Liberals Push Bybee Impeachment

I love this, bring it on and let the chips fall where they may. This way the whole country will realize what a bunch of fucking babies the libs are. I CAN NOT WAIT>

"bring it on and let the chips fall where they may."

You mean, like last November?

You know it must be doubly disgusting for WW2 Vets that are still alive witnessing their own Country. Their own Country that condemned others for practicing torture practicing it themselves. I really would LOVE tyo hear the Vetrans of WW2 WW1(Impossible I am sure) and tell us how they REALLY feel about the whole affair.

Larry

The US executed three Japanese Officers for waterboarding our soldiers, after WWII.

It was a Texas sheriff's job to interrogate captured terrorists withholding secret plans to murder Americans? Didn't think so.

Nor would it be proper for a Mayor to use surface to air missiles to blow up a neighborhood that he doesn't like. Typical libs would blame the missiles instead of the twisted individual...

Reagan wasn't George Walker Bush. George Herbert Walker Bush is not Dick Cheney.

When's Hannity's charity waterboarding event??

I believe it is scheduled for the 31st of this month.

Reagan was a pussy.

Rush and the Rushettes

what a bunch of fucking babies the libs are. I CAN NOT WAIT>

#2 | Posted by chickenrancher

Yea, take that you pinko commie bastards (who are all gay sodomitic satan-worshippers).

Serves you right with your high minded ideals that justice should be administered 'judiciously' and blindly.

Everyone knows that Bush's holy crusade to...uh...uhmmmm...to uh.....his holy crusade to...uh

WTF was he trying to do again? Oh yea, save us from bearded cavemen.

HAVE YOU BEEN ATTACKED BY BEARDED CAVEMEN LATELY? Hmmmmmm? See, you can thank Bush for that. He tortured a cab-driver and a little boy and a canadian to protect you from bearded cavemen.

His holy crusade is above the law!!! Don't forget that.

"The US executed three Japanese Officers for waterboarding our soldiers, after WWII.

Who keeps telling you guys that crap?
If it is as bad as you say it is let it be judged on its own merits not some bogus talking points. Check for yourself before you spout off, none were executed but instead just incarcerated, none were sentenced for water boarding but instead that was on a list of things.

I also heard of earlier cases where hunters were prosecuted for shooting other hunters.

"His holy crusade is above the law!!! Don't forget that."

Quick point of contention.
Do you really believe that war does not trump certain laws?
I'm not sure the last time i saw a soldier get 1st deg murder for doing his job. Do spies get charged with theft even when our government knows about it?
If we capture a supply truck is it shoplifting?

Some laws do not apply in war time.

Some laws do not apply in war time.

Oh, yes. There is ample historical precedent for this. Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt... all violated the constitution out of fears that were later revealed to be unjustified.

But yeah, cowards who cave easily to fears cooked up by their over-active imaginations will go along with just about anything in wartime. Whatever civil liberties the president says you don't need, well, you don't need them. Just take his word for it. The president is so trustworthy.

It takes balls to say, "No, this might make us more secure, but it violates everything this country stands for."

Do you really believe that war does not trump certain laws?
I'm not sure the last time i saw a soldier get 1st deg murder for doing his job.

Apples and oranges. Killing during combat operations is perfectly legitimate - after all, the bad guys have guns and will not hesitate to shoot back. The people we've captured no longer pose a threat, and if the US wants to preserve its moral superiority over its enemies, we should not debase ourselves out of fear.

Nothing "trumps" the freedoms that countless Americans have died to protect.

"""Check for yourself before you spout off, none were executed but instead just incarcerated, none were sentenced for water boarding but instead that was on a list of things."""

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."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

Full article:

"Charge: That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 August, 1944, , at Fukoka Prisoner of War
Branch Camp Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Yukio Asana, then a civilian
serving as an interpreter with the Armed Forces of Japan, a nation then at war with the
United States of America and its Allies, did violate the Laws and Customs of War.
Specification 1:That in or about July or August, 1943,the accused Yukio Asano, did
willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Morris O. Killough, an American
Prisoner of War, by beating and kicking him; by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring
water up his nostrils.

Specification 2: That on or about 15May, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch
Camp Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully,
brutally mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O. Cash, and Munroe Dave
Woodall, American Prisoners of War by beating and kicking them, by forcing water into
their mouths and noses; and by pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies.

Specification 5: That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 December, 1943, the accused Yukio
Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture John Henry Burton, an
American Prisoner of War, by beating him; and by fastening him head downward on a
stretcher and forcing water into his nose."

Source:
Wallach, Evan. "Drop By Drop: Forgetting The History of Water Torture In U.S.
Courts," The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 2007

The US executed three Japanese Officers for waterboarding our soldiers, after WWII.

#5 | POSTED BY NUTCASE AT 2009-04-28 09:10 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Link Nutjob. Full charges too please...

"Apples and oranges. Killing during combat operations is perfectly legitimate"

You missed my point. Some laws are naturally suspended in wartime, that is not to say anything should go but certain aspects are not pretty. I do not believe waterboarding is torture, i don't think discomfort can be considered torture. But anyhow, it is illegal in normal every day civilian life, but when you attach civilian rules to the military you loses before you begin.

when you attach civilian rules to the military you loses before you begin

There's a valid point here, but you take it beyond its logical conclusion. There's no need to sacrifice our principles for intelligence of dubious value - torture (yes, waterboarding is most definitely torture) is not reliable. If you are using physically coercive methods, people will say what they think you want to hear to make it stop.

"Some laws do not apply in war time."

Oh, that explains why Cheney wasn't charged with negligent hunting. Thanks for clearing it up.

" If you are using physically coercive methods, people will say what they think you want to hear to make it stop."

This can be true, however sometimes playing the odds is the only game left. It may be that truth is a diamond in the rough with everything they say, but it may be worth it. I don't feel that it is my place, sitting at home, to tell the military what is effective enough to use.

This revelation makes the torture supporters look even more retarded.

"There's no need to sacrifice our principles for intelligence of dubious value"

So Your principals are based on the value of what will cause you to leave them, right? Now, if we were getting very useful info, info that maybe saved many lives would it be ok?
Now what on earth makes you think that you and i have access to what was said or done as a direct result of these acts?
Would you be willing to suspend your judgment until it is possible to have a little info about the value of these interrogations?

"This revelation makes the torture supporters look even more retarded."

Got anything you did not read on a t-shirt?

Got anything you did not read on a t-shirt?

#25 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-04-28 01:04 PM

Sure thing, here it is:

This revelation makes the torture supporters look even more retarded.

"".by beating and kicking him; by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring water up his nostrils."""

Sounds like about the same treatment reserved for the guant gang. In any case, the treatment now called waterboarding was included in the charges, so...

Hmmm let me try again, maybe you will understand this time.

Care to say anything that you actually thought about?
Or is it just the one line blurbs that get your attention?

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, not everyone considers waterboarding torture? It just could be that there is another legitimate side you the argument. Or are you content to wrap everyone that does not agree with together and refer to them as torture supporters?

Care to say anything that you actually thought about?
Or is it just the one line blurbs that get your attention?

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, not everyone considers waterboarding torture? It just could be that there is another legitimate side you the argument. Or are you content to wrap everyone that does not agree with together and refer to them as torture supporters?

#28 | Posted by salamandagator

BTW, Dems are getting their 60 in the Senate. Look in the mirror and thank yourself.

" In any case, the treatment now called waterboarding"

No that is called forced water ingestion.

"maybe, not everyone considers waterboarding torture?"

Of course, like not everyone considered/s lynching murder.

" ... could be that there is another legitimate side you the argument."

Sure, like the legitimate side of lynching.

" You're stuck in your opinion, and will never budge no matter what."

Exactly what gives you that impression?
That i don't agree with you?

"Look in the mirror and thank yourself."

Sorry i blame it more on the people that draw their conclusions from headlines with out any sort of real thought. You might want to dust off your own mirror it would appear you have not used it in a while.

"Of course, like not everyone considered/s lynching murder. "

"i'am right everyone else is wrong"

Hey, thanks for proving my point, no one gets very far with a mind so tightly closed.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, not everyone considers waterboarding torture?

It doesn't matter what people think, it matters what the laws state.

Your buddies over at NAMBLA think fucking little boys isn't child molestation. But it is.

So Your principals are based on the value of what will cause you to leave them, right?

Yes, situational ethics. Every set of principles, every rule, and every generalization has its exceptions. We should stick to our principles until there is no other resort left, and that is not what has happened.

Now, if we were getting very useful info, info that maybe saved many lives would it be ok? Now what on earth makes you think that you and i have access to what was said or done as a direct result of these acts? Would you be willing to suspend your judgment until it is possible to have a little info about the value of these interrogations?

I don't put any value on "arguments from ignorance".

If life were an episode of 24 and there was a nuke about to go off and you had the man who set it up, sure, I would approve of roughing him up a bit - if it was going to produce good intel. The problem is that this scenario is unrealistic in all sorts of ways, and torture does not produce reliable information. The US hasn't been faced with this sort of a situation, and if it were, you had better believe that it would be made public by the Bush administration to legitimize their policy decisions.

When the US tortured "high-value detainees," it was a fishing expedition - not a last-ditch effort to avoid a catastrophe. Look back at recent history - the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was based entirely on fears that were later found to be unjustified. The government has a history of overreacting because they do not know what is coming, and always assume the worst. It may be prudent to do so, but like I said earlier, arguments from ignorance have no value. If the government wants to spit in the face of American values, it should have a much better reason for doing so then, "We don't know that such-and-such a hypothetical situation isn't going to happen."

"Your buddies over at NAMBLA think fucking little boys isn't child molestation. But it is."

Sorry but i am not a member of the aclu.

Salmongrater,

What is The Geneva Convention for, anyway?

"and if it were, you had better believe that it would be made public by the Bush administration to legitimize their policy decisions."

I don't think it is fair to make that kind of judgment. I do believe that there is more information the what is available to the general public. I also believe that there could be legitimate reasons for withholding that info. I do not think that it is prudent for us to release all the info we have just to ease the minds of some of our citizens and i am unwilling to draw conclusions based on information that could be described as partial at best. This is not to say that they are infallible but that i reserve my judgment until i can make an informed decision.

"What is The Geneva Convention for, anyway?"

Have you read it?

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..."

Water boarding is not considered to cause pain, and i think the mental pain is completely subjective. If fear of death is torture then we tortured the green river killer into telling us where more bodies were. After all that was his only way to avoid the death penalty.

""" In any case, the treatment now called waterboarding"

No that is called forced water ingestion.

#30 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-04-28 01:21 PM | Reply |

And fucking is also called the horizontal boogie.

Sure and baseball is also called golf after all they both use a stick and a ball.

So i guess if many of you deem waterboarding too extream for legitimate interrogation what would be a good alternative?

Good cop bad cop?
No ice cram until you tell us?
sodium Amytal?
Waiting until they talk in their sleep?

I am really wondering what would be acceptable, or do we just not expect to get any info at all and just lock them up?

Is yelling at them causing mental anguish?
How about the presence of guns?
Don't you think that being locked up in a cell caused emotional pain?

Sally doesn't get a lot of things.

The idea of Precedence being just one of them.

Ignore Sally, as a fool's mind will never change. Just point and laugh.

.

Ha ha!

can't you tell the difference between a local law enforcement issue and a national issue-first the sheriff was abusin american citizens playin to local politics----the cia and others was(in their minds at least)tryin to protect us citizens from a foriegn threat

#42 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-04-28 01:55 PM

Well, you could at least start by determining a person's guilt, that would be a start. My suggestion: buy them. It would cost less financially and morally to your country to offer the guy cash for info. Keep him until the info checks out. It would be far less costly than sustaining a camp, training "interrogators" than backpeddling to swear you weren't doing what everyone knows you were.

My question to you: what treatment would you be willing to allow the enemy to subject a american pow to before saying it crosses the line?

And don't give me the facile response of "they decapitate". That's an execution. They use a rusty blade, you guys use billions of dollars of high tech weaponry to shock and awe. Ironically, it seems their method has caused more "shock and awe" than yours.

Some laws do not apply in war time.

#14 | Posted by salamandagator

This usually only applies when you actually win. Whoever loses has war crimes. Whoever wins is holy AND get's the girl.

"ok you lying Rethuglican's, here it is from Senator McCain no less."

You have to love the "your side likes this guy so you are not allowed to disagree" mentality.

" My suggestion: buy them"

That does not work when you pit money against the idea of everlasting perfection.

"Look in the mirror and thank yourself."

Sorry i blame it more on the people that draw their conclusions from headlines with out any sort of real thought. You might want to dust off your own mirror it would appear you have not used it in a while.

#32 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-04-28 01:25 PM

You want my argument? Legally speaking, water boarding has been prosecuted as a form of torture by US, the U.S. Plain and simple, we considered it torture. I don't get all choked up because some fuck from the dirt hole we call the Middle East has a little water splashed in his face, but the facts are facts, retired JAGs (military judges) and our own history, states that it is torture. People who know better than I, or you.

And yes, the republican party's willingness to sink to these lows has cost them moderates, and in turn elections. Keep defending this shit though, I'm sure it'll bring some new voters in '12.

Dear Chairman Leahy,

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.

In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding "the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . ." Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

We agree with our active duty colleagues. 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. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America's military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America's history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well-established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules yhat can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - as 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.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.)
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88

"My question to you: what treatment would you be willing to allow the enemy to subject a american pow to before saying it crosses the line? "

Are you asking if i would dislike it our guy were waterboarded?
Yes

Would i say it is torture?
No

"Legally speaking, water boarding has been prosecuted as a form of torture by US, the U.S. Plain and simple, we considered it torture."

Aside from the sheriff which is a differnt ballgame altogether, when?
You cannot use the Japanese as examples because as is clearly shown it was not the same treatment nor was it the only "crime" but instead among a list of grievances. If you could find a case where we have prosecuted for just waterboarding then i would be grateful. I would also appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of international law stating that it is specifically illegal. But as far as i can tell it is all about interpretation. Is it mean?
Maybe
Is it uncomfortable?
definitely.
Does it make you fear for your life?
Possibly. But if that is your definition of torture then just about anything could fit that definition.
Is it torture?
Not in my book.

Post all the opinion you want, but there is no clear resolution to the legalities no matter how much you may want to believe that there is. The opinion of a few big wigs in the military are just that.
If you want it to stop then a clear law should be written that states waterboarding is illegal until then it is open to interpretation and yours is not the only opinion that has merit.

"This usually only applies when you actually win."

That is not necessarily true. We have prosecuted our own, including a few in Vietnam for water boarding, however i am unable to obtain details of those proceeding but i do now it only ended in a discharge which is not a punishment set aside for torture and i have heard it was a blanket charge of mistreatment of POW's for that and other actions by the same individuals. Once again if any of you have more info i would appreciate it.

"the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning"

I just caught this.
Now we are not only responsible for the conceptions of our actions but the misconceptions as well. So regardless of our actions the true crime is if the detainee feel like it is something else. Hmm if he snapped and thought the walls were made of spears is that torture as well?

Salamandagator - Your logic is as slippery as your namesake...

Torture is a crime.

Why is it a crime? Because it robs a person of their humanity. You think that waterboarding is not a crime because there is no specific statute on the books that expressly prohibits waterboarding?

Me thinks that is faulty logic. I dare say that if anyone now currently confined in our legal justice system was waterboarded just once then they would have a criminal case against the agency or department that authorized it and the individuals that performed it.

There is legal precedence for this in the 1983 case.

As for POWs - The Geneva Convention clearly states:

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

So SlimyMandor - The bottom line is that by your twisted logic you are attempting to not only not follow the letter of the law but you are not even trying to follow the spirit of the law and the International Treaty that we have signed onto.

"The bottom line is that by your twisted logic you are attempting to not only not follow the letter of the law but you are not even trying to follow the spirit of the law and the International Treaty that we have signed onto."

So what are you saying this falls under?
Mutilation?
No
Humiliation?
No
Degrading?
Specifically waterboarding, no

So you are left whit humanly treated.
Are you trying to tell me that is not subjective?

Or you are back to cruel treatment or torture which is the entity of the argument. This is circular logic you are using the very thing that remains undefined as the definition.

Not only that but you fail to read on in the geneva convention,

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

Which brings us to the convention being irrelevant.

However to help you out a little i would suggest using article 18

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

But one again we are not subject to that as these are not prisoners of war.

"Waterboarding is clearly cruel treatment and torture and torture is illegal. "

My brother dunking me was cruel as well is he guilty of torture?
If you want to apply your political morality to these types of actions, fine. But you may as well be honest and include the like action that we all have done.

If waterboarding is torture then most of us are guilty of torture. Send the cops i'll go peacefully.

"Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind"

I wanted to point this out again. There is essentially no interrogation methods that do not fit this.
So to for some misguided reason believe that they are under the protection of the Geneva convention you would have to believe that all interrogation is in "clear" violation.

Are you wiling to go to those lengths?

If waterboarding is torture then most of us are guilty of torture. Send the cops i'll go peacefully.

#58 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-04-28 05:16 PM |

Equating a dunk to waterboarding is beneath your previous posts on the subject. If the u.s. prosecuted japanese soldiers for waterboarding, then I will qualify that as torture, and expect the prosecution of the guilty parties. The rest is right wing backpeddling on something they thought they could get away with. Period.

"You think that waterboarding is not a crime because there is no specific statute on the books that expressly prohibits waterboarding?"

Duh.
That's right if there is no law against it then it is not a crime. If this were not the case then what the hell do we have laws for?

"If the u.s. prosecuted japanese soldiers for waterboarding, then I will qualify that as torture"

But they did not, theye were prosecuted and waterboarding(more precisely forced water ingestion) was among many other acts such as beatings and burnings. To single out one part of a plethora of grievances and consider it the only factor is just plain wrong.

"Equating a dunk to waterboarding is beneath your previous posts on the subject."

What it comes down to is trust. A dunk is not as bad because you know that he will let you up. This may not be the case for the detainees but especially in the multiple cases you would think they would understand they will not die. Which would lead me to believe that if it is true that it is not painful and you are not in fear for your life then what could make it torture?
I am not trying to say it is a game but that it does not full in the same category as having you fingernails pulled out.

Twist little sally!
Spin little sally!
Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist! Spin! Twist!

Don't you get dizzy form all that spinning?

Panch see my #17 post for the specification of the Japanese examples.
The main difference is the way water was administered. As i understand that is called forced water ingestion and is many times more severe and still they placed it within many other charges. It is not an apples to apples comparison.

Yup watch me spin, look at me go. How dare i adhere to the law rather then the whimsical ranting of the people out for blood. You sure got me there.

Question for you.
Did they have to round the point on the dunce cap before they gave it to you?

Which brings us to the convention being irrelevant.

However to help you out a little i would suggest using article 18

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

But one again we are not subject to that as these are not prisoners of war.

Thank YOU I forgot article 18.

But YOU forgot the rest of Article 4

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

But most importantly is Article 5

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Clearly the Geneva Convention is relevant. Lying about the effectiveness and legality of torture is relevant and calling someone an "enemy combatant" or rendition to foreign soil to circumvent the laws and treaties of the land is also relevant to this case.

"Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

As if there are no tribunals, wait i seem to remember a big stink about the military running them and that some were secret. Hmmmm, maybe they did cover their bases. Then you also have that pesky "Should any doubt arise" part, if there is no doubt then there need be no trial. So once again you can only conclude that they are no prisoners of war and therefore the convention does not cover them.

Anything else?

Tak'er easy...
And if she is easy take her twice.

It was a Texas sheriff's job to interrogate captured terrorists withholding secret plans to murder Americans? Didn't think so.

Nor would it be proper for a Mayor to use surface to air missiles to blow up a neighborhood that he doesn't like. Typical libs would blame the missiles instead of the twisted individual...

#6 | Posted by Dinsey at 2009-04-28 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ahhhhhhh....the 'Jack Bauer' defense. Good to see it's not quite dead yet.

As long as it's for a 'good enough' reason, it's ok?

This revelation makes the torture supporters look even more retarded.

#23 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-28 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Impossible.

Salamanda,

The opinion of a few big wigs in the military are just that.

#53 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-04-28 03:39 PM

If you want it to stop then a clear law should be written that states waterboarding is illegal until then it is open to interpretation and yours is not the only opinion that has merit.
#53 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-04-28 03:39 PM

Torture Works!

101 Douchbag.

The lawyers who wrote memos trying to justify tortue should be advising an organizied crime family not the president
I feel that Bush and Dick kept shopping for a lawyer who would tell them exactly what they needed to hear.and they found more than one of those whores .
Now if my lawyer tells me it is ok to rob a bank then I go rob the bank claiming it was legal,AT LEAST my lawyer should lose his law license.
How about we start with the discplinary board to yank their law license