Waterboarding? 183 Times? Wrong...

[Old Rocks]

Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey has repeatedly refused to state whether or not waterboarding is illegal. In a legal dodge, Mukasey called the torture technique "hypothetical" and said that he would need the "actual facts and circumstances" to strike a "legal opinion."

But in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), four retired Judge Advocates General (JAGs) -- the judicial arm of the U.S. military -- sharply criticize Judge Mukasey's legal hedging. They unequivocally state that waterboarding is torture. From their letter:


In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of President Bush's nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of "waterboarding" under United States and international law. We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal. [...]


This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. [...]


In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a member of the JAG Corp. in the U.S. Air Force, also once condemned waterboarding as "illegal." "I don't think you have to have a lot of knowledge about the law to understand this technique violates" the Geneva Convention and other statutes, said Graham.

Retired JAGs On Waterboarding: "It Is Inhumane, It Is Torture, And It Is Illegal" | PEEK | AlterNet

 

[Burp]

Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey has repeatedly refused to state whether or not waterboarding is illegal. In a legal dodge, Mukasey called the torture technique "hypothetical" and said that he would need the "actual facts and circumstances" to strike a "legal opinion."

But in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), four retired Judge Advocates General (JAGs) -- the judicial arm of the U.S. military -- sharply criticize Judge Mukasey's legal hedging. They unequivocally state that waterboarding is torture. From their letter:


In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of President Bush's nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of "waterboarding" under United States and international law. We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal. [...]


This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. [...]


In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a member of the JAG Corp. in the U.S. Air Force, also once condemned waterboarding as "illegal." "I don't think you have to have a lot of knowledge about the law to understand this technique violates" the Geneva Convention and other statutes, said Graham.

Retired JAGs On Waterboarding: "It Is Inhumane, It Is Torture, And It Is Illegal" | PEEK | AlterNet

That might be somewhat impressive if this thread was about whether or not waterboarding is torture.

Unfortunately, for you, it isn't.

I believe the subject the alleged number of times this was used.

And according to the Red Cross report, Fox News reported the story accurately.

 

[Iriemon]

Is it possible that aliens will attack the world tomorrow?

I suppose so.

I guess that is the easy way to go. If there is information that doesn't support your side, simply question it's accuracy.

Or alternatively, if you want to be more persuasive to make a point, cite something more objective that Fox News. And yes, when we have a CIA memo saying he was waterboarded 183, I do question Fox's accuracy. Sorry if that offends your sense of fairness if you view Fox as a fountain of objectivity and veracity.

But irrespective, we are left with the Fox report on the Red cross on the one hand, and the CIA memo on the other.

Good Grief.

Page 11

http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf

Thanks. That's much more persuasive than a Fox News report.

 

[Burp]

Or alternatively, if you want to be more persuasive to make a point, cite something more objective that Fox News. And yes, when we have a CIA memo saying he was waterboarded 183, I do question Fox's accuracy. Sorry if that offends your sense of fairness if you view Fox as a fountain of objectivity and veracity.

But irrespective, we are left with the Fox report on the Red cross on the one hand, and the CIA memo on the other.

Good Grief.

Page 11

http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf

Thanks. That's much more persuasive than a Fox News report.

Why is that? As you can see, Fox reported accurately.

Is that so hard for you to accept?

 

[Iriemon]

Good Grief.

Page 11

http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf

Thanks. That's much more persuasive than a Fox News report.

Why is that? As you can see, Fox reported accurately.

Is that so hard for you to accept?

Same reason you'd look at a claim by the NY Times or MSNBC with suspicion.

But I'd question that Fox reported it accurately, because their report created the misimpression that it was the NYT that claimed KSM had been waterboarded 183 times. That is misleading because while the NYT reported that, the 183 figure came from the CIA memo, not the NYT.

 

[Burp]

Thanks. That's much more persuasive than a Fox News report.

Why is that? As you can see, Fox reported accurately.

Is that so hard for you to accept?

Same reason you'd look at a claim by MSNBC with suspicion.

I look at every news piece with suspicious. Everybody has an agenda.

That is why I look for other sources to verify.

You can't honestly say that EVERY piece of news from Fox is bogus.

You wanted me to cite something that was more objective because you automatically decided that since it was Fox, it was biased.

And I did. Fox reported this report accurately.

I know it's hard for some people to believe, but Fox does report news accurately.

Added because of your edit:

It just kills you that Fox was right.

 

[Xenophon]

Whatever they gave them, they should have doubled it.

 

[Iriemon]

Why is that? As you can see, Fox reported accurately.

Is that so hard for you to accept?

Same reason you'd look at a claim by MSNBC with suspicion.

I look at every news piece with suspicious. Everybody has an agenda.

That is why I look for other sources to verify.

You can't honestly say that EVERY piece of news from Fox is bogus.

Of course not. I would say a lot of it is not.

You wanted me to cite something that was more objective because you automatically decided that since it was Fox, it was biased.

Fox is biased, IMO. I don't think that is going out too far on a limb.

And I did. Fox reported this report accurately.

IMO truly objective reporting would have included noting that it is the CIA memos that claim 183 times.

I know it's hard for some people to believe, but Fox does report news accurately.

Added because of your edit:

It just kills you that Fox was right.

Not at all. Its just that IMO Fox is biased, and doesn't attempt to present information fairly or balanced but often leaves out important information or colors the facts to create a misimpression favorable to its conservative agenda.

My point is if you want to make a point that is going to be persuasive, don't cite Fox News and expect folks that are not conservatively biased to be persuaded that the Fox article is telling the whole story fairly.

I would not cite MSNBC or some liberally biased source to you for and expect your to be persuaded by the conclusions of the article.

 

[DiveCon]

All you Obamatrons let me down. I thought for sure you would put your spin on this story..say it isn't true.

Of course, once the truth comes out, you are all too embarrassed to even post.

Typical.

The real question is why you would post something from Fox News and expect anyone who does not rely on the Murdoch outlets for their worldview to be persuaded by it.

Fox states:

The New York Times reported last week that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was waterboarded 183 times in one month by CIA interrogators. The "183 times" was widely circulated by news outlets throughout the world.

That makes it sound like the NYT came up with the 183 figure. But as I understand it, that figure came from the CIA memos. In true "fair and balanced" fashion, Fox doesn't mention that little bit of information.

Fox's claim that the 183 was for each pour lasting only "a matter of seconds" was from an unidentified "U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation"

Sorry if I'm not blown over by the evidence.

Fox sued for and won the right to make false statements. They use it regularly.

another LIE
that law suit was a local Fox Network affiliate

not Fox News

 

[DiveCon]

Or alternatively, if you want to be more persuasive to make a point, cite something more objective that Fox News. And yes, when we have a CIA memo saying he was waterboarded 183, I do question Fox's accuracy. Sorry if that offends your sense of fairness if you view Fox as a fountain of objectivity and veracity.

But irrespective, we are left with the Fox report on the Red cross on the one hand, and the CIA memo on the other.

Good Grief.

Page 11

http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf

Thanks. That's much more persuasive than a Fox News report.

i doubt you give any other major news org as much skeptism as you do FNC

 

[DiveCon]

Same reason you'd look at a claim by MSNBC with suspicion.

I look at every news piece with suspicious. Everybody has an agenda.

That is why I look for other sources to verify.

You can't honestly say that EVERY piece of news from Fox is bogus.

Of course not. I would say a lot of it is not.



Fox is biased, IMO. I don't think that is going out too far on a limb.

And I did. Fox reported this report accurately.

IMO truly objective reporting would have included noting that it is the CIA memos that claim 183 times.

I know it's hard for some people to believe, but Fox does report news accurately.

Added because of your edit:

It just kills you that Fox was right.

Not at all. Its just that IMO Fox is biased, and doesn't attempt to present information fairly or balanced but often leaves out important information or colors the facts to create a misimpression favorable to its conservative agenda.

My point is if you want to make a point that is going to be persuasive, don't cite Fox News and expect folks that are not conservatively biased to be persuaded that the Fox article is telling the whole story fairly.

I would not cite MSNBC or some liberally biased source to you for and expect your to be persuaded by the conclusions of the article.

and this is why i think you are a fucking MORON

 

[xotoxi]

Divecon: I'm guessing that you would be immune to waterboarding.

You'd just pretend that you were diving without out the risk of the bends.

 

[oreo]

I don't think Barack Obama--sold the American public tonight on the "waterboarding" issue aka enhanced interrogation technics.

Obama brought up Winston Churchill during the London Blitz--& I personally don't buy for one single second that if Winston Churchill knew that he could stop the nightly bombings by the Germans that he wouldn't have waterboarded every single captive.

Obama is USING a different enemy in completely different circumstances. Waterboarding a captive of the London Blitz would have NEVER STOPPED the nightly bombings. Waterboarding a terrorist CAN stop a terrorist from killing thousands. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

Obama--referring to the London Blitz- bascially stated it's O.K. for a terrorist to kill Americans--as long as our "moral" clarity remains intact. And that's B.S.

 

[Iriemon]

I look at every news piece with suspicious. Everybody has an agenda.

That is why I look for other sources to verify.

You can't honestly say that EVERY piece of news from Fox is bogus.

Of course not. I would say a lot of it is not.



Fox is biased, IMO. I don't think that is going out too far on a limb.



IMO truly objective reporting would have included noting that it is the CIA memos that claim 183 times.

I know it's hard for some people to believe, but Fox does report news accurately.

Added because of your edit:

It just kills you that Fox was right.

Not at all. Its just that IMO Fox is biased, and doesn't attempt to present information fairly or balanced but often leaves out important information or colors the facts to create a misimpression favorable to its conservative agenda.

My point is if you want to make a point that is going to be persuasive, don't cite Fox News and expect folks that are not conservatively biased to be persuaded that the Fox article is telling the whole story fairly.

I would not cite MSNBC or some liberally biased source to you for and expect your to be persuaded by the conclusions of the article.

...fucking MORON...

Ignored

 

[DiveCon]

Divecon: I'm guessing that you would be immune to waterboarding.

You'd just pretend that you were diving without out the risk of the bends.

i highl;y doubt they would let me wear my mask and regulator during it

 

[DiveCon]

Of course not. I would say a lot of it is not.



Fox is biased, IMO. I don't think that is going out too far on a limb.



IMO truly objective reporting would have included noting that it is the CIA memos that claim 183 times.



Not at all. Its just that IMO Fox is biased, and doesn't attempt to present information fairly or balanced but often leaves out important information or colors the facts to create a misimpression favorable to its conservative agenda.

My point is if you want to make a point that is going to be persuasive, don't cite Fox News and expect folks that are not conservatively biased to be persuaded that the Fox article is telling the whole story fairly.

I would not cite MSNBC or some liberally biased source to you for and expect your to be persuaded by the conclusions of the article.

...fucking MORON...

Ignored

liar

 

[Yurt]

prove fox is biased

 

[Zoom-boing]

I don't think Barack Obama--sold the American public tonight on the "waterboarding" issue aka enhanced interrogation technics.

Obama brought up Winston Churchill during the London Blitz--& I personally don't buy for one single second that if Winston Churchill knew that he could stop the nightly bombings by the Germans that he wouldn't have waterboarded every single captive.

Obama is USING a different enemy in completely different circumstances. Waterboarding a captive of the London Blitz would have NEVER STOPPED the nightly bombings. Waterboarding a terrorist CAN stop a terrorist from killing thousands. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

Obama--referring to the London Blitz- bascially stated it's O.K. for a terrorist to kill Americans--as long as our "moral" clarity remains intact. And that's B.S.

What will happen when we get hit again, and terrorist suspects are captured . . . and if the kinder and gentler interrogation techniques fail to yield results . . . what will he do then?

 

[Dr Grump]

prove fox is biased

The fact they think they are "fair and balanced" is a start

 

[xotoxi]

Divecon: I'm guessing that you would be immune to waterboarding.

You'd just pretend that you were diving without out the risk of the bends.

i highl;y doubt they would let me wear my mask and regulator during it

It wouldn't hurt to ask.


Waterboarding for Divecon would be accomplished by jamming a big wad of Hubba Bubba into his snorkel pipe.