Legal Precedents Regarding Waterboarding

[jreeves]

Case law isn't binding? When did that happen?

If waterboarding is illegal then why isn't JFK up on waterboarding charges?

What did JFK do?

JFK authorized waterboarding in his adminstration...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I still think...

Do you have any evidence in support of this?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Case law isn't binding? When did that happen?

was there a scotus ruling that said waterboarding is illegal? i thought they were lower court rulings as to those people, not a ruling the specifically said waterboarding is torture. lower courts are only binding as to their circuit or district.

Okay, thanks for claryfying. I didn't realize that SCOTUS makes all case law. I must have missed that somewhere.

However, you said it wasn't binding. In this case it is. We have a precedent in Texas on waterboarding as torture. Though the High Court has not had ruling on waterboarding specifically, it will in the very near future. Now Back to your, "It doesn't specifically say waterboarding argument." I call bullshit. Those cases specifically cite torture. Since waterboarding is the technique used as evidence, it is therefore defined as torture. The case in Texas is federal, that means that our Justice department went and defined, by case law, waterboarding as torture. At this point I could give two shits if anybody thinks that it is okay to use because it does no harm. That matters not, because the US Government has defined it as torture and as it has been said throughout our history, "we don't torture." Legally speaking, it isn't illegal everywhere. Legally speaking though, it is torture.

Water boarding is not torture and this is without regard for the opinion of a 'progressive' jurist.

The notion that the courts are the arbiter of such matters is absurd and such is yet another disfunctional delusion of left-think.

A judge or jury may hear argument which tends towards convincing them that waterboarding is torture; but that determination rests upon the circumstances relevant to that argument.

If someone kidnaps an innocent person and subjects them to water-boarding, then sure, its' torture... as there is no basis for such... the person was innocent, the basis for such is little more than sadistic entertainment or some distorted notion of punishment.

None of which are relevant to the circumstances of interrogating mass murderers who are presently associated with others who are capable in their determination to attack innocent people, who've no means to defend themselves from such attacks and who will be maimed and killed in massive numbers...

These advocacies for the rights of those actively seeking to murder massive numbers of innocent people are spurious rationalizations of the counter producitve variety.

 

[jreeves]

was there a scotus ruling that said waterboarding is illegal? i thought they were lower court rulings as to those people, not a ruling the specifically said waterboarding is torture. lower courts are only binding as to their circuit or district.

Okay, thanks for claryfying. I didn't realize that SCOTUS makes all case law. I must have missed that somewhere.

However, you said it wasn't binding. In this case it is. We have a precedent in Texas on waterboarding as torture. Though the High Court has not had ruling on waterboarding specifically, it will in the very near future. Now Back to your, "It doesn't specifically say waterboarding argument." I call bullshit. Those cases specifically cite torture. Since waterboarding is the technique used as evidence, it is therefore defined as torture. The case in Texas is federal, that means that our Justice department went and defined, by case law, waterboarding as torture. At this point I could give two shits if anybody thinks that it is okay to use because it does no harm. That matters not, because the US Government has defined it as torture and as it has been said throughout our history, "we don't torture." Legally speaking, it isn't illegal everywhere. Legally speaking though, it is torture.

Water boarding is not torture and this is without regard for the opinion of a 'progressive' jurist.

The notion that the courts are the arbiter of such matter is absurd and such is yet another disfunctional delusion of left-think.

A judge or jury may hear argument which tends towards convincing them that waterboarding is torture; but that determination rests upon the circumstances relevant to that argument.

If someone kidnaps an innocent person, subjects them to water-boarding, then sure, its' torture... as there is no basis for such... the person was innocent, the basis for such as sadistic entertainment or some distorted notion of punishment.

None of which are relevant to the circumstances of interrogating mas murderers who are presently associated with those who are plotting attacks upon innocent people, who've no means to defend themselves from such attacks and who will be maimed and killed in massive quantities...

These advocacies for the rights of those actively seeking to murder massive numbers of innocent people are spurious rationalizations of the counter producitve variety.

It is also morally dysfunctional, to suggest a terrorist who is responsible for killing thousands should not be subjected waterboarding, even with overwhelming evidence that waterboarding could save thousands of additional lives.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If waterboarding is illegal then why isn't JFK up on waterboarding charges?

What did JFK do?

JFK authorized waterboarding in his adminstration...

Waterboarding has been used by every administration in my lifetime and it was taught to us by those who were here before I was.

This is simply the impotent cries of halfwits... these people aren't interested with human rights; there is nothing on earth more cruel than the ideological left... they wouldn't walk across the street to spit on you if you were on fire.

The simple fact is that they're trying to produce some crime which they can hand on Bush... They're still FURIOUS that Bush defeated Gore nine years ago... and all that anger rests with Bubba getting his fat ass IMPEACHED... the dozens of felony convictions from his administration; and the fact that Bush, for all his faults... ran one of the most honest, upfront, clean administration in US history... and that IS KILLING THEM.

The irony is that GW, with the exception of his staunch nationalist streak (Which means that GW actually loves the US... and he stood in the breach when she was attacked and took the war directly to the attackers...) is much closer to THEM, than he is US...

 

[Iriemon]

If waterboarding is illegal then why isn't JFK up on waterboarding charges?

What did JFK do?

JFK authorized waterboarding in his adminstration...

Cite please.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What did JFK do?

JFK authorized waterboarding in his adminstration...

Cite please.

A citation?

Fine...

"I Publius Infinitum hereby state for the record that in the 1970s, only a few years after the cessation of hostility between the US government and the Republic of North Vietnam, that I was trained by the US Government in the implementation of Water-boarding and other coersive forms of interrogation; and as part and parcel of that training was informed that such techniques had been used by the United States government since before the memory of man ran to the contrary."

Now in case ya 'don't know' that was 30 years before GW Bush became President... During the time when Jimmy Carter... Leftist Saint, humanitarian, Former Lord of the Idiots... was President.

Does that help?

Now if you'd like to state emphatically and unambiguously that you know to a CERTAINTY that the US did not use ceorsive interrogation and that such was NOT authorized by Jack Kennedy... then by all means DO SO...

And we'll just helo ya to another dose of abject public humiliation...

So let 'er rip, sis...

 

[Iriemon]

JFK authorized waterboarding in his adminstration...

Cite please.

A citation?

Fine...

"I Publius Infinitum hereby state for the record that in the 1970s, only a few years after the cessation of hostility between the US government and the Republic of North Vietnam, that I was trained by the US Government in the implementation of Water-boarding and other coersive forms of interrogation; and as part and parcel of that training was informed that such techniques had been used by the United States government since before the memory of man ran to the contrary."

Now in case ya 'don't know' that was 30 years before GW Bush became President... During the time when Jimmy Carter... Leftist Saint, humanitarian, Former Lord of the Idiots... was President.

Does that help?

Now if you'd like to state emphatically and unambiguously that you know to a CERTAINTY that the US did not use ceorsive interrogation and that such was NOT authorized by Jack Kennedy... then by all means DO SO...

And we'll just helo ya to another dose of abject public humiliation...

So let 'er rip, sis...

Sorry, I meant something credible, not another so-called "fact" you pulled out of your ass, miss.

 

[Article 15]

JFK authorized waterboarding in his adminstration...

Cite please.

A citation?

Fine...

"I Publius Infinitum hereby state for the record that in the 1970s, only a few years after the cessation of hostility between the US government and the Republic of North Vietnam, that I was trained by the US Government in the implementation of Water-boarding and other coersive forms of interrogation; and as part and parcel of that training was informed that such techniques had been used by the United States government since before the memory of man ran to the contrary."

Now in case ya 'don't know' that was 30 years before GW Bush became President... During the time when Jimmy Carter... Leftist Saint, humanitarian, Former Lord of the Idiots... was President.

Does that help?

Now if you'd like to state emphatically and unambiguously that you know to a CERTAINTY that the US did not use ceorsive interrogation and that such was NOT authorized by Jack Kennedy... then by all means DO SO...

And we'll just helo ya to another dose of abject public humiliation...

So let 'er rip, sis...

lol ...

Your response can be summarized as, "Because I said so, now go prove this negative."

Weak.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Cite please.

A citation?

Fine...

"I Publius Infinitum hereby state for the record that in the 1970s, only a few years after the cessation of hostility between the US government and the Republic of North Vietnam, that I was trained by the US Government in the implementation of Water-boarding and other coersive forms of interrogation; and as part and parcel of that training was informed that such techniques had been used by the United States government since before the memory of man ran to the contrary."

Now in case ya 'don't know' that was 30 years before GW Bush became President... During the time when Jimmy Carter... Leftist Saint, humanitarian, Former Lord of the Idiots... was President.

Does that help?

Now if you'd like to state emphatically and unambiguously that you know to a CERTAINTY that the US did not use ceorsive interrogation and that such was NOT authorized by Jack Kennedy... then by all means DO SO...

And we'll just helo ya to another dose of abject public humiliation...

So let 'er rip, sis...

Sorry, I meant something credible, not another so-called "fact" you pulled out of your ass, miss.

Yes, you're quite sorry... But I don't see anything where you've managed to contest that veracity of that citation... You're free to deny it... but such is a baseless act of a desperate leftist...

What you're basically claiming is that if a historical citation can't be posted then the assertion is not true... Which amounts to little more than raw ad hoc fallacy... thus is invalid... thus DOA with regard to sustainable argument.

Now if you've some evidence to advance wherein you can conclusively establish that my citation is false... fine... let's see it and we'll take it from there. But 'I don't believe it...' ain't gonna get that done.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Cite please.

A citation?

Fine...

"I Publius Infinitum hereby state for the record that in the 1970s, only a few years after the cessation of hostility between the US government and the Republic of North Vietnam, that I was trained by the US Government in the implementation of Water-boarding and other coersive forms of interrogation; and as part and parcel of that training was informed that such techniques had been used by the United States government since before the memory of man ran to the contrary."

Now in case ya 'don't know' that was 30 years before GW Bush became President... During the time when Jimmy Carter... Leftist Saint, humanitarian, Former Lord of the Idiots... was President.

Does that help?

Now if you'd like to state emphatically and unambiguously that you know to a CERTAINTY that the US did not use ceorsive interrogation and that such was NOT authorized by Jack Kennedy... then by all means DO SO...

And we'll just helo ya to another dose of abject public humiliation...

So let 'er rip, sis...

lol ...

Your response can be summarized as, "Because I said so, now go prove this negative."

Weak.

ROFLMNAO... So "I said so..." is a negative? Really? Seems more an affirmation...

Again, like I told the other idiot... if you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

 

[Iriemon]

A citation?

Fine...

"I Publius Infinitum hereby state for the record that in the 1970s, only a few years after the cessation of hostility between the US government and the Republic of North Vietnam, that I was trained by the US Government in the implementation of Water-boarding and other coersive forms of interrogation; and as part and parcel of that training was informed that such techniques had been used by the United States government since before the memory of man ran to the contrary."

Now in case ya 'don't know' that was 30 years before GW Bush became President... During the time when Jimmy Carter... Leftist Saint, humanitarian, Former Lord of the Idiots... was President.

Does that help?

Now if you'd like to state emphatically and unambiguously that you know to a CERTAINTY that the US did not use ceorsive interrogation and that such was NOT authorized by Jack Kennedy... then by all means DO SO...

And we'll just helo ya to another dose of abject public humiliation...

So let 'er rip, sis...

lol ...

Your response can be summarized as, "Because I said so, now go prove this negative."

Weak.

ROFLMNAO... So "I said so..." is a negative? Really? Seems more an affirmation...

Again, like I told the other idiot... if you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

LMFAO!

And s/he was lecturing me about how debate boards work!!

"I state this is a fact. Go prove I'm wrong." That's a pretty slick debate technique! LOL!

Let me try it:

I, Iriemon, state that PubliusInfinitum is a closet gay who pretends to be a tough guy ex-soldier so he can pull bullshit "facts" out of his ass without having any basis for them.

If you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

ROTFLMAO!!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Of course, there's always the emphatic assertion, wherein one of you gals would declare that "Coercive interrogation was NEVER used by US forces in Vietnam... " which might inspire someone to go to the den and pull a reference disproving it...

But I really don't see the need to get too worked up over the ad hoc farce: 'If it doesn't have a link, it didn't happen...'

But you work it out anyway ya like... as it stand now, there is no argument on the table which establishes that "GW Bush is the only US President to utilize coercive interrogation..."

While in contrast there is evidence on the table which establishes that the US military was training troops to utilize such techniques and reason is served that where such is being trained for, such is authorized by those who run the Military and few people can be more soundly said to run the US military, than the US CinC... In my case, it was Jimmy Carter... friend of the workin' man... oracle of compassion and authroizer of coervice interrogation techniques... those who trained me... learned it long before I did... and the top running the program came into the Corps back when IKE was in charge... a point to which he often referred... So... Thus, by that timeline of JUST THE PEOPLE I KNEW WHO WERE TRAINED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH... training for such was an ongoing process, going back to the 50s... and someone taught THEM!

Give it up girls... this is a very old and well tuned program which works everytime it's tried and that you need it to be TORTURE and ILLEGAL ... isn't going to even change it, let alone stop it.

 

[Iriemon]

Of course, there's always the emphatic assertion, wherein one of you gals would declare that "Coercive interrogation was NEVER used by US forces in Vietnam... " which might inspire someone to go to the den and pull a reference disproving it...

But I really don't see the need to get too worked up over the ad hoc farce: 'If it doesn't have a link, it didn't happen...'

But you work it out anyway ya like... as it stand now, there is no argument on the table which establishes that "GW Bush is the only US President to utilize coercive interrogation..."

While in contrast there is evidence on the table which establishes that the US military was training troops to utilize such techniques and reason is served that where such is being trained for, such is authorized by those who run the Military and few people can be more soundly said to run the US military, than the US CinC... In my case, it was Jimmy Carter... friend of the workin' man... oracle of compassion and authroizer of coervice interrogation techniques... those who trained me... learned it long before I did... and the top running the program came into the Corps back when IKE was in charge... a point to which he often referred... So... Thus, by that timeline of JUST THE PEOPLE I KNEW WHO WERE TRAINED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH... training for such was an ongoing process, going back to the 50s... and someone taught THEM!

Give it up girls... this is a very old and well tuned program which works everytime it's tried and that you need it to be TORTURE and ILLEGAL ... isn't going to even change it, let alone stop it.

Been drinking early again? What the hell does this babbling have to do with the assertion "JFK authorized torture"?

 

[Article 15]

A citation?

Fine...

"I Publius Infinitum hereby state for the record that in the 1970s, only a few years after the cessation of hostility between the US government and the Republic of North Vietnam, that I was trained by the US Government in the implementation of Water-boarding and other coersive forms of interrogation; and as part and parcel of that training was informed that such techniques had been used by the United States government since before the memory of man ran to the contrary."

Now in case ya 'don't know' that was 30 years before GW Bush became President... During the time when Jimmy Carter... Leftist Saint, humanitarian, Former Lord of the Idiots... was President.

Does that help?

Now if you'd like to state emphatically and unambiguously that you know to a CERTAINTY that the US did not use ceorsive interrogation and that such was NOT authorized by Jack Kennedy... then by all means DO SO...

And we'll just helo ya to another dose of abject public humiliation...

So let 'er rip, sis...

lol ...

Your response can be summarized as, "Because I said so, now go prove this negative."

Weak.

ROFLMNAO... So "I said so..." is a negative? Really? Seems more an affirmation...

Again, like I told the other idiot... if you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

No, you jackass.

You're citation was the "because I said so" part of the summary and the "prove a negative" was the second part where you wanted a negative to be proven with respect to the Kennedy challenge even though you are the one who made the positive assertion first yet never backed it up.

Weak.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Of course, there's always the emphatic assertion, wherein one of you gals would declare that "Coercive interrogation was NEVER used by US forces in Vietnam... " which might inspire someone to go to the den and pull a reference disproving it...

But I really don't see the need to get too worked up over the ad hoc farce: 'If it doesn't have a link, it didn't happen...'

But you work it out anyway ya like... as it stand now, there is no argument on the table which establishes that "GW Bush is the only US President to utilize coercive interrogation..."

While in contrast there is evidence on the table which establishes that the US military was training troops to utilize such techniques and reason is served that where such is being trained for, such is authorized by those who run the Military and few people can be more soundly said to run the US military, than the US CinC... In my case, it was Jimmy Carter... friend of the workin' man... oracle of compassion and authroizer of coervice interrogation techniques... those who trained me... learned it long before I did... and the top running the program came into the Corps back when IKE was in charge... a point to which he often referred... So... Thus, by that timeline of JUST THE PEOPLE I KNEW WHO WERE TRAINED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH... training for such was an ongoing process, going back to the 50s... and someone taught THEM!

Give it up girls... this is a very old and well tuned program which works everytime it's tried and that you need it to be TORTURE and ILLEGAL ... isn't going to even change it, let alone stop it.

Been drinking early again? What the hell does this babbling have to do with the assertion "JFK authorized torture"?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted...

Let the record reflect that the member has no evidence of any kind which would tend towards indicating the GW Bush is the only US President to utilize coercive interrogation techniques and rejects all other evidence which conclusively establishes that such has been utilized for decades by previous administrations...

Thus her argument, such as it is, is refuted... her concession accepted and until such evidence comes forth to suggest otherwise, this debate is concluded.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

lol ...

Your response can be summarized as, "Because I said so, now go prove this negative."

Weak.

ROFLMNAO... So "I said so..." is a negative? Really? Seems more an affirmation...

Again, like I told the other idiot... if you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

LMFAO!

And s/he was lecturing me about how debate boards work!!

"I state this is a fact. Go prove I'm wrong." That's a pretty slick debate technique! LOL!

Let me try it:

I, Iriemon, state that PubliusInfinitum is a closet gay who pretends to be a tough guy ex-soldier so he can pull bullshit "facts" out of his ass without having any basis for them.

If you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

ROTFLMAO!!

Sure... Let's begin...

You've asserted that Publius Infinitum is a pathetic sexual deivient who lacks the personal character to control their base sexual instincts...

What is the nature of your expertise?

What are the specific facts which sustains the evidence supporting your stated conclusions?

Answer those questions and we'll continue to establish the evidence which sustains the looming refutation of your stated position.

Enoy...

 

[Iriemon]

Of course, there's always the emphatic assertion, wherein one of you gals would declare that "Coercive interrogation was NEVER used by US forces in Vietnam... " which might inspire someone to go to the den and pull a reference disproving it...

But I really don't see the need to get too worked up over the ad hoc farce: 'If it doesn't have a link, it didn't happen...'

But you work it out anyway ya like... as it stand now, there is no argument on the table which establishes that "GW Bush is the only US President to utilize coercive interrogation..."

While in contrast there is evidence on the table which establishes that the US military was training troops to utilize such techniques and reason is served that where such is being trained for, such is authorized by those who run the Military and few people can be more soundly said to run the US military, than the US CinC... In my case, it was Jimmy Carter... friend of the workin' man... oracle of compassion and authroizer of coervice interrogation techniques... those who trained me... learned it long before I did... and the top running the program came into the Corps back when IKE was in charge... a point to which he often referred... So... Thus, by that timeline of JUST THE PEOPLE I KNEW WHO WERE TRAINED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH... training for such was an ongoing process, going back to the 50s... and someone taught THEM!

Give it up girls... this is a very old and well tuned program which works everytime it's tried and that you need it to be TORTURE and ILLEGAL ... isn't going to even change it, let alone stop it.

Been drinking early again? What the hell does this babbling have to do with the assertion "JFK authorized torture"?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted...

Let the record reflect that the member has no evidence of any kind which would tend towards indicating the GW Bush is the only US President to utilize coercive interrogation techniques and rejects all other evidence which conclusively establishes that such has been utilized for decades by previous administrations...

Thus her argument, such as it is, is refuted... her concession accepted and until such evidence comes forth to suggest otherwise, this debate is concluded.

Thanks. I knew you'd been drinking because your posts are so incoherent.

 

[JBeukema]

You have made a claim of a positive occurrence for fact. The burden of proof falls to you to produce credible, verifiable, falsifiable, empirical evidence that your claims are true- for instance, a sound bite from a credible source or citation to a 3rd party of recognized authority

Replace' jkf quote' with 'god' and hes just acting like the xtians

You asked them to 'prove the negative' which is a logical fallacy. It is impossible to prove a negative save by demonstrating a mutually exclusive positive

I assert that there is an invisible pink elephant on you head which you cannot feel, and which has its trunk up your ass. Prove otherwise

 

[Iriemon]

lol ...

Your response can be summarized as, "Because I said so, now go prove this negative."

Weak.

ROFLMNAO... So "I said so..." is a negative? Really? Seems more an affirmation...

Again, like I told the other idiot... if you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

No, you jackass.

You're citation was the "because I said so" part of the summary and the "prove a negative" was the second part where you wanted a negative to be proven with respect to the Kennedy challenge even though you are the one who made the positive assertion first yet never backed it up.

Weak.

It was actually JReeves who first made the assertion that JFK authorized torture but he disappeared and PI grabbed the banner.