If the Bush administration waterboarded for...

[JimH52]

If the Bush sdministration used waterboarding to try to gain evidence that Iraq and 911 were related, that is illegal. They were using torture for political purposes. Perhaps Obama won't do anything about it but there are organizations out there that will.

I look for more to come out in the weeks ahead, once the GOP gets over its fascination with Nancy "they lied to me" Pelosi. Put her and Newt into a boat and sail them past Somalia until they are hijacked.

 

[elvis]

If the Bush sdministration used waterboarding to try to gain evidence that Iraq and 911 were related, that is illegal. They were using torture for political purposes. Perhaps Obama won't do anything about it but there are organizations out there that will.

I look for more to come out in the weeks ahead, once the GOP gets over its fascination with Nancy "they lied to me" Pelosi. Put her and Newt into a boat and sail them past Somalia until they are hijacked.

I am sure Bush and Cheney are shaking in their boots about these "organizations."

 

[JimH52]

Maddow: Cheney Tried to use Water-Boarding to Prove False Iraq/9-11 Link - Democratic Underground

 

[Care4all]

I also saw on the Rachel Maddow show that they possibly tortured EVEN BEFORE they legally wrote up the enhanced interrogation techniques and that the guy interogating had to get permission every time he did use it and he got permission from Alberto Gonzales and Gonzalez was not in the justice dept then, only president bush's personal attorney.

If this also turns out to be true, then HOUSTON we've got a problem.

 

[del]

if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

 

[Care4all]

if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Damn it, I can't rep ya for this....used up my "luv" for you I guess and gotta wait to give you some more!

care

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Damn it, I can't rep ya for this....used up my "luv" for you I guess and gotta wait to give you some more!

care

ROFL... Ditto!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If the Bush sdministration used waterboarding to try to gain evidence that Iraq and 911 were related, that is illegal.

Do what?

Interrogating someone to determine if there is a link between Iraq and 911, is or would have been 'illegal'?


ROFL! Just what legal principle would be @ play here?

Understand, I'm not looking for a statute, although feel free to cite one; I just want you to explain WHY it would be illegal...

They were using torture for political purposes.

They weren't 'torturing' anyone... but they did induce a great deal of stress against individuals who were reasonably known to have committed autrocities against massive numbers of innocent people... and that stress was induced to cull information out of those individuals for the purposes of SAVING INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO WERE REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE TARGETED FOR FURTHER ATTROCITIES... and that is ALL POLITICAL... WAR is a function of POLITICS... DUMBASS!

 

[JimH52]

if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Chin up! Medical Science can do wonders.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If the Bush sdministration used waterboarding to try to gain evidence that Iraq and 911 were related, that is illegal.

Do what?

Interrogating someone to determine if there is a link between Iraq and 911, is or would have been 'illegal'?


ROFL! Just what legal principle would be @ play here?

Understand, I'm not looking for a statute, although feel free to cite one; I just want you to explain WHY it would be illegal...

They were using torture for political purposes.

They weren't 'torturing' anyone... but they did induce a great deal of stress against individuals who were reasonably known to have committed autrocities against massive numbers of innocent people... and that stress was induced to cull information out of those individuals for the purposes of SAVING INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO WERE REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE TARGETED FOR FURTHER ATTROCITIES... and that is ALL POLITICAL... WAR is a function of POLITICS...

if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Chin up! Medical Science can do wonders.

LOL... Isn't it AMAZING how these 'strong feelings' are so readily advanced... and how difficult it seems to defend them...

 

[JimH52]

Still have you nose firmly implanted in Bush's armpit, I see,

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If the Bush sdministration used waterboarding to try to gain evidence that Iraq and 911 were related, that is illegal.

Do what?

Interrogating someone to determine if there is a link between Iraq and 911, is or would have been 'illegal'?


ROFL! Just what legal principle would be @ play here?

Understand, I'm not looking for a statute, although feel free to cite one; I just want you to explain WHY it would be illegal...

They were using torture for political purposes.

They weren't 'torturing' anyone... but they did induce a great deal of stress against individuals who were reasonably known to have committed autrocities against massive numbers of innocent people... and that stress was induced to cull information out of those individuals for the purposes of SAVING INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO WERE REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE TARGETED FOR FURTHER ATTROCITIES... and that is ALL POLITICAL... WAR is a function of POLITICS...

if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Chin up! Medical Science can do wonders.

LOL... Isn't it AMAZING how these 'strong feelings' are so readily advanced... and how difficult it seems to defend them...

Still have you nose firmly implanted in Bush's armpit, I see,

So what you're saying is that you can't support a word of your now conclusively discredited assertion...

GO FREAKIN' FIGURE!

LOL... Leftists...

 

[Ravi]

I also saw on the Rachel Maddow show that they possibly tortured EVEN BEFORE they legally wrote up the enhanced interrogation techniques and that the guy interogating had to get permission every time he did use it and he got permission from Alberto Gonzales and Gonzalez was not in the justice dept then, only president bush's personal attorney.

If this also turns out to be true, then HOUSTON we've got a problem.

Care, how can you make something legal that isn't legal? That's a scary thing if you believe our government is justified in claiming any action is legal.

 

[Care4all]

I also saw on the Rachel Maddow show that they possibly tortured EVEN BEFORE they legally wrote up the enhanced interrogation techniques and that the guy interogating had to get permission every time he did use it and he got permission from Alberto Gonzales and Gonzalez was not in the justice dept then, only president bush's personal attorney.

If this also turns out to be true, then HOUSTON we've got a problem.

Care, how can you make something legal that isn't legal? That's a scary thing if you believe our government is justified in claiming any action is legal.

you can't make something legal that was not legal....but for some reason, the administration thought they could 'get around' it....

I don't expect a CIA contractor hired to use enhanced interrogation techniques to know the finite law....on the Rachel Maddow show, they said that this contractor could not get info from his interrogations and he kept having to reach the whitehouse, his instructions were to contact alberto gonzalez to get permission to go farther and farther with harsher techniques...

The problem, they said on Rachel's show, is that Alberto gonzalez was just the white house council to the president, not Ashcroft, the attorney general....who would have been the appropriate way to go, on permission, but just Gonzalez...the president's right hand man....(so the president was WELL AWARE that we were using torture and it was at the president's DIRECT KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL, while he was telling all of us, that "we do not torture"....)

And the second problem for the administration that I see, if what was said on this program is true, is that we were using these torturous techniques, LONG before Congress was made aware of them and LONG before the lawyers all got together and worked their supposed magic, to explain away their legality....

In other words, they wrote the legal explanation of saying waterboarding was not torture, AFTER they had already done it, to try to cover their asses for doing it.

care

 

[plt42]

Waterboarding... beheading!

The latter seems so................ well, so final!

If I must make a choice... strap my ass to a board and bring on the water hose.

 

[Care4all]

Waterboarding... beheading!

The latter seems so................ well, so final!

If I must make a choice... strap my ass to a board and bring on the water hose.

one is torture, one is murder....

neither acceptable.

but, i too, if i had a choice, would choose the waterboarding over beheading...

but truthfully, none have had a choice...people either were destined for the sword, or for captivity and the torture....not pretty, either way imo.....

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I also saw on the Rachel Maddow show that they possibly tortured EVEN BEFORE they legally wrote up the enhanced interrogation techniques and that the guy interogating had to get permission every time he did use it and he got permission from Alberto Gonzales and Gonzalez was not in the justice dept then, only president bush's personal attorney.

If this also turns out to be true, then HOUSTON we've got a problem.

Care, how can you make something legal that isn't legal? That's a scary thing if you believe our government is justified in claiming any action is legal.

you can't make something legal that was not legal....but for some reason, the administration thought they could 'get around' it....

I don't expect a CIA contractor hired to use enhanced interrogation techniques to know the finite law....on the Rachel Maddow show, they said that this contractor could not get info from his interrogations and he kept having to reach the whitehouse, his instructions were to contact alberto gonzalez to get permission to go farther and farther with harsher techniques...

The problem, they said on Rachel's show, is that Alberto gonzalez was just the white house council to the president, not Ashcroft, the attorney general....who would have been the appropriate way to go, on permission, but just Gonzalez...the president's right hand man....(so the president was WELL AWARE that we were using torture and it was at the president's DIRECT KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL, while he was telling all of us, that "we do not torture"....)

And the second problem for the administration that I see, if what was said on this program is true, is that we were using these torturous techniques, LONG before Congress was made aware of them and LONG before the lawyers all got together and worked their supposed magic, to explain away their legality....

In other words, they wrote the legal explanation of saying waterboarding was not torture, AFTER they had already done it, to try to cover their asses for doing it.

care

ROFLMNAO... Sourcing the Rachel Maddow Show for moral clarity? Why not bring in the Penthouse Forum for good measure...

A law which fails the moral imperative in a given circumstance is to be ignored... as it is not valid law, within that circumstance; and this without regard for the process which implemented the law.

Calling waterboarding 'torture' doesn't make it torture... as 'torture' is a term of RELEVANCE... what is TORTURE in one context would be laughable in another...

For instance, where one says that a ROOT CANAL is TORTURE... they'd have a REAL tough time getting a cultural pass on the assertion that providing a root canal for a detainee is torture.. despite discernible pain and stress being induced into the subject of the root canal and DESPITE the process being implemented as a means to coerce their cooperation... to be forthcoming with information which is reasonably believed to be critical to preventing the wholesale slaughter of innocent people.

Further, with regard to changing a law from illegal to legal, would require the commander in Chief, thus the Chief Executive Officer to realize that a law which prevents the means he determines is essential to secure the security of the nation; thus represents an impediment to that Constitutional mandate and the moral imperative which supercedes the law which fails to serve the aforementioned imperative; thus valid, sustainable justice...

As would be the case by ANY individual who is standing under a building which he realizes is crumbling upon him where he disrgards the LAW which unambiguously prohibits J-WALKING... to avoid certain death or serious boldily injury...

There would of course be no potential for the prosecution of the VIOLATION OF THE LAW to serve justice, despite the law being clearly stated, consistently enforced and otherwise being NON-NEGOTIABLE.

Such is the case here... The Bush administration did not waterboard these people in a vacuum... and these people were not your young sister who were detained on her way to the Junior High Prom...

The Bush administration implemented these procedures in the wake of an ATTACK UPON THE US which resulted in the death of 3000 people and the loss of a TRILLION DOLLARS from the US GDP... and those 'people' were the principles behind that attack as well as previous attacks... they were MASS MUDERERS... and were suitable for summary execution without notice to anyone... for any reason.

What's more; those procedures were NOT being implemented against those mass murderers to gain a confession... or to gather EVIDENCE which would be used to CONVICT THEM OF A CRIME... which is what the ideological left and Rachel Maddow are DESPERATE TO IMPLY... as they work to obscure the relevant issues to purpetuate these MYTHS...

 

[JimH52]

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Waterboarding STILL IS A CRIME.. it's assault, unlawful restaint and I suspect it represents a HOST of potential charges... in damn near EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE...

It's just that coercive interrogation, which seeks to cull time sensitive, life saving information from those who are reasonably believed to possess such; THOSE WHO HAVE OVERTLY ACTED TO IMPART WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER UPON THE INNOCENT... is not one of those circumstances...

What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[JimH52]

The "Decider" along with his sidekick, Uncle Fester, seemed to dictate what was legal or illegal. That is frightening.