I'm surprised the WH let this be put into writing. However, it's unlikely Tenet would've continued the officially-endorsed torture program without a get-out-of-jail-free card.

More evidence---as if any was needed---added to the abyssmal legacy of a disgraced presidency.

Thank You JeffJ et al for Your support of practices that We used to convict others for doing. Then You claim Gore and Kerry were much worse. Unfuckingbelievable.

Larry

I say we waterboard Dubya on PPV and then apply the money to help homeowners.

"We do not torture."

Umm, yes, we do.

I'm glad they waterboarded terrorist suspects captured on the battlefield. It's a sure and quick way to get information that may have saved American lives and helped us prevail in the war on Muslim Terror..

Unbelievable!

Who would have thought a few water balloons would be so effective in interrogation?

And to think that kids having been doing it for years.

"I'm glad they waterboarded terrorist suspects captured on the battlefield. "

Were you glad when Japanese did it to Americans during WWII.

Oh...that was part of their crimes and their convictions. I almost forgot.

So tell us, what exact date did waterboarding cease to be torture? It was torture when used in the Dark Ages, it was torture when it was used in the Middle Ages, and it was torture when it was used in WWII. When, exactly, did waterboarding become legal?

good to see this
another time that mccain didnt vote or agree with bush...............

I see by Vermins post that he is trying to prove his IQ is even lower than Sarah's!(83)

When you're right, you're well....wrong.

good to see this
another time that mccain didnt vote or agree with bush...............

#8 | Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-10-15 12:02 PM

McCain seems to forget that he voted against a bill that would have banned the CIA from using waterboarding. In fact, when the bill passed, McCain urged Bush to veto it, which he did. Thus, McCain's claim that he "obviously doesn't want to torture prisoners" rings hollow. Indeed, because of Bush's veto, the CIA retains the option of waterboarding prisoners:

Still, waterboarding remains in the CIA's tool kit. The technique can be used, but it requires the consent of the attorney general and president on a case-by-case basis. Bush wants to keep that option open.

"I cannot sign into law a bill that would prevent me, and future presidents, from authorizing the CIA to conduct a separate, lawful intelligence program, and from taking all lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack," Bush said in a statement.

People will never agree on whether waterboarding is torture, so let's just assume that it is. The more important question becomes whether the US should engage in the torture of terror suspects to get potentially lifesaving information. From a utilitarian standpoint, I think the answer is yes. Since most liberals don't have a problem with the theory of moral relativism, I don't think they should be bothered by the fact that many people don't think torturing terrorists is wrong.

Joe, torture never works and never has. Those tortured will just make stuff up or tell the torturers whatever they want to hear to make the pain stop.

There is no case where torture brought about useful information.

As to wether or not waterboarding is torture, how about I fly out and waterboard you on video, then we'll post the link here and Drudgies can vote.

From a utilitarian standpoint, I think the answer is yes.
#11 | Posted by JOE

Shouldn't your utilitarian approach take blowback into consideration? i.e. that even if waterboarding thwarts some plan today, that the practice itself incentivizes others to plan attacks tomorrow?

Since most liberals don't have a problem with the theory of moral relativism, I don't think they should be bothered by the fact that many people don't think torturing terrorists is wrong.
#11 | Posted by JOE

And what is your answer to those "liberals" who don't necessarily believe in moral relativism (your assumption clearly taking "moral relativism" to mean that ALL morality is relative)?

"torture never works and never has."

I don't think that can be stated conclusively. If I'm not mistaken it worked on KSM and has probably worked with others as well. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

"As to wether or not waterboarding is torture"

I already stated that for purposes of the discussion we will assume that waterboarding is torture. Therefore your offer to waterboard me was unnecessary. As another poster put it yesterday, maybe you should take out your frustration at a gym.

Waterboarding is torture. Ask the Navy SEALs who abolished the practice when no one could withstand the procedure for more than a few seconds during counter-interrogation training. And they drown-proof these guys. There is also proof of permanent psychological damage resulting from the practice.

"Water balloons" are just like Rush's "Club Gitmo" shirts to clowns who seek to apologize for abhorrent behavior they couldn't possibly withstand themselves.

"Shouldn't your utilitarian approach take blowback into consideration? i.e. that even if waterboarding thwarts some plan today, that the practice itself incentivizes others to plan attacks tomorrow?"

The idea that waterboarding creates some sort of blowback assumes that the persons associated with those being waterboarded would find the practice to be insulting or morally repugnant. However those same people have no problem slitting the throats of their prisoners or flying airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Therefore it is hard to believe the idea that they would somehow be offended by waterboarding.

"And what is your answer to those "liberals" who don't necessarily believe in moral relativism"

Then I would say that the government enforces laws, not necessarily morals, though the two often become intertwined. I would also say that the fact that a government's actions are not in keeping with your own moral code does not not necessarily mean their actions are wrong. It just means that you would not do it if you were them.

"If I'm not mistaken it worked on KSM and has probably worked with others as well. Correct me if I'm wrong about that."

It worked, alright. . .if you believe he was in cahoots with Aaron Burr.

"a government's actions are not in keeping with your own moral code does not not necessarily mean their actions are wrong."

How about when a government's actions are not in keeping with its own moral code?

Like, when Americans prosecute Japanese for waterboarding because it's torture, and then waterboard...?

Since torture brings about terror to those that it is inflicted upon those that torture are terrorists by default. Those that support torture then become terrorist supporters by default. Therefore if You support torture You are no better than the terrorist that You condemn to being tortured.

Larry

"How about when a government's actions are not in keeping with its own moral code?"

I was unaware that our government had adopted an official "moral code." If you could provide a link to it, I would love to read it.

Unless your trained to withstand torture due to physical, mental, or spiritual methods, you will talk.

I had a high school teacher who would punish the whole class for one fool's actions. Why? Because the fool wouldn't admit to the offense. So, he punished everyone. He said that if the truth was important, the classmates would ensure it.

Guess what, torture works. The fool squealed. Especially when the threat of the class makes sure of the promise.

Sometimes torture does work. Call it punishment for lighter events. Sometimes it may not work, but there can be results.

As for legalizing it? Talking about torture like it can be rationalized is like discussing civilized warfare.

We should all agree to use weapons that vaporize the entire person. Using bullets and bombs can leave people alive, but horribly injured. That's just uncivilized. You'd think we would have perfected killing people when that is the intent. Instead, we torture people for life due to loss of limb and other horrible injuries.

By the way, bullets and bombs are civilized and therefore, legal. I'm glad the soldiers at Walter Reed consider their injuries to be legally gained and not torture. Wait until they see the bill. No bailout for you.

"I had a high school teacher who would punish the whole class for one fool's actions. Why? Because the fool wouldn't admit to the offense. So, he punished everyone. He said that if the truth was important, the classmates would ensure it."

Your high school teacher was a fool.

Ummm, Ms. Pelosi:

You've been saying for some time that "impeachment is off the table" because you haven't seen any evidence of real wrongdoing.

So - here it is, and we look forward to some action, and maybe a little apology to Dennis Kucinich.

Okay, so I'm not holding my breath.

"As for legalizing it? Talking about torture like it can be rationalized is like discussing civilized warfare."

I'm just trying to find out where America stands. Waterboarding was illegal during WWII because it was torture. And I don't believe that a lesser amount of torture than our enemies makes it all okay, or NOT torture; that's like saying stealing $10,000 is okay, because someone else stole a million. But I've asked this question again and again, yet never gotten an answer:

What date, exactly, did waterboarding cease to be torture?

Thanks mostly to "bushleague" interrogation techniques-America is now a rogue nation-a "terrorist" Nation-if you will.
Since we are PAYING insurgents in Iraq-we are also financially supporting terrorism.
In diverting resources from Afghanistan-to invade Iraq-we also became a terror"EXPORTING" country.

Christ on a cracker!

We're Syria! We're Iran!
bushie is khadafie, and all the other terrorist supporters in the middle east.

Don't bother leaving the country-from now on-we're all terrorists-and belong on the No-Fly list-and to be denied entry into this country for ties to terrorism.
Maybe everyone should just hop on boats and surrender themselves at gitmo?

Since you guys on the right started this mess-you can go first-we'll be right behind ya-"honest Injun"!

Torture-wrong.
Throwing a grenade at your enemy-ok.
Shooting a prisoner in the head-wrong.
Shooting the enemy at 20 paces-ok.
Committing treason-wrong.
Committing treason and winning the Revolutionary War-ok.

Where are the dead prisoners from waterboarding? Where are the dead or traumatized journalists who have been waterboarded? If it's such a matter for debate as to whether it's torture or not, I'd thereby conclude that it's not. It's physical coercion. It's SUPPOSED to create intense fear in the recipient. Fear of death. And the very few times that it's been used, it has been effective. Interrogators get lied to all the time, so this is just another tool to be used, and so be it.

Why isn't Hitchins volunteering to get his fingernails pulled out? Because we KNOW that is torture, so we don't do it. Anyone given a choice would take waterboarding all day long. It's the fear of the discomfort that is the motivator. The worst thing you could do to an interrogator is to let the subject know that we won't do anything to make him uncomfortable. Oppose torture, but this ain't it.

" If it's such a matter for debate as to whether it's torture or not, I'd thereby conclude that it's not."

But it was, all the way up to WWII, when we prosecuted the Japanese for torture, including waterboarding.

What date, exactly, did it cease to be torture?

Joe, torture never works and never has.

#12 | Posted by briwo at 2008-10-15 12:17 PM | Reply

Liar. We both know this isn't true, so why do you weasels continually trot it out?

chairpoodle, I'm sure you have some kind of "proof?"

and Dimsey, I'll be glad to waterboard you, I'll bet $10,000 that you don't last 3 minutes.

But it was, all the way up to WWII, when we prosecuted the Japanese for torture, including waterboarding.

What date, exactly, did it cease to be torture?

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-10-15 01:30 PM | Reply

This tired old refrain again.

The winner of the war dictates the rules.
Where are all of the members of the greatest generation that were put on trial for their acts of trture during WW2?
What date exactly did we pardon them for executions, looting, torture, and murder?

Nice deflection, now if you could answer the question.

chairpoodle, I'm sure you have some kind of "proof?"

and Dimsey, I'll be glad to waterboard you, I'll bet $10,000 that you don't last 3 minutes.

#31 | Posted by briwo at 2008-10-15 01:38 PM | Reply

Well look no further than a man that was himself torured...John McCain.

You little prisses are hilarious. On one hand you act butch and claim you want to waterboard Joe, Bush, or Cheney, and on the other hand you spot your manties at the thought of torture.

I'm sure you're immune to your own hypocricy.

Nice deflection, now if you could answer the question.

#33 | Posted by briwo at 2008-10-15 01:40 PM | Reply

Are you dumb enough to believe I typed that in less than a minute stupid?

I'll be glad to waterboard you, I'll bet $10,000 that you don't last 3 minutes.

#31 | Posted by briwo at 2008-10-15 01:38 PM | Reply

Because it works stupid.

I was unaware that our government had adopted an official "moral code." If you could provide a link to it, I would love to read it.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2008-10-15 12:43 PM

Have we not signed onto the Geneva Conventions?

Is that not an official "moral code"?

The Geneva Conventions: the core of international humanitarian law

Please show the post where I "spotted" my manties.

We're just trying to figure out when torture and waterboarding became illegal. Since we won WW2, we didctated the rules and at that time, torture, INCLUDING WATERBOARDING was deemed by us as illegal.

Because it works stupid.

#36 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-10-15 01:42 PM

prove we have gotten any useful information from waterboarding, nd remember KSM has already been thoroughly discredited.

If you have trouble, call Sarah, she'll bring the full prowess of her 83 IQ to bear on the problem.

"What date, exactly, did waterboarding cease to be torture?"

The fact that you ask a question that is impossible to answer does not make you correct. Clearly it occurred sometime between WWII and right now - are any government officials who believed waterboarding to be torture during WWII still employed by our government? If not, and given the fact that our government has not adopted its own moral code, why does the fact that our government now takes a different position on the issue proof of anything? Does the executive branch create its own precedent that later members are required to follow?

Well look no further than a man that was himself torured...John McCain.

ahh yes the flipper who was agin it before he was for it.

"I said there should be additional techniques allowed to other agencies of government as long as they were not" torture. "I was on the record as saying that they could use additional techniques as long as they were not cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment," McCain said.

"So the vote was in keeping with my clear record of saying that they could have additional techniques, but those techniques could not violate" international rules against torture.

But the vote was not "in keeping" with McCain's unclear record on torture; in the past, McCain called waterboarding a "terrible and odious practice" that "should never be condoned in the U.S."

Once again Chairpuddles finds himself on the side of evil.

Clearly it occurred sometime between WWII and right now

facts not in evidence counselor.

Hey Chair, you gettin drunk and watching the debate 2nite?

prove we have gotten any useful information from waterboarding, nd remember KSM has already been thoroughly discredited.

If you have trouble, call Sarah, she'll bring the full prowess of her 83 IQ to bear on the problem.

#39 | Posted by briwo at 2008-10-15 01:47 PM | Reply

You don't think a guy would last 3 minutes, yet you want linked proof to something you already believe?

It's simple, not one of us could with-hold information while being tortured. You know it, and I know it. I'm not talking some simple "ticking time bomb scenerio" either. Examination and cross examination would reveal who is telling stories and who isn't.

If I'm about to inflict some pain on you, you're going to talk. It's human nature.

Hey Chair, you gettin drunk and watching the debate 2nite?

#43 | Posted by briwo at 2008-10-15 01:49 PM | Reply |

No, I'm getting drunk and playing floor hockey. I some how was convinced to join the league. I thought it would suck, but it's pretty funny. My stomach hurts the next morning from laughing so hard. Plus, a little excersize couldn't hurt.

I was unaware that our government had adopted an official "moral code." If you could provide a link to it, I would love to read it.

#21 | Posted by JOE

I guess when the USA takes the lead in prosecuting war crimes, especially waterboarding incidents, it creates a moral code by default. Of course when the USA starts waterbording and using other torture, it loses respect from both allies and others putting itself in a position to be called hypocritical.

"The fact that you ask a question that is impossible to answer does not make you correct. Clearly it occurred sometime between WWII and right now"

Self-retorting answer. If it clearly occurred...what date?

"why does the fact that our government now takes a different position on the issue proof of anything?"

Because believing one thing when it's convenient and prosecuting someone else based on that belief, and the exact opposite when THAT is convenient, and trying to exonerate oneself based on the new, more innocent definition, is hypocrisy at best...more likely, nefarious and self-serving. It also puts us in the position of moral relativists, as if stealing a million is okay, because someone else stole a billion.

"Does the executive branch create its own precedent that later members are required to follow?"

YES...when we sign an international treaty, as we did.

You don't think a guy would last 3 minutes, yet you want linked proof to something you already believe?

I said he couldn't last 3 minutes, I didn't say he would provide useful information, big difference.

Where are the dead prisoners from waterboarding?

In the ground.

Most of them officially died of "organ failure" from "pre-existing conditions" that "nobody coulda predicted" and which were totally unconnected with their torture sessions ...er "enhanced interrogation techniques" anyway.

* wink wink *

America, under the auspices of the CIA, used to just train other countries people to torture, a lot of people don't understand wot a huge mis-step it is to go from condoning torture and training others in torture techniques to actually becoming a torture state.

101 thinks it's cool cos "it works" and "winners write the history books".

Torture does work but not in the sense that 101 thinks it does. You don't need to torture to get information in most cases. Torture is really a societal control mechanism. When you see people on yer block being hauled away and disappeared in the night never to return and then start hearing stories of the sickest shit imaginable happening to them, then a pall is cast over an entire society. People become afraid to speak their minds which is, of course, the general idea. Taken to extremes one stops confiding in family and friends and workmates because nobody can be trusted.

That how torture "works".

Anybody who thinks torture is ever justified is an asshole of EPIC proportions.

Torture = Terror.

Bush and Cheney = Terrorists.

101 who is apparently okay with America becoming a torture state is a pure coward, mindlessly capitulating to the powerful like some prison bitch offering his ass up in the air fer a good fucking.

Pathetic.

Be Well.

"If it clearly occurred...what date?"

It's only clear because at one point the government prosecuted it and on a much later date the government endorsed it. Just because it's clear something changed doesn't mean a specific date need be provided.

"believing one thing when it's convenient and prosecuting someone else based on that belief, and the exact opposite when THAT is convenient, and trying to exonerate oneself based on the new, more innocent definition, is hypocrisy at best"

No it isn't. Again - if none of the people who believed waterboarding to be torture are currently serving in the US government, how is it hypocracy at all? Maybe the people who work for the US government now have believed waterboarding not to be torture their entire lives - in which case they are not hypocrites. You cannot be made a hypocrite just because the person who formerly occupied your position believed something you do not believe.

"when we sign an international treaty, as we did."

Does that treaty specifically mention waterboarding?

"Just because it's clear something changed doesn't mean a specific date need be provided."

Then make one up. Sometime in the night in the 50s? During the protests of the 60s? Did disco make it okay in the 70s?

Or was it the day Bush took office?

"if none of the people who believed waterboarding to be torture are currently serving in the US government, how is it hypocracy at all?"

THAT'S the barometer?

No one is currently serving who wrote the Constitution, either.

Does that treaty specifically mention waterboarding?

#50 | Posted by JOE at 2008-10-15 01:59 PM

Try reading it.

Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees.

Pud,
I read that article too. Did you think you would get away with ripping off printed material you clown?

"If I'm about to inflict some pain on you, you're going to talk. It's human nature."

Yeah, but that's assuming the suspect is the person that actually knows what you want to know. Otherwise, you're going to get false information because the subject will say anything to get you to stop.

Also, 101, Do you now need to grow a floor-length mullet?

"No, I'm getting drunk and playing floor hockey. I some how was convinced to join the league. I thought it would suck, but it's pretty funny. My stomach hurts the next morning from laughing so hard. Plus, a little excersize couldn't hurt.

#45 | Posted by 101Chairborne"

Yeah, but you would watch the debate if your girl Cynthia Mckinney was in it!

McKinney 08!

Yeah, but that's assuming the suspect is the person that actually knows what you want to know. Otherwise, you're going to get false information because the subject will say anything to get you to stop.

Also, 101, Do you now need to grow a floor-length mullet?

#54 | Posted by evashogouki at 2008-10-15 02:21 PM | Reply

1st things first...The mullet: No, they sell a helet with fake hair attached to the back. It gives the impression of a mullet.

There are about 1,000,000 qualifiers that could be added to either a pro or con torture position. Just because I think it works, and just because I'm all for our government applying it, doesn't mean I think it should be used early and often, or that it should be drilling holes in people's eyeballs.

I think it's a great way to check out/verify existing information that is relatively known. I also think it can be effective if it's used over a period of time (so you can verify and cross examine).

To blanketly say it never works is stupid. To claim it works effectively every time is equally as dumb. I'm a firm believer in never taking an option off of the table.

Yeah, but you would watch the debate if your girl Cynthia Mckinney was in it!

McKinney 08!

#55 | Posted by nullifidian at 2008-10-15 02:24 PM | Reply

I'd TiVo it!

"It's simple, not one of us could with-hold information while being tortured. You know it, and I know it. I'm not talking some simple "ticking time bomb scenerio" either. Examination and cross examination would reveal who is telling stories and who isn't." - 101

Yet it didn't work so well for the Gestapo during WWII. People who had real info knew they only had to hold out for a short period of time and the info they had would become worthless.

And if you need to examine and cross examine after the torture, why not just examine and cross examine and skip the torturing. Thus, the only time torture would make any sense would be in a time-critical scenario. See above re that.

"I'd TiVo it!"

Better yet, how about a debate between your fav babe, Ann Hathaway, and mine, Scarlett Johannson?

Television worth watching!

"Better yet, how about a debate between your fav babe, Ann Hathaway, and mine, Scarlett Johannson?"

Wait...where's third-party (and I mean party!) candidate Paris Hilton?!?

Yet it didn't work so well for the Gestapo during WWII. People who had real info knew they only had to hold out for a short period of time and the info they had would become worthless.

And if you need to examine and cross examine after the torture, why not just examine and cross examine and skip the torturing. Thus, the only time torture would make any sense would be in a time-critical scenario. See above re that.

#58 | Posted by fyi at 2008-10-15 02:31 PM | Reply

But not everything is time critical. Perhaps we just want to know how a cell was formed, the hierchy, a past communication method, etc to put pieces together? (Again, this is part of the 1,000,000 different caveats).

I don't think torture is the best route for a time sensitive scenario. At least not torturing the guy that knows...Grab his kid, and see what he says then. If he lied, kill the kid and then the guy in question (unless he has more kids)...
Obviously I'm being me, but I think you get the picture. There is no cookie cutter answer. All tools need to be available.

Television worth watching!

#59 | Posted by nullifidian at 2008-10-15 02:32 PM | Reply

And watching, and watching, and watching...

"Perhaps we just want to know how a cell was formed..."

Then we examine and cross examine. Like good cops do.

"Grab his kid, and see what he says then."

Yeah, the KGB was big on this. As was the DDR's inquisition gang. Both eventually decided that torture was fun but otherwise useless. What worked, they decided, was turning agents. I suspect the biggest reason the CIA used torture was because they couldn't infiltrate -- and had trouble turning agents - vast incompetence there.

FYI,
We can round and round with caveats. What if examining and cross examining don't work?
Torture doesn't always have to be physical.

As for the kids being tortured...Give me a break. What absolute minute percentage of people are going to let their kid get killed or injured.

I suppose you can point me to a place where I could learn more about the KGB admitting they did it, yet weren't keen on it anymore?

If torture is useless, why is it still used by the best of the best?

"I suppose you can point me to a place where I could learn more about the KGB admitting they did it, yet weren't keen on it anymore?"

The KGB (now FSB) actually has a site on the net where they have posted lots of their documents. Unfortunetly all in Russian. My info comes from several people I know who are working with those (and archived) documents.

"Caveats"

What? I don't know what this refers to.

"What if examining and cross examining don't work?"

Then the examiners are incompetent. And those guys tend to be _really_ good at questioning.

"What absolute minute percentage of people are going to let their kid get killed or injured."

Very, I mean _very_, few people who have real info have family exposed in such a manner.

"If torture is useless, why is it still used by the best of the best?"

Who is this "best of the best"? Everything I've read and heard says that the "best" interogators rely on lots of other techniques and consider torture beneath them.

Is waterboarding wrong?

What about the Plutonium experiment?
Experiments on eskimos in the 1960's?
What about radioactive experiments on people during the Manhattan project?
What about the Berkeley tests?

As for honoring the Geneva Convention, how does the US feel about treaties - ask American Indians.

There were rapes in Germany after the Allies defeated the Nazis. The winners were not going to prosecute their soldiers.

War - it's disgusting business and only the winners decide who is innocent.

There were rapes in Germany after the Allies defeated the Nazis.

"you spare the women?"

"hell no, we rape the shit out of them down at the #8"

-Blazing Saddles.

"Then make one up."

Why?

"THAT'S the barometer?"

Yes. Because if you're a hypocrite, it's because you act in a way that is inconsistent with something you have previously said or done. Not something someone else has done. Perhaps you could look at the definition of hypocrite if you are still confused.

"No one is currently serving who wrote the Constitution, either."

Correct, and if they act or speak in a way that is contrary to the Constitution, they aren't hypocrites (except with regard to their oath), they're just despicable leaders.

"Does that treaty specifically mention waterboarding?"

Try reading it.

I read the portion you quoted - where does it specifically mention waterboarding?

I read the portion you quoted - where does it specifically mention waterboarding?

#69 | Posted by JOE

There's lawyer Joe, playing semantic games again. Yawn.

It's not semantics. My only question was where the treaty specifically mentions waterboarding, and he posted something that doesn't specifically mention waterboarding. Being unwilling to pretend that a document says something it does not say is not semantics. It's called living in reality.

I read the portion you quoted - where does it specifically mention waterboarding?

#69 | Posted by JOE at 2008-10-15 03:23 PM

Somehow I knew you'd say that. Typical Rethug response.

It doesn't specifically say that using a sharp stick in yer eye, drilling out yer teeth or attaching electrodes to the nuts and making you dance naked in front of attack dogs or many other known (or unknown) forms of TORTURE are "specifically" mentioned.

Does that mean they are ok too?

Waterboarding is torture no matter how you and the EVIL chairpuddles try and twist it AND it is prohibited by the Geneva conventions. And this administration has violated International law by condoning and allowing it.

"best of the best"

that would be Vlad the Impaler

Waterboarding is a war crime. The Bush admin are war criminals.

Same old GOP.

Sacramento County Republican leaders Tuesday took down offensive material on their official party Web site that sought to link Sen. Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden and encouraged people to "Waterboard Barack Obama" material that offended even state GOP leaders.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has pushed the party to try to broaden its appeal, took issue with the site. "In the governor's view, it's completely and totally inappropriate," said Julie Soderlund, a Schwarzenegger spokeswoman.

Hector Barajas, a California Republican Party spokesman, said Democrats have been playing the race card, but that the local party went too far in this instance.

"Obviously I'm being me...."

Indeed.

So what.

"So what...?"

The most basic question in philosophy.

Or as Cheney would say:

"So?"

The Gestapo and the Japanese liked it as a method in WWII, so what's the big deal? The Germans even had a cool name for stuff like this. It translates as "enhanced interrogation techniques". Pretty cool.

"Verschrfte Vernehmung", the Germans of the Third Reich called it.

The "kill the kids" proposal vetted above is another technique taken from the Nazis playbook. Rommel agreed to commit suicide specifically to avoid his wife and son being punished with him.

Rommel was one of the most decorated and greatest commanders maybe ever. If torturing the enemy saves one American life then so,brng it on.

Rommel? I was talking about the SS and the Gestapo. I was unaware that Rommel was known for torturing prisoners. If you'd like to talk about other Germans you admire who have nothing to do with torturing prisoners, please be my guest, but I fail to see the point.

If torturing the enemy costs even one American his soul it's not worth it.

Rommel was offered that "bargain" by the Gestapo, who would have tortured his wife and children, quite likely as he watched. Sorry to be obscure.

However those same people have no problem slitting the throats of their prisoners or flying airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Therefore it is hard to believe the idea that they would somehow be offended by waterboarding.

If they're the ones that perpetrated such acts, they yes - but you deliberately turned the argument to garbage. The point was about creating more terrorists. Clearly the disregard the USA is held by so many and not just moderate Arabs and Islamic people after years of our occupation and Abu Gharaib, and many other examples has done exactly that. Hence the NIE's conclusions.

Point to Hagbard.

Rommel was a professional soldier ,the Gestapo and SS were not, they were cowards and butchers.
And who appointed you to preside over other peoples "souls"? Do you have a black robe and gavel?

Controlled - It's lovely that you respect Rommel. That Rommel hasn't a fuck at the moon to do with this thread is not my fault. But, please, talk about Rommel all you wish.

"the Gestapo and SS were not, they were cowards and butchers.", yes, who justified "Verschrfte Vernehmung".

Controlled - It's lovely that you respect Rommel. That Rommel hasn't a fuck at the moon to do with this thread is not my fault. But, please, talk about Rommel all you wish.

#90 | Posted by BetelG

Easy pussycat,I didnt bring up Rommel, Zed did,why dont you read the posts?

The Gestapo and the Japanese liked it as a method in WWII, so what's the big deal? The Germans even had a cool name for stuff like this. It translates as "enhanced interrogation techniques". Pretty cool.

#81 | Posted by BetelG

So our military is playing catch with live infants on bayonets? Or putting people in ovens like bread? Is that what your saying? The mental disorder of librulism.

strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he AGREED TO TALK.

Thats great ,So waterboarding works.

So our military is playing catch with live infants on bayonets? Or putting people in ovens like bread? Is that what your saying?

Of course not, but would you be against that if it were done to terrorists and could prevent another attack?

(BTW, you're right, Zed mentioned Rommel first, but he wasn't in any way attacking him)

Controlled-
First, just because someone talks, it doesn't mean they are telling you anything other than what you want to hear. Second, you skipped the part about where waterboarding was considered and prosecuted as a war crime right up until you and the Bush administration decided to defend its use.

BetelG they don't care. They have lost their way long ago unfortunately.

Larry

Larry-
I'm afraid you're right. Morality to them depends on which side you're on. It's the ultimate argument of moral and ethical relativism.

I wasnt attacking Rommel either, he was a honorable man. I have never tortured anyone,sorry to disapoint you.Show me one instance in Iraq or Afganistan where our military acted like savages,beheading or torturing the enemy,which over there includes armed women and children? And not instances where we cleared out buildings after a fight or IED and there was some collateral damage.
And if cutting some fuckers head off would get his buddies to tell where a dirty bomb was set to go off I would have no problem with that.

ControlledPairs-
I'm talking about the civilians in the White House. Is it that difficult to understand that your defense of their actions makes me ill?

What you dont say from your moral pulpit is that the Japanese tortured our men for pleasure.You should get out in the real world once or twice,but you never will.

Controlled-
re: And if cutting some fuckers head off would get his buddies to tell where a dirty bomb was set to go off I would have no problem with that.

#100 | Posted by controlledpairs at 2008-10-15 08:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's you. I'm sure you would have, as an honorable person, no qualms about defending your murder of a prisoner in a courts martial. I'm talking about the POLICY set by the highest civilian officials of the US Gov't, and I would hope that you would agree that decapitation or torture of prisoners should not be the policy of the US Gov't.

What you dont say from your moral pulpit is that the Japanese tortured our men for pleasure.

But, torture for the proper ends is justified, as policy? Well, that's what the great city on the hill has proclaimed. John Yoo argued that as long as the INTENT was not sadistic in nature, then sadistic means could be used. He was even asked if crushing the testicles of a child of a terrorist would be a permissible action for the President to authorize, and he didn't say that that was off the table, either.

First, just because someone talks, it doesn't mean they are telling you anything other than what you want to hear.#97 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-10-15 08:10 PM | Reply | Fl

Are You sure? How about Ltc Allen West, US Army Battalion commander ,4th infantry Division,in Iraq in Octobet 2003. He was relieved for firing his pistil near an Enemys head,the enemy talked to Ltc West and told him of an upcoming attack,so american lives were saved. You look it up ,I was there so I dont have to.

Is that torture or a great commander who loves his men?

ControlledPairs-
I think we're talking past each other here. I would torture, maim and kill a helpless offender to save an innocent, but that doesn't mean I wish to be above the law, nor does it mean that I wish to grant the legal authority to the President (ANY PRESIDENT) to declare himself above the law.

That's you. I'm sure you would have, as an honorable person, no qualms about defending your murder of a prisoner in a courts martial

I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.

I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.

#107 | Posted by controlledpairs at 2008-10-15 08:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you see the difference between personally taking an action that you know to be technically and unquestionably against the law, and declaring yourself above the law?

Going to watch the debate. Adios, until another time.

Do you live in a hypothetical world?,What are you talking about? And dont be talking about killing and maiming so lightly,you never have experienced the abject terror of combat and pray to whatever you pray to that you dont.

And what about LTC West, did he torture that Iraqi?Thats not some abstract classroom discussion, that is reality. Shit , I give up.

Torture got Whitehouse OK? McCain was against torture, before he was for it.

Really, who gives a diddly f**k.

The a-holes that are killing our citizens should be given a lot worse. Water boarding never hurt anyone. Yes, it will scare the crap out the person being questioned but if will save even one American life I say put the electrodes on their private parts and just remember one thing, red is positive and black is negative.

Torture is what the bad guys do, Jobama. If we're the "greatest country ever on God's fucking green earth," then it's important that we don't torture. We're supposed to lead by example and not engage in the same evil that our enemies engage in.

We're supposed to lead by example and not engage in the same evil that our enemies engage in.

#114 | Posted by Scrumplet

Nice words strumpt, but you don't sound like someone who has ever been in war. Just like the cowardly pricks during the 60s and 70s you talk about something you know nothing about.

Try hanging from a rope by your hands tied behind you back in an enemy camp while they beat you for the fun of it, then let's see how you feel about putting a little water up the nose of a terrist.

Soft little cowards like you are the reason our enemy thinks we are an easy mark.

Umm! mccain is against torture.

For a nation who is supposed to be the world power we have a real difficult time showing that world our fair laws and living by that example.

We justified our invasion of iraq because S. hussein was torturing people and now apparently it is OK to do the same to protect our country.

Jobama, my dad served for 17 years, he's against torture, too. And he's a Republican. I'm disappointed that you view people with viewpoints like mine and my father's as "soft little cowards."

This is the CIA we're talking about, where the people they're torturing have been in their custody. It's not in the middle of a warzone where all hell's breaking loose.

McCain voted in favor of waterboarding not too long ago, if I'm correct. Waterboarding is torture.

We need to torture those in favor of torture. They need to experience it first hand.

Scrumplet,

I honor your father for his service, now I know that only one of you is a "soft little coward." But then again I never mentioned your father DID I.

I think my exact words were "Soft little cowards like YOU are the reason our enemy thinks we are an easy mark."

Your fathers beliefs are not involved here unless he in on this blog.

Scrumplet,

One other thing now that you have my back up. While I was in nam, I had to go into a POW camp near Laos and cut down my buddies that had there hands and feet cut off and allowed to bleed to death under the direct orders of Trần Văn Tr because they would not tell the bastards where our camp was located.

So don't preach to me you little prick.

"While I was in nam, I had to go into a POW camp near Laos ..."

I saw a few POW camps during my time in Nam. Did make me think they were sadists for torturing. Made me want to kill the guards and their commanders. Didn't make me want to torture them, though.

Made me want to kill the guards and their commanders. Didn't make me want to torture them, though.

#121 | Posted by fyi

So, shooting someone with a .223 round or severial of them is not torture?

"So, shooting someone with a .223 round or severial of them is not torture?"

Nope, it is killing them. You honestly don't know the difference?

Nope, it is killing them. You honestly don't know the difference?

#122 | Posted by fyi

No, I honestly don't care. I'm fine with just shooting them too. But none of limp wristed libs on this site would go for that either I'm sure.

"No, I honestly don't care."

Doesn't say much about your morals. Glad you weren't in my unit.

BTW, I served with quite a few who were Dems. And who were libs. Know/knew quite a few Korean and WWII vets who were dems and/or libs. All knew the diff between killing in battle and torture. Knew some WWII vets who liberated Nazi concentration camps. They felt about the Nazi guards like I did about the Nam camp guards. They weren't into torture either.

No, I honestly don't care. I'm fine with just shooting them too. But none of limp wristed libs on this site would go for that either I'm sure.

#123 | Posted by JoBama at 2008-10-16 03:42 PM

sometimes you folks amaze me. Your ignorance is appalling.

Liberal is not a bad word no matter how you and those like you try and twist it.

George Washington was a liberal yet he had no qualms, when push came to shove, with pulling the trigger and emptying his weapon into the enemy and killing them en mass with his soldiers when he had to in defense of his nation.

These central virtues of early Christianity and eighteenth-century liberalism - prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice - are exemplified in the life and writings of George Washington. Indeed, a 1779 portrait of His Excellency General Washin