. You can't count on his opinion of enhanced interrogation to be without some crazy bias. Our own Troops go through waterboarding during training in advanced courses. The psychological terror is worse than the real thing and that's what psy-ops is all about. More people died in Teddy Kennedy's car than during waterboarding.
Did you just type that out or do you have a source.
Thats rich coming from that dope seeing as how McCain was a POW.
What does McCain having been a POW have to do with it? Our waterboarding technique is NOT the waterboarding used by the Vietnamese. Just sayin'.
What does the Vietnamese Office of Legal Council say about it?
Oh yeah. The NVA didnt give a shit about it being legal. They didnt give a shit if someone died during the process. And they didnt give a shit whether they got information or not.
I guess that pretty much distinguishes torture in Vietnam from the interrogation techniques used by the U.S..
I bet waterboarding has been going on for decades, including during this administration.
after Lieberman admits he's a Republican.
Funny, that Ticket would have beat Obama hands down. Not to say that we still would have been Headless and Fucked, at the same time.
No it would not.
The press was in the tank for Obama and did everything they could to portray McCain as an old white guy out of the loop and Obama as a young cool black guy who could solve problems.
It didnt help that McCain reinforced that image.
To say that John McCain doesn't understand torture is only done by a fool. I think 6 years in a NVA prison qualifies. Torture takes on many forms, water boarding is just one of them
What does the Vietnamese Office of Legal Council say about it?
Oh yeah. The NVA didnt give a shit about it being legal. They didnt give a shit if someone died during the process. And they didnt give a shit whether they got information or not.
I guess that pretty much distinguishes torture in Vietnam from the interrogation techniques used by the U.S..
no, that distinguishes end goals. it does nothing to distinguish how the act of waterboarding done by a us official is any different than the act of waterboarding done by anyone else.
Like I said. You arent interested in arriving at the truth, just proving a point.
In fact no one has made the claim waterboarding was illegal.
You lose.
And go on iggy.
No.Funny, that Ticket would have beat Obama hands down. Not to say that we still would have been Headless and Fucked, at the same time.
No it would not.
The press was in the tank for Obama and did everything they could to portray McCain as an old white guy out of the loop and Obama as a young cool black guy who could solve problems.
It didnt help that McCain reinforced that image.
Still McCain would have had the advantage, Experience. Lieberman would have reinforced that. Sarah, blew it out of the water, the realization that if anything happened to him, a very inexperienced person at the time would be in line to replace him. Sort of like what we have now.
I did not support McCain, He was the worst of the Republican choices, probably why the DNC worked so hard to have him nominated in the first place. Had he won, he was the least of what the DNC saw as evil, in their little warped peanut brains, and he was easy for them to manipulate. So it was a win-win for the DNC when he got the Nomination. Most of us held our noses when we voted for him, those of us that even bothered to vote.
Obama was the Dark Horse, most knew little or nothing about. His handlers kept it that way throughout the Campaign, to date, there is much of him we still know little about.
You're not very good at hiding your deflecting.There, see. Someone provides something and all you can do is attack it. You aren't interested in the truth. Someone could provide a thousand differences all with proof and you would find something to dispute. That's what makes you a smelly troll.Sounds like an opinion to me.
if that is the case why would we even use it?
i find this very hard to believe. do you have a source?
He's transparent. He's been asked the same question 3-4 times and all he and his buddy do is type something on their keyboardsyou're in idiot. he didn't provide anything except a statement with no backing. anyone can say anything and say it's true - i'm sure you do it a lot - but without some kind of credible source to back it up that statement and an empty sack is worth an empty sack.There, see. Someone provides something and all you can do is attack it. You aren't interested in the truth. Someone could provide a thousand differences all with proof and you would find something to dispute. That's what makes you a smelly troll.
seriously, why does this have to be explained to you? do you just accept everything some anonymous person writes on the internet as true (don't answer that. i'm sure the answer is yes, so long as it backs up your preconceived notions)
What does the Vietnamese Office of Legal Council say about it?
Oh yeah. The NVA didnt give a shit about it being legal. They didnt give a shit if someone died during the process. And they didnt give a shit whether they got information or not.
I guess that pretty much distinguishes torture in Vietnam from the interrogation techniques used by the U.S..
If I punched you square in the jaw for fun and called it "Face Tapping" then someone else punched you square in the jaw asking for information and called it "Serious Questioning" what difference does it make?
Are you really this MFing DUMB?
You people really are guttersnipe!
