Legal Precedents Regarding Waterboarding

[jreeves]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1196726-post91.html

1. Yes
2. Yes

Of course the CIA wouldn't have been questioning me, unless you equate me to KSM?

 

[DiveCon]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1196726-post91.html

1. Yes
2. Yes

Of course the CIA wouldn't have been questioning me, unless you equate me to KSM?

because you didnt say you had any info

 

[jreeves]

1. Yes
2. Yes

Of course the CIA wouldn't have been questioning me, unless you equate me to KSM?

because you didnt say you had any info

Bingo...

 

[Article 15]

Of course the CIA wouldn't have been questioning me, unless you equate me to KSM?

because you didnt say you had any info

Bingo...

I hear what you are saying but I don't take the gov'ts word for it.

What I want is a policy that it's illegal to use these methods and if we do then they will have to explained in a court of law.

 

[jreeves]

because you didnt say you had any info

Bingo...

I hear what you are saying but I don't take the gov'ts word for it.

What I want is a policy that it's illegal to use these methods and if we do then they will have to explained in a court of law.

The word High Level doesn't mean anything? I mean we have the 4th amendment that bars illegal search and seizure, but if the police see a murdered person lying on a table through the window. Then it is completely legal for the police to enter the house without a warrant. The same principle applies here, if the CIA knows that an attack is imminent then they should be allowed to use enhanced interrogations to be able to prevent an attack.

 

[Iriemon]

Assertion:

JFK authorized waterboarding in his adminstration...

Evidence:

Here you go...
Waterboarding Historically Controversial - washingtonpost.com
A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

Nothing in that article supports your assertion that JFK authorized waterboarding, which we can now assume is something you made up to support your position, unless you have some evidence to support it.

A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

OK....

You don't see the missing link there? You asserted that JFK authorized waterboarding. Yet your evidence talks about a CIA interrogation training manual involving a technique that, unlike waterboarding, doesn't involve controlled drowning.

How does that prove JKF authorized it? What evidence is there he know about the manual or the procedure? Was it a change in policy? What is there to suggest that JFK authorized this, as you claim.

Or is that something you just added to make your argument sound better?

 

[Article 15]

Bingo...

I hear what you are saying but I don't take the gov'ts word for it.

What I want is a policy that it's illegal to use these methods and if we do then they will have to explained in a court of law.

The word High Level doesn't mean anything? I mean we have the 4th amendment that bars illegal search and seizure, but if the police see a murdered person lying on a table through the window. Then it is completely legal for the police to enter the house without a warrant. The same principle applies here, if the CIA knows that an attack is imminent then they should be allowed to use enhanced interrogations to be able to prevent an attack.

If they choose to use torture to then they should find themselves in a court of law to explain their actions.

 

[Iriemon]

I already answered these questions based on reality not in some quasi-reality world.

He asked you a simple, straightforward hypo as part of a discussion, same as you asked him.

The fact that you refused to answer is in itself an answer that you recognize your position is indefensible.

It would only appear that way to the mentally handicapped...

That would only be the response from someone who was dodging the question.

 

[jreeves]

I hear what you are saying but I don't take the gov'ts word for it.

What I want is a policy that it's illegal to use these methods and if we do then they will have to explained in a court of law.

The word High Level doesn't mean anything? I mean we have the 4th amendment that bars illegal search and seizure, but if the police see a murdered person lying on a table through the window. Then it is completely legal for the police to enter the house without a warrant. The same principle applies here, if the CIA knows that an attack is imminent then they should be allowed to use enhanced interrogations to be able to prevent an attack.

If they choose to use torture to then they should find themselves in a court of law to explain their actions.

Yes and while their in court a building full of people in La gets hit by a commerical airliner and hundreds of people die.

 

[jreeves]

He asked you a simple, straightforward hypo as part of a discussion, same as you asked him.

The fact that you refused to answer is in itself an answer that you recognize your position is indefensible.

It would only appear that way to the mentally handicapped...

That would only be the response from someone who was dodging the question.

I answered the questions

 

[jreeves]

Assertion:



Evidence:



Nothing in that article supports your assertion that JFK authorized waterboarding, which we can now assume is something you made up to support your position, unless you have some evidence to support it.

A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

OK....

You don't see the missing link there? You asserted that JFK authorized waterboarding. Yet your evidence talks about a CIA interrogation training manual involving a technique that, unlike waterboarding, doesn't involve controlled drowning.

How does that prove JKF authorized it? What evidence is there he know about the manual or the procedure? Was it a change in policy? What is there to suggest that JFK authorized this, as you claim.

Or is that something you just added to make your argument sound better?

These are methods that was employed by the CIA in the 60's. Shocking suspects, a procedure similar to waterboarding, and other torture as defined by you.

 

[Iriemon]

A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

OK....

You don't see the missing link there? You asserted that JFK authorized waterboarding. Yet your evidence talks about a CIA interrogation training manual involving a technique that, unlike waterboarding, doesn't involve controlled drowning.

How does that prove JKF authorized it? What evidence is there he know about the manual or the procedure? Was it a change in policy? What is there to suggest that JFK authorized this, as you claim.

Or is that something you just added to make your argument sound better?

These are methods that was employed by the CIA in the 60's. Shocking suspects, a procedure similar to waterboarding, and other torture as defined by you.

You did just make up your statement that JFK authorized waterboarding to make your argument sound better. It's completely false.

 

[Article 15]

The word High Level doesn't mean anything? I mean we have the 4th amendment that bars illegal search and seizure, but if the police see a murdered person lying on a table through the window. Then it is completely legal for the police to enter the house without a warrant. The same principle applies here, if the CIA knows that an attack is imminent then they should be allowed to use enhanced interrogations to be able to prevent an attack.

If they choose to use torture to then they should find themselves in a court of law to explain their actions.

Yes and while their in court a building full of people in La gets hit by a commerical airliner and hundreds of people die.

If it's an imminent attack then there's no time for that.

Act now and answer questions later but you better be damn sure you're right.

 

[jreeves]

You don't see the missing link there? You asserted that JFK authorized waterboarding. Yet your evidence talks about a CIA interrogation training manual involving a technique that, unlike waterboarding, doesn't involve controlled drowning.

How does that prove JKF authorized it? What evidence is there he know about the manual or the procedure? Was it a change in policy? What is there to suggest that JFK authorized this, as you claim.

Or is that something you just added to make your argument sound better?

These are methods that was employed by the CIA in the 60's. Shocking suspects, a procedure similar to waterboarding, and other torture as defined by you.

You did just make up your statement that JFK authorized waterboarding to make your argument sound better. It's completely false.

No I didn't, the article clearly said the CIA employed a process that was similar to waterboarding. But it doesn't surprise me that you ignored the article. Also it doesn't surprise me that you ignored that the CIA shocked suspects and stripped suspects to sexually humiliate them in the 60's. I wonder why you ignored the article, oh I know why now, never mind.

 

[jreeves]

If they choose to use torture to then they should find themselves in a court of law to explain their actions.

Yes and while their in court a building full of people in La gets hit by a commerical airliner and hundreds of people die.

If it's an imminent attack then there's no time for that.

Act now and answer questions later but you better be damn sure you're right.

Evidently they were right, according to the DOJ memo.

 

[Iriemon]

These are methods that was employed by the CIA in the 60's. Shocking suspects, a procedure similar to waterboarding, and other torture as defined by you.

You did just make up your statement that JFK authorized waterboarding to make your argument sound better. It's completely false.

No I didn't, the article clearly said the CIA employed a process that was similar to waterboarding. But it doesn't surprise me that you ignored the article. Also it doesn't surprise me that you ignored that the CIA shocked suspects and stripped suspects to sexually humiliate them in the 60's. I wonder why you ignored the article, oh I know why now, never mind.

Your argument would be valid if you had stated the CIA employed a process that was similar to waterboarding.

But you said JFK authorized waterboarding. A complete lie you made to support your argument.

 

[jreeves]

You did just make up your statement that JFK authorized waterboarding to make your argument sound better. It's completely false.

No I didn't, the article clearly said the CIA employed a process that was similar to waterboarding. But it doesn't surprise me that you ignored the article. Also it doesn't surprise me that you ignored that the CIA shocked suspects and stripped suspects to sexually humiliate them in the 60's. I wonder why you ignored the article, oh I know why now, never mind.

Your argument would be valid if you had stated the CIA employed a process that was similar to waterboarding.

But you said JFK authorized waterboarding. A complete lie you made to support your argument.

Whatever I think most reasonable people would say the two are barely distinguishable. Your play on semantics seems to me an attempt to make up for your lack of explaination why JFK authorized torture(according to you).

 

[Bullypulpit]

So all of you right wing tools are down with Iranians water-boarding American journalist, Roxana Saberi, right?

Or maybe you'd be alright with North Korean authorities water-boarding US reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee?

If you don't, you're saying it's alright for the US to subject detainees to torture, but it's wrong if anyone else does so. You're a bunch of sick, hypocritical, fear-ridden sots. Never mind that torture is an evil, regardless of who perpetrates it for whatever reason.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So all of you right wing tools are down with Iranians water-boarding American journalist, Roxana Saberi, right?

Or maybe you'd be alright with North Korean authorities water-boarding US reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee?

If you don't, you're saying it's alright for the US to subject detainees to torture, but it's wrong if anyone else does so. You're a bunch of sick, hypocritical, fear-ridden sots. Never mind that torture is an evil, regardless of who perpetrates it for whatever reason.

Oh... GOD that's precious... Again friends, the premise is to dismiss EVERYTHING which is relevant... and push equivocation.... If 'we' do it to them, they'll do it to us...

Golly... that's a toughy. 'Cause we sure wouldn't want to do anything which might make "THEM" do something irresponsible... so the conclusion which this member is advancing must be that if 'we don't want no trouble, we best not start trouble...'

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

If "THEM" feel that those women are in possession of time critical information which is essential to stopping Mass Murder on innocent people... then they're damn well obligated to induce the cooperation of those two women...

Of course, there is no actual valid, reasoned basis for believing such, thus there's no actual basis for such techniques to be applied...

Of course, their was no valid, reason basis for the above acts... either, yet they executed then anyway; so we should do what needs to be done to stop these idiots... and listening to the feminized left and their irrational, invalid reasoning, isn't conducive to such.

To the contrary; it's counter productive.

 

[Iriemon]

No I didn't, the article clearly said the CIA employed a process that was similar to waterboarding. But it doesn't surprise me that you ignored the article. Also it doesn't surprise me that you ignored that the CIA shocked suspects and stripped suspects to sexually humiliate them in the 60's. I wonder why you ignored the article, oh I know why now, never mind.

Your argument would be valid if you had stated the CIA employed a process that was similar to waterboarding.

But you said JFK authorized waterboarding. A complete lie you made to support your argument.

Whatever I think most reasonable people would say the two are barely distinguishable. Your play on semantics seems to me an attempt to make up for your lack of explaination why JFK authorized torture(according to you).

Funny.