Waterboarding? 183 Times? Wrong...

[Coyote]

No, we didn't.

I haven't seen evidence we hung anyone solely for waterboarding. However Japs were prosecuted and sentenced 15 years hard labor solely for waterboarding. The US treated it as a war crime.

Well here's one where you're absolutely and totally wrong. So many times when I've posted legitamate sources, you say they are "biased." Let's see if you claim it is "biased" from Media Matters.

Not only was Asano not executed, but his 15-year sentence was for a host of crimes besides waterboarding. According to the U.C. Berkeley War Crimes center:

Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications: beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward [emphasis in original]

Media Matters - NRO's Hemingway gets history wrong in accusing Begala of botching facts

Since you've used the politically incorrect term "Japs," would you mind sharing with us the names of some of the other Asian brethren who you claim were convicted of waterboarding?

Are you able to say how much of the 15 years hard labor received was for the specific infraction of waterboarding, and how much was for beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes?

It kind of obviates the point of your post, doesn't it?

Water boarding was specified as one of the convicting infractions. To claim he wasn't convicted for waterboarding is just as disengenius as to claim he was.

 

[Coyote]

If fraternities can use water boarding as a form of initiation, it must not be too bad.

Which fraternities use water boarding? Furthermore, do you think that the terror suspects CONSENTED to being waterboarded?

So now, your justifications are that if a group of drunken college idiots do it to each other, it must be okay?

Jeeze y'all. Really? You're really going to do this?

I must admit to being dumbfounded.

Must resist....


must resist...


I can't!


I can't help the subliminal comparisons...drunken frat boys....former president's past life...ready acceptance of waterboarding....

 

[Coyote]

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.

I think Fox is trying to be dishonest.

If he had water poured over his face 183 times - he was waterboarded 183 times.

It doesn't matter with it was 5 sessions 10 sessions or a hundred - it was 183 instances of waterboarding defined by having water poured over you to simulate drowning. Each time water was poured drowning was simulated.

 

[Coyote]

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.

That doesn't make sense. What's so different about a terrorist that he would succumb to waterboarding and a German would not?

 

[Iriemon]

Gee, what a clever retort - not!

Divecon's MO is the one sentence post with insults, flaming, baiting, OT comments, and then neg reps you because you just disagree with his view.

Classic troll.

cry and whine, bitch

Exhibit A ^

 

[DiveCon]

Divecon's MO is the one sentence post with insults, flaming, baiting, OT comments, and then neg reps you because you just disagree with his view.

Classic troll.

cry and whine, bitch

Exhibit A ^

yes, you are

keep crying bitch

 

[Burp]

A couple of things to remember. These were enhanced interrogation techniques. Which means the "normal" techniques didn't work. They didn't pull a guy into Gitmo, sit him down, and waterboard him.

KSM was given the opportunity to answer the questions without any kind of enhanced anything. When he was asked about future terrorist plans/attacks, he responded, "Soon you will see."

This is the same guy who admitted to 31 other plots.

1. The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City that killed six people and injured more than 1,000.

2. The 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington using four hijacked commercial airliners. Nearly 3,000 people were killed.

3. A failed "shoe bomber" operation to bring down two US commercial airliners.

4. The October 2002 attack in Kuwait that killed two US soldiers.

5. The nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia that killed 202 people.

6. A plan for a "second wave" of attacks on major US landmarks after 9/11 attacks. Alleged targets included the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Plaza Bank building in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York.

7. Plots to attack oil tankers and US naval ships in the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Gibraltar and in Singapore.

8. A plan to blow up the Panama Canal.

9. Plans to assassinate former US presidents including Jimmy Carter.

10. A plot to blow up suspension bridges in New York.

11. A plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago by burning fuel trucks beneath or around it.

12. Plans to "destroy" Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf and Big Ben in London.

13. A planned attack on "many" nightclubs in Thailand targeting US and British citizens.

14. A plot targeting the New York Stock Exchange and other US financial targets after 9/11.

15. A plan to destroy buildings in Elat, Israel, by using planes flying from Saudi Arabia.

16. Plans to destroy US embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan.

17. Plots to destroy Israeli embassies in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Australia.

18. Surveying and financing an attack on an Israeli El-Al flight from Bangkok.

19. Sending several "mujahideen" into Israel to survey "strategic targets" with the intention of attacking them.

20. The November 2002 suicide bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, frequented by Israelis. At least 14 people were killed.

21. The failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet leaving Mombasa airport with a surface-to-air missile on the same day as the hotel bombing.

22. Plans to attack US targets in South Korea, such as US military bases and nightclubs frequented by US soldiers.

23. Providing financial support for a plan to attack US, British and Jewish targets in Turkey.

24. Surveillance of US nuclear power plants in order to attack them.

25. A plot to attack Nato's headquarters in Europe.

26. Planning and surveillance in a 1995 plan (the "Bojinka Operation") to bomb 12 American passenger jets, most on trans-Pacific Ocean routes.

27. The planned assassination attempt against then-US President Bill Clinton during a mid-1990s trip to the Philippines.

28. "Shared responsibility" for a plot to kill Pope John Paul II while he visited the Philippines.

29. Plans to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

30. An attempt to attack a US oil company in Sumatra, Indonesia, "owned by the Jewish former [US] Secretary of State Henry Kissinger".

31. The beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped in Pakistan in January 2002 while researching Islamist militancy.

The same one who wrote to his judge at Gitmo:

Your intelligence apparatus, with all its abilities, human and logistical, had failed to discover our military attack plans before the blessed 11 September operation. They were unable to foil our attack . . .

Our prophet was victorious because of fear. At a month distant, the enemy did not hear from him. So, our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of God: the Jews, Christians, and pagans. With God’s wiling [sic], we are terrorists to the bone. So, many thanks to God.

The Arab poet, Abu-Ubaydah Al-Hadrami, has stated: “We will terrorize you, as long as we live with swords, fire, and airplanes.” . . .

We will make all of our materials available, to defend and deter, and egress you and the filthy Jews from our countries. . . .

We ask to be near to God, we fight you and destroy you and terrorize you. The Jihad in god’s cause is a great duty in our religion…Your end is very near and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day. . . .

So we ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on America, and to place our nineteen martyred brethren among the highest peaks in paradise.

Cracking KSM by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online
-----

We gave him a chance. He indicated there were other attacks coming. We "enhanced" our interrogation and saved other peoples lives.

Get over being so pissed at Bush (and his approval at this) and be thankful that there wasn't another attack.

Is that so difficult?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If waterboarding is not deemed to be torture, then why couldn't it be used as an interrogation technique against American citizens by law enforcement?

SWEET MOTHER... ARE YOU BEING SERIOUS?

For starters... DEFENDANTS AGAINST STATE PROSECUTION ARE NECESSARILY CONSIDERED INNOCENT; the judicial process is simply to CHARGE that a violation of the legal code has been committed; where upon an investigation by the state is advanced; evidence of that charge is gathered, where upon that evidence is tried in open court, before a jury of one's peers...

Secondly, it is absolutely against all measure of western civil jurisprudence to force someone to testify against themselves, and given that coercive interrogation, used in such a manner would be just that... where such is presented at trial, the court would have no choice but to release that defendant...

Third, it's just bad form to use coercion on people who are presumed innocent...

And just to head ya off at the pass... the detainees are not being detained by the US Judicial system... they are presumed guilty of having waged an illegal war on the US; and they are not being prosecuted for violations of the US Criminal code... and YES... were they to be prosecuted, NOTHING which was culled from coercive interrogation could be used in their trial... and given the necessary civil protections and procedural thresholds, it is simply unlikely that FEW of ANY of the detainees even COULD be tried by the US Judicial System... as the methods used, the practices inherent in the detainment and interrogation would all be demonstrable violations of the high standards of US Civil rights and likely would result in the immediate release.

Two distinct systems, designed to deal with two distinct set of problems... which represent two parallel lines which should NEVER intersect.

Thanks for your views. I know there are two distinct systems.

I see you agreeing that Civil/Criminal Prosecution and Detainment by the US Military for Interrogation to promote intelligence towards preventing Mass Murder during war, are two distinct systems; yet I can't help but to believe that you're about to disregard that fact and equate the two systems, thus once again you'll confuse the necessarily low standards of the latter with the necessarily high standards of the former.

Law enforcement interrogate people too, do it all the time. It doesn't matter if they are deemed innocent or not, they are still subject to interrogation.

Oh my... it's worse than I thought...

First, those taken into custody by the Judicial System are not 'deemed' innocent... they are CONSIDERED or PRESUMED innocent. And it matters A LOT; it is actually the basis on which western jurisprudence rests.

Secondly, there is no means by which one can reasonably utilize coercive interrogation upon someone that is PRESUMED INNOCENT. In that the very act of doing so, presumes GUILT, thus such is an overt violation of their CIVIL Rights... particularly their 5th amendment rights; which preclude someone from being forced to testify against themselves. And yes... Police interrogate people all the time; and those people are PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT, and are WILLINGLY OFFERING THEIR ASSISTANCE TOWARDS THE RESOLUTION OF WHATEVER IS BEING INVESTIGATED. As the Police can NOT force ANYONE to speak to them about ANYTHING. They can force them to be present; the Police can force them to sit in a cell to the extent of allowable thresholds; jerk them around in MANY imaginative ways... but where physical coercion comes into play... the protections offered by the US Constitution are substantial and where it can be demonstrated that such physical coercion was used, ANY information which can reasonably be shown to have been garnered through the use of such will be, or should be declared inadmissible to the court trying facts relevant to that case and the odds are that the case against that defendant will not prevail, thus resulting in the release of that defendant; thus the use of coercive interrogation is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE towards the end of a CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

Such is NOT the case in the detainment and interrogation of illegal combatants in the US GWOT.

They are not being held for criminal prosecution... They are PRESUMED, KNOWN TO BE, CONSIDERED... GUILTY; and the purpose for their presence is to cull from them information which can be used to prevent their associates from MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE.

Now you feel that these mass murderers have human rights... and up until the point where they overtly misused their human rights, to strip innocents of their human rights, they DID... but the very act of intentionally seeking to strip innocent people of their lives indicated that they have NO REGARD FOR SUCH RIGHTS, THUS THEY, THEMSELVES, RESULTING FROM THEIR OWN FREE WILL TO MAKE THE OVERT CHOICE; they CHOSE TO FORFEIT THEIR OWN RIGHTS... The US Military did not strip them of their human rights... as such is not even POSSIBLE; THE MASS MURDERERS DECIDED THAT THOSE WHO THEY PLOTTED AND SCHEMED AND TOOK ACTION TO DESTROY THE LIVES OF INNOCENTS, DECLARED THAT>>> THEY DO NOT RECOGNIZE ATHAAT SUCH RIGHTS EVEN EXIST... THUS THEY MADE THE DECISION that they have no rights... as it is not reasonable to believe that one has a right, where another does not; as the very basis on which all human rights rests is that such are endowed by God to ALL of humanity; equally and without exception; and that EACH is RESPONSIBLE TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF THE OTHERS; and it is THAT basis which is the perfection of such; and what makes the concept of human rights sustainable.

So the terrorists have FORFEITED THEIR RIGHTS... they are being detained so the US MILITARY, who is PROSECUTING A WAR AGAINST THEM AND THEIR ASSOCIATION can induce them to be forthcoming with whatever information is being sought from them.

But with that said... DESPITE their having forfeited their rights and DESPITE their NOT enjoying the high standard of civil protections afforded the INNOCENT against State prosecution of criminal violations... The US Military is treating them at the highest potential level of civility that such a detainee could ever HOPE to enjoy... and this without regard to your irrational feelings that 'torture' is defined as any action which would induce discomfort upon a detainee.

The police cannot legal torture people, however, that would violate the 8th.If water boarding is legally deemed not torture you have not set out one reason why it could not be used as a legitimate law enforcement interogation technique.

First, interrogation is NOT a form of punishment... I've already cautioned you to set aside the misnomer that coercive interrogation if a MEANS O THE US MILITARY TO PUNISH THE DETAINEES... Coersive interrogation is a means to cull critical, essential information from them, so as to more effectively prosecute the war against their associates who are NOT BEING DETAINED AND WHO ARE PRESENTLY PLOTTING AND EXECUTING MASS MURDER ON INNOCENT PEOPLE.

Secondly; Actually I have, in FACT: laid out, in excruciating detail, the many intellectually sound, logically valid reasons why... Criminal prosecutions by the respective US States and the Federal Judiciary are subject to the protections advanced for the INDIVIDUAL in the US Constitution, for DEFENDANTS realizing charges, as those individual are: PRESUMED INNOCENT and it is NOT REASONABLE TO FORCE AN INNOCENT PERSON TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEMSELVES... and given that coercive interrogation serves NO OTHER PURPOSE, in that it seeks information KNOWN TO THE INDIVIDUAL being interrogated; such would establish guilt by any reasonable understanding of the word.

Again, you thoroughly misunderstand how the system works; the purposes of the standard and the reasons for the protections. And it this misunderstanding which prevents you from being able to recognize the distinction in the two standards; Criminal prosecution and detainment for interrogation, during war, by the US military, OF ILLEGAL COMBATANTS.

You erroneously believe that all individuals are entitled to the presumption of innocence; when in point of fact, that is a VERY narrow strip of a NECESSARILY HIGH STANDARD OF US CIVIL PROTECTIONS. As it serves to prevent the government from using it's police powers to prosecute individuals for political purposes; wherein a government could force individuals to testify against themselves, or others to testify falsely, towards their eternal incarceration, removing their effective or annoying contest of that government...

Such is not the case in war and such is CERTAINLY not the case in war where the enemy is NOT a sovereign nation, is not tied to ANY sovereign nation, and uses as their sole strategy, their means to hide in and among the civilian populations of the world, to force those nations who seek to destroy them to bring down death and destruction UPON THOSE CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AND FURTHER, where that enemy strikes, it strikes only AT THOSE CIVILIAN POPULATIONS...

The ONLY means to determine, who, where, what that enemy IS, is through information gathered FROM THAT ENEMY; thus given the detriment which that enemy represents, to human civilization itself, it is the MORAL IMPERATIVE that those who are being attacked BY that enemy to use all means available to gather such information FOR THE PURPOSES OF SPARING HUMAN LIFE.

And it is THAT reason why the Bush administration purposefully did NOT SEEK CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS OF THESE PEOPLE and instead recognized such as those who HAD WAGED WAR ON THE US... because to prosecute them criminally, requires the high standards of civil protections wherein we must WAIT ON THEM TO STRIKE US AND then prosecute those who were involved for that criminal act...

Which given that the nature of SUICIDE ATTACKS, brings with it, the natural and designed encumberance of the purpetrators DEMISE, it makes INTERROGATING THEM BY ANY MEANS IMPOSSIBLE; thus we're left with mayhem, dead purpetrators and little means to prosecute those purpetrators for their criminal act... which is in and of itself FAR MORE THAN A MERE CRIMINAL ACT: It is CRIME AGAINST THE VERY FABRIC OF HUMANITY ITSELF!

Thus we're left to track the association and given the exceedingly high, but necessary thresholds of such, the gathering of evidence which can be advanced by the state; court orders, warrants and other such devices which are again, NECESSARY AND REASONABLE FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE VIOLATED THE LAWS OF THE LAND in simple criminal violations of the legal code, represent absurd entanglements when waging a war against a capable and determined enemy, WHICH ONE HAS LITTLE MEANS TO EVEN IDENTIFY, LETS ALONE TRACK or destroy, due to their very nature as non-entities which hide in and among the worlds civilian populations..

For the record, I disagree with your view that just because a person is not a US citizen that he is therefore not somehow not entitled to basic human rights.

I've advanced no such view... and the projection that I have is a function of absurd ignorance or unbridled deceit.

US Citizens are just as subject to the forfeiture of their rights as any other human being. And where a US citizen wages war on the US... they should be treated precisely the same; where they have plotted and acted towards murdering massive numbers of innocent people.

Well... congrats... ya made the sig...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I haven't seen evidence we hung anyone solely for waterboarding. However Japs were prosecuted and sentenced 15 years hard labor solely for waterboarding. The US treated it as a war crime.

Well here's one where you're absolutely and totally wrong. So many times when I've posted legitamate sources, you say they are "biased." Let's see if you claim it is "biased" from Media Matters.

Not only was Asano not executed, but his 15-year sentence was for a host of crimes besides waterboarding. According to the U.C. Berkeley War Crimes center:

Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications: beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward [emphasis in original]

Media Matters - NRO's Hemingway gets history wrong in accusing Begala of botching facts

Since you've used the politically incorrect term "Japs," would you mind sharing with us the names of some of the other Asian brethren who you claim were convicted of waterboarding?

Are you able to say how much of the 15 years hard labor received was for the specific infraction of waterboarding, and how much was for beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes?

It kind of obviates the point of your post, doesn't it?

Water boarding was specified as one of the convicting infractions. To claim he wasn't convicted for waterboarding is just as disengenius as to claim he was.

ROFLMNAO.. Was it? What you're saying is that the SAME techniques used by the US intelligence operatives to cul information from ILLEGAL COMBATANTS, whose ONLY TACATIC IS TO MAIM AND MURDER MASSIVE NUMBERS OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS, was used by the individual Japanese soldier, against LEGAL US SOLDIERS...

Where's it say that? I've read it several times and all I find is the use of the word 'water'... are you telling this board that you conclude from the use of that word, that these circumstances are equitable, the procedures and techniques identical, thus the ramifactions for such, should be the same?

The LIST is a function of the CHARGE... NOT one facet or element... but the WHOLE.

And given that the ENTIRE SCOPE OF THE SYSTEM WAS DISTINCT AT EVERY LEVEL the assertion that such is equitable to the interrogations of MASS MURDERERS, but US forces is ABSURD...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

I think Fox is trying to be dishonest.

If he had water poured over his face 183 times - he was waterboarded 183 times.

It doesn't matter with it was 5 sessions 10 sessions or a hundred - it was 183 instances of waterboarding defined by having water poured over you to simulate drowning. Each time water was poured drowning was simulated.

First, you show no evidence that you 'think'...

Second, your statement with regard to waterboarding and the number of pours respective to it, is a clear and indistpuable demonstration of your ignorance of the mechanics of the technique; and while you're entitled to your opinion, how you find that serving up such ignorance tends toward your own self interests is known only to you, and likely stands as another demonstration of your tendency to rest upon ignorance in your opinions.

The sessions are whole... and while you 'feel' that each pour is a distinct session, you're simply wrong. When you take a trip from Home to work, stopping at the drycleaners, the kids school, the donut shop and the various intersections... do you consider those to be numerous instances or do you consider it to be one trip, which had numerous elements within it?

Now you may run to delcare that each leg of your journey represented a separate journey, but such is not a reasonable position, in that your destination was clear and indisputable... you simply had specific objectives which had to be met IN THE PROCESS OF JOURNEY ON THE WHOLE.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

That doesn't make sense. What's so different about a terrorist that he would succumb to waterboarding and a German would not?

LOL... Seriously?

It's not that the the Nazis wouldn't succumb, it's the INFORMATION WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY BE CULLED... What pray tell could the Nazi prisoners have told us? that Adolf Hitler was the leader of the gang? Laid out a list of the Nazi high command? Their phone numbers and home addresses? Mother's maiden name? Their sources of finance? Their Key allies... ?

The problem there is that the British already knew those things... most of it was published information...

AQ and the other terrorists elements don't publish such information... They're secret organizations; and except and until we detain and interrogate members of those organizations, study the documents and other tangible evidence found on them or in their dwellings, WE DON'T KNOW... and that we NEED TO KNOW, makes FINDING IT, AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF PROSECUTING THE WAR AGAINST THEM.

It's not terribly complex, but it does require SOME REASONED THOUGHT.

 

[Iriemon]

... the protections offered by the US Constitution are substantial ...

The only relevant point you've made.

Yes, the 8th amendment protects against torture. Since waterboarding is according to you not torture it doesn't violated the 8th. So much for protection.

Everything else you've wrote is about how non-Americans don't deserve basic human rights, apparently because they're not human. I get it.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men (except those who are not Americans, are called illegal combatants, or when Republicans hold office) are created equal ....

Now you feel that these mass murderers have human rights... and up until the point where they overtly misused their human rights, to strip innocents of their human rights, they DID...

How do you know they are all mass murderers? Govt said so? They confessed after being water tortured 183 times?

You can use that to excuse to abuse an accused person. Dictators do. The Japs used that same rational to torture our guys with waterboard.

First, interrogation is NOT a form of punishment...

What, waterboarding isn't punishment?? LMAO! Thank you "justice" Scalia. Well, so much for 8th amendment protections, doesn't even apply, right?

I should put that in *my* sig.

Which given that the nature of SUICIDE ATTACKS, brings with it, the natural and designed encumberance of the purpetrators DEMISE, it makes INTERROGATING THEM BY ANY MEANS IMPOSSIBLE;

... Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave ... o'er the land of the free, and the home of the torturers!

Makes ya misty eyed, doesn't it?

Well... congrats... ya made the sig...

For saying police interrogate people? What a tepid sig.

 

[Iriemon]

Mohammed similarly told the Red Cross that "I was also subjected to 'water-boarding' on five occasions, all of which occurred during the first month." Those were his five "sessions"; the precise number of applications is not known but is a fraction of the 183 figure.

It wasn't 183. He admitted it himself.

The CIA memo said 183 times. But they were probably lying like everything else to justify using water torture?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

... the protections offered by the US Constitution are substantial ...

The only relevant point you've made.

At every point where you've chosen to avoid the argument, you've conceded to those points. that you feel otherwise is, once again, asimple a demonstration of your ingorance.

Yes, the 8th amendment protects against torture. Since waterboarding is according to you not torture it doesn't violated the 8th. So much for protection.

The 8th amendment protects against CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT... Coersive interrogation is not punshment, thus the 8th amendment is not relative to such.

Everything else you've wrote is about how non-Americans don't deserve basic human rights, apparently because they're not human. I get it.

There is absolutely NOTHING in my position which even SPEAKS TO Non-US Citizens not deserving human rights... that you feel that such is the case is a demonstration of one of only two potential realities...

First you're being obtuse... and intentionally avoiding the point to avoid your certain loss...

Secondly, you're an imbecile...

Well there could be a third possibility... the dreaded COMBO.

 

[Iriemon]

...Coersive interrogation is not punshment, thus the 8th amendment is not relative to such...

...you're an imbecile...

Argument summarized. Speaks for itself.

 

[Ravi]

This is retarded.

If you ask a detainee a question they won't answer you can either punish them for not answering, reward them for answering, or trick or cajole them into answering. Torture is most certainly a punishment.

Let be known by his above post that Pubic is a moronic, un-American scumbag.

 

[Coyote]

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.

That doesn't make sense. What's so different about a terrorist that he would succumb to waterboarding and a German would not?

LOL... Seriously?

Oh yes. Seriously.

It's not that the the Nazis wouldn't succumb, it's the INFORMATION WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY BE CULLED... What pray tell could the Nazi prisoners have told us? that Adolf Hitler was the leader of the gang? Laid out a list of the Nazi high command? Their phone numbers and home addresses? Mother's maiden name? Their sources of finance? Their Key allies... ?

They apparently told a good bit: Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII - washingtonpost.com

Given the cell structure of terrorist organizations, insuring that no one perosn or group knows much beyond their immediate task, it seems like they would likely have less individual knowledge to impart then the German captives.

The problem there is that the British already knew those things... most of it was published information...

That's such a broad sweeping generalization it's impossible to answer sweetcheeks.

AQ and the other terrorists elements don't publish such information... They're secret organizations; and except and until we detain and interrogate members of those organizations, study the documents and other tangible evidence found on them or in their dwellings, WE DON'T KNOW... and that we NEED TO KNOW, makes FINDING IT, AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF PROSECUTING THE WAR AGAINST THEM.

It's not terribly complex, but it does require SOME REASONED THOUGHT.

Yes....and the reasoned thought is asking this: are you actually trying to say the Germans had no secrets hidden - no secret organizations within their command - no secret codes and code makers....all....published?

I'll ride aways on the delusion with you sweetie, but don't expect me to buy the ticket.

 

[Article 15]

The 8th amendment protects against CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT... Coersive interrogation is not punshment, thus the 8th amendment is not relative to such.

I predict that this is the dumbest line I will read today.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

...Coersive interrogation is not punshment, thus the 8th amendment is not relative to such...

...you're an imbecile...

Argument summarized. Speaks for itself.

Well there ya have it kids... this member is now relegated to obtuse pretense... It is a CLASSIC DEFAULT CONCESSION!

It's all that remains of the shell which are her closest held feelings on this issue.

She demands that the simple application of stress on a Mass Murderer is the equivilent of TORTURE; she equates the prosecution of a war to the prosecution of a criminal trial; thus where a Mass Murdering Terrorists is captured IN WAR and removed from the civilian population for the PURPOSES of culling from them the secrets which they hold, regarding their plots to MURDER MASSIVE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, which serve PURELY as a means to PRE-EMPT; TO STOP THEIR FREE ASSOCIATES FROM CARRYING OUT THAT MASS MURDER... She demands that such is a violation of US Constitutional protections, which serve to protect individuals who are NOT AT WAR WITH CIVILIZATION... but who have violated a legal criminal statute...

It is as I've repeatedly said... this is the ideological left come to make the MASS MURDERING ISLAMIC TERRORISTS THE VICTIMS...

It is as I said it would be on the afternoon 9-11... that it would be no time at all before the Ideological left was promoting the interests of; and demanding strict defense of the HUMAN RIGHTS OF the Mass Murdering Terrorists; those who ATTACKED US, killing 3000 INNOCENT PEOPLE, FOR NO GOOD REASON...

And how do they do it? By redefining words and RAISING THE STANDARDS for those who are at war with civilization itself; while they themselves seek to lower every other conceivable standard... the very source of the hatred which the Islamic Enemy uses to sell itself, to their addle-minded recruits.

The advocates of debauchery and hedonism, the same ones that demand that personal responsibility be stripped from the very concept of human rights... have finally turned out to stubbornly demand that EVEN WHEN ONE CAN'T FIND THE PERSONAL STRENGTH TO NOT MURDER THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE HARMED ATHEM IN NO WAY, REPRESENT NO THREAT TO THEM... these people run to delcare that EVEN WHEN YOU PLOT TO MURDER MASSIVE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE; even when you're NOT being prosecuted for that crime, but simply being questioned by those tasked with stopping your association from doing so... ANY attempt to encourage you to be forthcoming with the time sensitive, critical, life saving information... is A VIOLATION OF YOUR RIGHTS... Thus prohibited by the US Constitution, and morality itself.

Of course, the good news here is that this member has simply established herself as a zealot; her ability to defend her point of view is nill; her argument fails repeatedly and where it is shown to fail, point for point; time after time, she simply returns to reject those points out of hand refusing to be swayed by immutable reason; and what's more she openly and quite deceitfully declares that her points were not even challenged; despite the argument being written directly above for all to see.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That doesn't make sense. What's so different about a terrorist that he would succumb to waterboarding and a German would not?

LOL... Seriously?

Oh yes. Seriously.


They apparently told a good bit: Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII - washingtonpost.com

Given the cell structure of terrorist organizations, insuring that no one perosn or group knows much beyond their immediate task, it seems like they would likely have less individual knowledge to impart then the German captives.

Does it seem that way?

So you're saying that the Allies didn't know from which direction the planes which would bomb London would come? They didn't know what Military was sending them, or from what bases of operation; from what nation; who the leaders of the operation were? They didn't know that those planes bombing London would be coming at night...

And while the Axis powers had secrets which the Allies surely wanted... we knew who the Axis were, we knew who their leaders were and how and of what their Armies were comprised.... We knew much of what WE DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE TERRORISTS...

And while you feel sure that the individual terrorist functionary may not know much about operations beyond their specific task... they likely know the names and faces of their associates and can identify those irregular faces of their next higher tier of authority; and those captured from that tier, know the names and faces relative to that; and those of the next tier are familair with it's respective information... and while it didn't make a rats ass difference what the name of the person commanding the platoon, the company, the batallian and so on... because we knew what the source was...

What's more, those mass murderers, who have been subjected to the highest stress by US intelligence are highly placed executives within the Associations... who, once induced with sufficient stress told us all about the names, places, plans, and other such critical information which provided that we could simply go to where those people were; where we either kill them or capture them; and where captured, we detain them so THEY can be debriefed to tell us MORE which we do not know about their SECRET ORGANIZATIONS; which prevents and has DEMONSTRABLY PREVENTED their MURDEROUS PLOTS FROM BEING EXECUTED and culled greater levels of understanding of who, what, when and where of their associations... which provided the means to further disrupt their means to meet their murderous goals.

We knew where Hitler was.. We knew where his general staff was... we simply didn't have the means to simply fly to Berlin and snatch their asses up and take them down.

The problem there is that the British already knew those things... most of it was published information...

That's such a broad sweeping generalization it's impossible to answer sweetcheeks.

So you're saying the British didn't know that it was the Nazis which were bombing London? Again, get serious or STFU...

AQ and the other terrorists elements don't publish such information... They're secret organizations; and except and until we detain and interrogate members of those organizations, study the documents and other tangible evidence found on them or in their dwellings, WE DON'T KNOW... and that we NEED TO KNOW, makes FINDING IT, AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF PROSECUTING THE WAR AGAINST THEM.

It's not terribly complex, but it does require SOME REASONED THOUGHT.

Yes....and the reasoned thought is asking this: are you actually trying to say the Germans had no secrets hidden - no secret organizations within their command - no secret codes and code makers....all....published?

No, I am decidely NOT saying that... nor did I say anything which could have lead a reasonably intelligent person to such a conclusion. You simply need to reduce your oppositions argument to the absurd, due to your inability to mount an effective contest against the argument which is being presented.

It is a demonstrable fact that the British knew who was bombing them; from where the planes would come and who sent them...

It is a demonstrable fact that the nature of the Terrorists; who organize themselves to maximize cover and concealment within the civilian population are largely NOT known to those with whom they have waged war... and that this is their ONLY MEANS TOWARDS POTENTIAL SUCCESS; and it is further a demonstrable fact that the LEGAL Combat of international war is distinct in every conceivable level and on every potential facet from that of TERRORISM...

In conventional war where one knows WHO they are fighting, the goal simply changes to the destruction of that "WHO"... the prblem becomes the "HOW." The secrets the Nazis had, which the Allies needed served HOW... not who...

Further, it can't be stressed enough that where one was found practicing espionage in that war, the rules were quite different for those unenviable prisoners, on BOTH sides of the equation... where one was found in civilian attire, acting as a player for the other side of the equation... they were subject to, at the end and in the best case scenario... summary exectution. And for good reason... as where one finds their enemy living amongst the general population, the equation for dealing with that enemy has exponentially increased in terms of complexity and cost; where the solution of the very presence of such stands a solution which, for all intents and purposes requires on begin to destroy itself, to save itself.

And this is why such tactics are "ILLEGAL" and why so many treaties and conventions have sought to PREVENT SUCH... and why the advocacy of the rights of those who engage in it, renders the concept: 'counter-productive' to world class in it's value as an understatement.

At the end of the day, you're simply trying to ignore those facts and equate the two wholly distinct concepts; obscure the essential distinctions either out of ignorance or for the purposes of deceit... and frankly neither one is preferable to the other as the end result is the same; the advocacy which naturally occurs as a result of both serves no other purpose than to promote the interests of the enemy which is presently attacking the very fabric of civilization...

But that's the nature of the ideological left... as such is the means by which the stupid manifest a political voice; and what could be MORE stupid, than the same ideology which has been labeled: The Great Satan... the title that has come from the chronic advancment of debauchery and hedonsim; which the enemy most effiectively uses to promote their fight against that civilization; to be that enemies most ardent promoter?

It's nothing less than breathless idiocy on parade...