Radio Host Mancow admits Waterboarding IS torture

[Industrialsize]

nice how you sidestepped the fact that you were wrong on the "Rule of Law" at Gitmo.

we can leave that aside for now.

obviously, the "torture" that occurred at Gitmo, was not illegal, since the EIT's were approved of, and no US Lawmakers with oversight made any legal claims at the time saying otherwise.


"What they did tell us is that they had . . . the Office of Legal Counsel opinions [and] that they could be used, but not that they would." - Nancy Pelosi


The office of legal counsel's opinions were that they were legal. That was then followed.

and by the way...

Torture may be "illegal" under military law...*HOWEVER* the detention center at Gitmo, is run by the CIA...and CIA is not subject to military law.

the CIA is not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The torture at gitmo was NOT obviously legal and still isn't. This is a matter for debate and the courts. The Bush administration got the DOJ to write some memos SAYING the torture legal. Whether these memos will hold up under the harsh light of scrutiny in a court of law is another thing. Just because the DOJ gave the greenlight does NOT make what occured at gitmo legal, becuase TORTURE IS ILLEGAL.

 

[B_starinvestor]

TORTURE IS ILLEGAL.

So is burning 2500 people alive.

 

[pym]

So is burning 2500 people alive.

Your political sympatico Timothy McVeigh was OK with it.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Your political sympatico Timothy McVeigh was OK with it.

Blithering idiot:

I wanted McVeigh to be hung upside down in a room with the victim's families.

Just fyi.

 

[pym]

Blithering idiot:

I wanted McVeigh to be hung upside down in a room with the victim's
families.

Just fyi.

Some folks would like to see a traitor like YOU "hung upside down in a room with the victim's families.".......

Why do you want the victims families HUNG UP that way Festor? Is that another of your Freudian slips?

 

[Phil Ayesho]

the fact is, waterboarding was banned a couple years ago.

Murder was banned thousands of years ago... it still occurs and we still prosecute people for doing it.
And getting elected, and then writing some unconstitutional legal opinion, which is NOT a law, so that you can 'claim' your actions were legal, or that the legality of them was an open question, does not make the actions any less illegal, nor the perpetrators any less criminal.
A policeman SAYING he's allowed to do a cavity search has commited a worse crime than a mere sexual assault, he has commited that assault under color of authority.

The scramble to try and 'legitimize' torture after the fact clearly demonstrates that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzalez fully understood that their actions were criminal when they committed them.

the fact is, it is said, only three people were actually waterboarded, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

What the fuck difference does that make?
Gee officer, I only raped 3 women... hundreds of women were only illegally detained and denied their freedom without any recourse...

A murder is still a murder. A Crime does not become MORE illegal with numbers... Its just adddiotnal counts.

We generally will prosecute and imprison someone for a SINGLE murder. A Single rape, and a Single armed robbery.


And you neglect that, while only 3 were waterboarded, other treatments that ALSO qualify as torture, that are ALSO banned by the geneva convention and the Uniform Military Code, was practiced routinely on hundreds of people...
Further... nestled in the fine print ids the fact that only 3 at GITMO were waterboarded.
We have no information about how many people were tortured in what ways at the secret facilities, nor how many of those suffering rendition were tortured, nor in what manner.

that was 7 years ago approximately.

Frankly, if it is banned, it is banned, but i have to say, i do not care that those three were waterboarded at all.

Um- no statute of limitations on murder, and none on war crimes, either.

What you seem incapable of understadning is that this is NOT about what was done to those three guys. It is not about THEIR rights.... it is about RIGHTS in and of themselves.
You can not allow elected officials to subvert the rule of law... because respect for the rule of law is the only thing the prevents tyranny.

The same law that was used to put those 3 assholes into legal limbo where they were forced to confess to anything and everything, could just as easily be used to incarcerate you.
To torture you.

The difference between a fascist and a citizen? A fascist imagines the excesses of the state will never be visited upon THEM.

I hope Khalid Sheik Muhammed wakes up in fear ten times a night the rest of his life from the waterboarding. I hope he suffers anxiety the rest of his life from the experience...and frankly, considering the fact that he cut off Daniel Pearl's head, an act certainly a bit more painful then waterboarding, i would say he got off easily.

Yeah- what a shame he wasn't brought to trial, the evidence presented against him, and the asshole convicted and sentenced to death...

Legally.

But, no, instead the dipshits who captured the bastard did everything in their power to ENSURE he could never be tried... to destroy the legitimacy of all evidence against him.

Sorry, Flashy- you have zero ethical argument. If you donlt believe in the importance of the State being compelled to comply with the law, then thank god your 'party' has never won an election.

It is not done anymore, and considering the fear of the time, and considering i attended four funerals here in NYC, i can guarantee you, the pain experienced by the loved ones of those buried is 10,000 times worse than anything Khalid Sheik Muhammed and the other two had to endure, i say again, I do not care that it was done to them.

Again, Flashy, this is about a larger issue than these 3 fucks... If I could catch the guys responsible, sure, I would LOVE to break their necks myself...
But that is not the way I want my government to approach things, not like a grieving and vengeful relative.
I want my government to be forced to PROVE the accused did what they claim they did.

Point of fact... arresting a black guy and SAYING he's the guy who committed the murder will certainly get the blood up of all the relatives of the deceased... but their vengeful anger is NOT PROOF that that particular black guy did the crime.

Right now, Flashy, Not one of those 3 guys has been convicted of a thing.
Right now, you have ZERO proof they are guilty.
And thanks to Bush and Cheney, we may never be able to prove it.

I do not know about you, but as awful as waterboarding might be, i'd rather get waterboarded then have my ***HEAD SAWED OFF WITH A KNIFE***

Take a class in logic. That is called a false dilemma.
It is NOT a choice between water-boarding suspects, and getting your head sawn off with a knife.
That kind of 'thinking' doesn't even qualify as thinking. You would get laughed off the dais in an eighth grade debate team with a line like that.


Believe it or not... we HAVE terrorists in jail right this minute who were captured, tried, convicted and imprisoned, WITHOUT sacrificing every principle that forms the foundation of this culture.

No one is saying let them go... they are saying proper investigative procedure should have been followed to ensure a trial and a conviction.

Not for THEIR sake... but for Yours, Flashy.

The government must follow the SAME rules, even with them, so that you will get a fair shake should someone ever think you look like the guy who robbed the bank.

Waterboarding was done, to three people, under extraordinary circumstances...they were all arch terrorists and vicious murderers...it is banned, get over it.

Prove that.

Oh, right, you can't. because none of the evidence is admissable in court, because some jackass wanted to get these guys to claim an Iraq/al queda connection that never existed.


And by your twisted and shallow excuse for an argument, 9/11 happened 8 years ago... all the hijackers are dead and gone... get over it...

See how stupid that argument sounds?

 

[Flashy]

Murder was banned thousands of years ago... it still occurs and we still prosecute people for doing it.

hmmm, so you are comparing murder to waterboarding?

sorry, not comparable. an innocent person being murdered and a terrorist being waterboarded are no way comparable.

And getting elected, and then writing some unconstitutional legal opinion, which is NOT a law, so that you can 'claim' your actions were legal, or that the legality of them was an open question, does not make the actions any less illegal, nor the perpetrators any less criminal.
A policeman SAYING he's allowed to do a cavity search has commited a worse crime than a mere sexual assault, he has commited that assault under color of authority.

the policeman does not "say" he's allowed to do a cavity search. If however, legal opinions on the topic authorized the policeman to do it, and he followed orders, and what he was told is the letter of the law,

Do policeman randomly do cavity searches under their own authorization? No.If they are told by their department and superiors and those who interpret law that it is legal and necessary at times, and they do it,

police are not constitutional scholars...they follow orders.

The scramble to try and 'legitimize' torture after the fact clearly demonstrates that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzalez fully understood that their actions were criminal when they committed them.

I have said before, i do not care what happened to a bunch of foreign terrorists. It happened, and is over. I shall repeat, *I DO NOT CARE*

It is over. get over it.

What the fuck difference does that make?
Gee officer, I only raped 3 women... hundreds of women were only illegally detained and denied their freedom without any recourse...


A murder is still a murder. A Crime does not become MORE illegal with numbers... Its just adddiotnal counts.

We generally will prosecute and imprison someone for a SINGLE murder. A Single rape, and a Single armed robbery.

i see, so you are comparing the murder and rape of the innocent, with the authorized waterboarding of known terrorists?

those things are just a tad different.

people do not walk into a store and waterboard innocent people.
people do not chase a woman through a park, catch her and waterboard her.

A murder may still be a murder and a rape may still be a rape, but a waterboarding is neither.

people undergo waterboarding all the time, voluntarily in the special forces to prepare them for the scenario.

journalists try it to determine the extent.

how many people volunteer to try being murdered, or raped?

not many.

because it is *DIFFERENT*.

a thing is indeed still a thing...

if i steal a candy bar from a store, I have stolen from an innocent merchant.

that does not put it on the scale of murder of an innocent and it certainly does not put it on the level of a terrorist being waterboarded.

And you neglect that, while only 3 were waterboarded, other treatments that ALSO qualify as torture, that are ALSO banned by the geneva convention and the Uniform Military Code, was practiced routinely on hundreds of people...

And you neglect that we were discussing waterboarding, not other treatments.

Further... nestled in the fine print ids the fact that only 3 at GITMO were waterboarded.
We have no information about how many people were tortured in what ways at the secret facilities, nor how many of those suffering rendition were tortured, nor in what manner.

indeed we do not, and i was not discussing them. I was discussing waterboarding...if you want to discuss other methods, start another thread.

Um- no statute of limitations on murder, and none on war crimes, either.

and what does that have to do with me saying it is banned?

and i do not care either anyway about the 3 who were waterboarded.

if you think anyone should be tried for "war crimes" for the waterboarding of those 3 terrorists, then you have a very long wait coming.

What you seem incapable of understadning is that this is NOT about what was done to those three guys. It is not about THEIR rights.... it is about RIGHTS in and of themselves.
You can not allow elected officials to subvert the rule of law... because respect for the rule of law is the only thing the prevents tyranny.

I will say it again.
I do not care what was done in those extraordinary times to terrorists.

Indeed, rights in and of themselves of american citizens in our legal system need to be protected. Rights in and of themselves to foreign combatants planning or involved in terrorist attacks were an extraordinary circumstance, and i do not care what was done at the time to know terrorists or people captured attacking US forces.

I am willing to forgive Bush and Cheney for behaving the way they did at the time.

they did not come into office wanting to waterboard people for pleasure.

it is easy to say what you would have done 7 years later of a forum.

You want to punish Bush, Cheney et. al?

Fine.

make your symbolic punishment...

fine them 150,000 dollars each and put them on 1 year probation promising not to waterboard anyone.

happy?

get on with your life

The same law that was used to put those 3 assholes into legal limbo where they were forced to confess to anything and everything, could just as easily be used to incarcerate you.
To torture you.

Um, no it couldn't...they were not american citizens.


and those tactics did not force Khalid Sheikm Muhammed to confess...he confessed before waterboarding to the beheading of Pearl, and also to plotting numerous attacks including 9/11.

the waterboarding was used to gain information about *POTENTIAL* future attacks and the network...not what he had already done.

besides, their roles as participants in Al Qaeida were already known in a variety of attacks, operations and participation in general

He was a senior member of a group, that plotted, planned, and executed attacks, killing and murdering US citizens, Us military and othter citizens of other countries, in a variety of attacks, even before 9/11.

The difference between a fascist and a citizen? A fascist imagines the excesses of the state will never be visited upon THEM.

LOL...I guess i am a fascist then.

sorry, i can bet you that i will never be waterboarded, by the state of New York or the United States of AMerica, even if the process had not been banned years ago.

If i ever was imprisoned for some reason, even by accident, i would be much more worried about being raped by inmates, than of being waterboarded by the corrections department.

Yeah- what a shame he wasn't brought to trial, the evidence presented against him, and the asshole convicted and sentenced to death...

Legally.

But, no, instead the dipshits who captured the bastard did everything in their power to ENSURE he could never be tried... to destroy the legitimacy of all evidence against him.

Doesn't really matter. He is a senior Al Qaieda Leader...that was established long before his interrogation, and he was involved in plots, plans, financing and attacks. Al Qaieda is a terror organization that kills americans and other citizens. He is amember who authorized, planned and financed them.

there is plenty that is admissable about him, long before he was ever captured in 2003.

Sorry, Flashy- you have zero ethical argument. If you donlt believe in the importance of the State being compelled to comply with the law, then thank god your 'party' has never won an election.

I do believe it...however, i do not believe that at the time under extraordinary circumstances, those things that occurred should be punished now.

how can you be compelled to "comply with the law", when those practices were ceased and the laws "complied" with years ago?

All you are really talking about is meting out punishment, and getting some type of revenge...and that is not what the law is about.

you want "punishment" fine...make it a symbolic punishment. They pay a fine.

i will not imprison or castigate people who did those things in a time of panic, under extraoridanry circumstances, from the president, to the vice president, all the way down to the interrogators.

Again, Flashy, this is about a larger issue than these 3 fucks... If I could catch the guys responsible, sure, I would LOVE to break their necks myself...

why would you do that? You would break their necks with no proof against them? You would assault them with no cause?

surely, breaking their necks is unconstitutional or a violation of their rights, no?

isn't this a larger issue? Do you capture them or do you break their necks yourself? Why would you be so gung ho about finding and breaking their necks?

 

[Flashy]

But that is not the way I want my government to approach things, not like a grieving and vengeful relative.
I want my government to be forced to PROVE the accused did what they claim they did.

and yet now, you are behaving like a vengeful relative, screaming for punishment for "war crimes" years after the fact.

If you support the rule of law, fine, make them pay a financial penalty. Many of you folks here seem to want much mroe than that...you seem to want a reckoning...a vengeance...and ironically, you want it only against the side you vehemently oppose.

you want it against Bush, Cheney et. al and all those complicit...but not Pelosi and others who knew and went along with it, who did not speak out.

You want as much vengeance as those relatives you talked about.

Point of fact... arresting a black guy and SAYING he's the guy who committed the murder will certainly get the blood up of all the relatives of the deceased... but their vengeful anger is NOT PROOF that that particular black guy did the crime.

Point of Fact, getting the blood up means nothing.

what if that black guy was a known terrorist involved in killing people? There is a reason we were looking for KSM...it is because he was a senior leader in an organization dedicated to killing, plotting and financing attacks against americans and others.

Everyone knows he was a member of that group. there was already ironclad proof.

Anyone involved in that group, is in fact, a murderer, a plotter of murder, a financer of murder.

one does not need vengeful anger as proof...there was already pllenty of it...why exactly do you think we were looking for KSM as far back as 1996 when e slipped through our hands in Qatar?

everyone knew who he was, same as everyone knew Bin Laden, and everyone knew that Al Qaieda, and by definition, Bin Laden and KSM had organized, planned and financed attacks on both the Cole and the Tower bombings before 9/11 was mroe than enough proof before they ever threw him on a bench and pured water in his nose.

Right now, Flashy, Not one of those 3 guys has been convicted of a thing.
Right now, you have ZERO proof they are guilty.
And thanks to Bush and Cheney, we may never be able to prove it.

totally wrong. All were known members of Al Qaeida. They were involved in the plotting and financing of attacks for years foing back before 9/11

as a member of an organization that *IRREFUTABLY* planned and carried out the Cole bombing, 98 embassy bombing and other attacks.

Besides, as recently as two years ago, (March 2007) KSM, at a hearing at Gitmo, under no interrogation or EIT or waterboarding, re-confirmed his involvement in 30+ planned or executed attacks

and, on top of all that, there was concrete evidence all over the hard drive of his computer.

more than enough to send him away for good

Take a class in logic. That is called a false dilemma.
It is NOT a choice between water-boarding suspects, and getting your head sawn off with a knife.
That kind of 'thinking' doesn't even qualify as thinking. You would get laughed off the dais in an eighth grade debate team with a line like that.

take a class in reality. I was drawing a comparison between two possible situations, nothing more.

given the choice of what he endured, or what he forced others to endure, i'll take his situation any day of the week.

Believe it or not... we HAVE terrorists in jail right this minute who were captured, tried, convicted and imprisoned, WITHOUT sacrificing every principle that forms the foundation of this culture.

we already have plenty of evidence against KSM, obtained without sacrificing principles.

we used those EIT's to glean more of what we did not know, not that which we *ALREADY* knew

No one is saying let them go... they are saying proper investigative procedure should have been followed to ensure a trial and a conviction.

and it was. Most of the evidence that will be used against him is damning enough. it is on his hard drives, travel records, contacts with others and many other things.

the case against him does not hinge only on those controversial techniques, and you know it.

Not for THEIR sake... but for Yours, Flashy.

The government must follow the SAME rules, even with them, so that you will get a fair shake should someone ever think you look like the guy who robbed the bank.

laughable. the government is entitled to do different things to a foreign terrorist than it is to a US citizen.

besides, there was more than enough evidence to get KSM long before his interrogation...or do you think they were looking for him for six years to give him an invitation to the White House Easter Egg Hunt?

Prove that.

Oh, right, you can't. because none of the evidence is admissable in court, because some jackass wanted to get these guys to claim an Iraq/al queda connection that never existed.

LOL...prove it? Okay, Phil.

-The hard drives seized from KSM *ARE*, in fact, admissable in court.
-His later 2007 confessions in a hearing at Gitmo *ARE*, in fact, admissable in court
-His involvement in the Bojinka Plot was already known, causing him to flee the Phillipines with Ramzi Youzef in 1995...
--

Zubaydah
-already under surveillance in 1999
- was already known as a senior bin laden official
- was already known as former head of Egyptian Islamic Jihad
- was know to have played a key role in the Embassy Attacks
- was already convicted by Jordan, in absentia, for his role plots to bomb israeli and US targets
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri
-Known to have assisted in the smuggling of four anti-tank missiles into Saudi Arabia,
-Known to have helped arrange for a terrorist to get a Yemeni passport
-Known to report directly to bin Laden.
-Known to have conceived the plot to attack a U.S. ship using a boat filled with explosives. Bin Laden personally approved and financed the plan
-Known to have attempted to attack the the USS The Sullivans, part of the millenium attack plot.
-Known to have bombed the USS Cole. Killing 17 americans.
-Known to have become Chief of Arabian Peninsula Operations
-Known to have organized the Limburg Tanker Bombing.






so tell us Phil, how will we ever prove that these three were murderous terrorists in court Phil?


maybe you should prove it.

And by your twisted and shallow excuse for an argument, 9/11 happened 8 years ago... all the hijackers are dead and gone... get over it...

See how stupid that argument sounds?

as stupid as your argument to somehow even attempt to draw a parallel between the hijackers and your desperate crusade to jail people for a policy that ultimately should not be punished with anything more than a light slap on the wrist.

calm down Phil...you'll give yourself an aneurysm

 

[sparky11point5]

So, to summarize the right wing talking points:

It is perfectly acceptable to torture any individual as long as one of the following is true.

-- We do it on a US military base (not run by the CIA, btw) and supposedly outside the scope of US or UCMJ law, even though we have imprisoned or executed terrorists in the past. (In the infamous 'enemy combatants' case during WWII we even executed those hapless German spies that landed on Long Island.)
-- We know they are guilty, even if not convicted by a court or military tribunal.
-- We ask lawyers who worked for the Executive branch to justify the practices, even though we actually tortured them before the OLC wrote these 'legal' (sic) opinions.
-- We justify it by the 'ticking time bomb' scenario we saw last night on 24, even though numerous experts say this is specious.
-- We say it 'kept America safe' although it is now known that a focus for the torture was to establish a link between Iraq and Al Quaeda.
-- We are really scared after a horrible attack that happened because we ignored security warnings.

Bollocks.

 

[Flashy]

So, to summarize the right wing talking points:

It is perfectly acceptable to torture any individual as long as one of the following is true.

-- We do it on a US military base (not run by the CIA, btw) and supposedly outside the scope of US or UCMJ law, even though we have imprisoned or executed terrorists in the past. (In the infamous 'enemy combatants' case during WWII we even executed those hapless German spies that landed on Long Island.)
-- We know they are guilty, even if not convicted by a court or military tribunal.
-- We ask lawyers who worked for the Executive branch to justify the practices, even though we actually tortured them before the OLC wrote these 'legal' (sic) opinions.
-- We justify it by the 'ticking time bomb' scenario we saw last night on 24, even though numerous experts say this is specious.
-- We say it 'kept America safe' although it is now known that a focus for the torture was to establish a link between Iraq and Al Quaeda.
-- We are really scared after a horrible attack that happened because we ignored security warnings.

Bollocks.

I did not say "any individual"

I support the ban, however i am not going to condemn what went on.

BEsides, they are hardly right wing talking points, considering much nasty "torture" went on in Vietnam under the auspices of democratic administrations.

i simply do not believe there should be any recriminations from something that is done and dusted.

1. The Military base is run by the military, however, the Detention Center was run by CIA.

2. We did know they were guilty of being members of a terror group...that is an established fact, regardless.

3. Your reference to asking lawyers to "justify those opinions" is not only unfair, but incorrect.

the Bybee Memo, was submitted August 1, 2002. KHalid Sheikh Muhammad was not in custody at the time, but was still at large. Zubaydah had already been captured, and his interrogation was the reason the legal opinions were sought.

4. The lawyers were not asked to "justify it"...they were asked for a legal opinion. Just when in our country's history did we commence punishing lawyers for legal opinions we disagree with?

CIA asked government attorneys to interpret whether 10 interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, would in fact consitute a violation of the anti-torture statute in 1994

That statue had *NEVER* been interpreted before, by any court.

They were the first and they were asked to give an opinion.

It is very specific in its statement (the statute) that defines torture as inflicting pain that is "difficult to endure" and "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

Whether you agree or disagree with Bybee/Yoo is a matter of *OPINION*, not fact.

If you want to fairly interpret it fine, you must take things into consideration, such as definitions of waterboarding for example

many here have stated how the Japanese used waterboarding in WW2.

very true.

however, the method we deployed was far different

Japanese who used the technique, forced a great deal of water into the prisoner's nose and mouth, constantly.

The US technique covered the subjects mouth and nose with cloth and water is poured on it for no longer than a controlled 20-40 seconds. No water *DOES NOT* enter the lungs in the US version.

Based on those facts, Bybee and Yoo, concluded that waterboarding is not torture.

it was not up to Bybee and Yoo to declare whether this was smart, or right, or strategically intelligent or sound.

They were asked for legal opinions....their job was to *INTERPRET* the law.

and by the way, even if Bybee and Yoo turned out to be wrong, which is still up for debate, it is not a war crime.

It is not even an ethical offense under Justice Department standards, which specify that an "ethical issue" would only be relevant if their opinion "was so obviously wrong that no reasonable lawyer could possibly reach the same conclusion"


5. Indeed, the ticking bomb scenario is specious at times...but one does not need to watch "24" to find examples where it was very real, and, in fact, brutal interrogation...I have pointed repeatedly to the case of kidnapped Israeli Soldier Nachshon Waxman...where Israeli Prime Minister and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Yitzhak Rabin, ordered the techniques which authorized violation of the Landau Commission Guidelines, and the "ticking bomb scenario", did in fact work...

nobody here on this board has answered that instance *ONCE* in the three times i have brought it up...Because it confirms the fact that it worked and gives lie to the claim that the ticking bomb scenario is never stopped by tough tactics, even if it is not common.

6. Not all the "torture" was to establish a link. I have no doubt some was, but to suggest that all of it was done for that reason only is totally false.

establishing contacts, command and control, financing, etc. had everything to do with learning about Al Qaieda. If some info was used to establish a link, that still does not change the fact that learning mroe about Al Qaieda, was absolutely imperative...and the Iraq-link, was not, in fact the only reason for it.

7. Ignoring security warnings, for 4 years through two administrations, has nothing to do with an environment of fear after it.

 

[sparky11point5]

Flashy --

My friend, you have to write shorter posts, you are well beyond my attention span.

-- Any technique that has to be applied 183 times is clearly not useful for any immediate danger.
-- I agree the Iraq-Al Quaeda connection was not the sole motivation for the torture regime. Yet, I think this really undercuts many of the arguments about immediate threats and shows how this was essentially driven by politics and not security.
-- There are statements that indicate Zubaydah was waterboarded before the despicable Bybee 'memo' (not lay, mind you). I think this is one of the reasons the perps are really sweating this issue, they might not even have the fig leaf of an excuse.
-- I have fewer complaints about the Waxman scenario because it was a one-time event, not like Bush's attempt to codify torture as policy.

As to ignoring the security warnings -- guilt and fear are powerful motivators.

 

[sparky11point5]

I meant the Bybee memo was not a 'law' btw

 

[Draconis71]

I'll say it again. We live in a country where Torture is ILLEGAL. What part of that sentence don't you understand?

Well, so is accepting bribes, kickbacks, etc, etc. where I come from... Same with profiting from crimes...
YET, our ex-prime-minister, "lying" Brian Mulroney has gotten the kickbacks, SUED the country for something like slander/etc... AND profited from the sales of his memoires.. where he'd admitted to it.. after he's sued us... Double jeopardy type laws prevent us from going back after him for those crimes: The original case somehow wasn't enough to prove beyond a doubt...

Oh, and look at OJ Simpson in states, getting away with murder.

Whole LOT of "illegal" stuff that the cops don't bother to deal with.
6-hour+ response time for a call.... then, they get here, and "no one's here, no one's doing drugs/fighting/etc... Or, "no proof they made a threat against you: Call us if they kill you"..

I'm curious as hell what waterboarding is... And, are we allowed to do it to our politicians, since they're apparently exempt from our regular laws?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Well, so is accepting bribes, kickbacks, etc, etc. where I come from... Same with profiting from crimes...
YET, our ex-prime-minister, "lying" Brian Mulroney has gotten the kickbacks, SUED the country for something like slander/etc... AND profited from the sales of his memoires.. where he'd admitted to it.. after he's sued us... Double jeopardy type laws prevent us from going back after him for those crimes: The original case somehow wasn't enough to prove beyond a doubt...

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean that some people will not try to get away with it. Watching people try to beat the system is an understood because some people think they're above the law.

Oh, and look at OJ Simpson in states, getting away with murder.

But he is in jail. And even though it wasn't for murder, I'm sure that influenced people when he was finally caught for something.
OJ Simpson begins jail term

I guess karma really IS a bitch, isn't it?

Whole LOT of "illegal" stuff that the cops don't bother to deal with.
6-hour+ response time for a call.... then, they get here, and "no one's here, no one's doing drugs/fighting/etc... Or, "no proof they made a threat against you: Call us if they kill you"..

Hey... at least the rest of America can get a dose of what's been going on in the poorer parts of town.

I'm curious as hell what waterboarding is... And, are we allowed to do it to our politicians, since they're apparently exempt from our regular laws?

Watch the video and listen to Mancow's response. It is torture. But hey, as long as it's still technically legal why don't we do it to everyone that doesn't think it is? That way, there will be no more disputes and we can all look at Cheney as the war criminal that he is.

 

[faceking]

so what.

Gitmo detainees are the bad guys.

Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It's Torture "It is way worse than I thought it would be"
By RYAN POLLYEA
Updated 12:11 PM CDT, Fri, May 22, 2009

Shock jocks shock.

And so it went Friday morning when WLS radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller decided to subject himself to the controversial practice of waterboarding live on his show.

Mancow decided to tackle the divisive issue head on -- actually it was head down, while restrained and reclining.

"I want to find out if it's torture," Mancow told his listeners Friday morning, adding that he hoped his on-air test would help prove that waterboarding did not, in fact, constitute torture.

The debate over whether waterboarding constitutes torture reached a fever pitch this week as re-ignited claims that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) knew as early as 2002 about waterboarding techniques being used, and former Vice President Dick Cheney and President Barack Obama gave "dueling speeches" Thursday.

Listeners had the chance to decide whether Mancow himself or his co-host, Chicago radio personality Pat Cassidy, would undergo the interrogation method during the broadcast. The voters ultimately decided Mancow would be the one donning the soaked towel and shackles, and at about 8:40 a.m., he entered a small storage room next to his studio that was compared to a "dungeon" by Cassidy.

"The average person can take this for 14 seconds," Marine Sergeant Clay South answered, adding, "He's going to wiggle, he's going to scream, he's going to wish he never did this."

With a Chicago Fire Department paramedic on hand, Mancow was placed on a 7-foot long table, his legs were elevated, and his feet were tied up.

Turns out the stunt wasn't so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.

"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke,"Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face...I got voted to do this but I really thought 'I'm going to laugh this off.' "

Last year, Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens endured the same experiment -- and came to a similar conclusion. The conservative writer said he found the treatment terrifying, and was haunted by it for months afterward.

"Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture," Hitchens concluded in the article.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Manco...-and-Loses.html

So, anyone still support this barbaric and completely idiotic practice that gets us no useful information?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

so what.

Gitmo detainees are the bad guys.

Actually, you're just as bad. The only difference is that some of the Gitmo detainees haven't been found guilty or accused for anything. You, on the other hand, have plenty of evidence of your negativity and hatred on this board for everyone to see.

Perhaps we can talk to Mancow and see if we can hire his personal waterboarders to pay you a visit?

 

[sparky11point5]

The link below shows the real implication of the right wing syllogism that the US military can decide who to detain, all detainees are guilty as terrorists, all terrorists are inhuman.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/fox-talker-peters-has-gitmo-solution

Kill them all.

No one on the left has ever 'defended' terrorists. We simply recognize that the US military can be wrong and that everyone deserves justice. They are not all the 'bad guys'. Granted some are, but who is to tell the difference?

 

[faceking]

Actually, you're just as bad. The only difference is that some of the Gitmo detainees haven't been found guilty or accused for anything. You, on the other hand, have plenty of evidence of your negativity and hatred on this board for everyone to see.

Differing opinion is hatred and equates me to terrorism? How low can you go?

 

[Trinity]

The link below shows the real implication of the right wing syllogism that the US military can decide who to detain, all detainees are guilty as terrorists, all terrorists are inhuman.

Fox talker Peters has a Gitmo solution: Just kill them all | Crooks and Liars

Kill them all.

No one on the left has ever 'defended' terrorists. We simply recognize that the US military can be wrong and that everyone deserves justice. They are not all the 'bad guys'. Granted some are, but who is to tell the difference?

Peter's aside, The Right isn't advocating "kill them all." Bush and Cheney didn't believe that otherwise we wouldn't be talking about the rights of terrorists right now.

Obama had his team start the review process in February of every detainee at Gitmo and elsewhere to determine who could be prosecuted and who could not be prosecuted. So they will be determining who the bad guys are.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Differing opinion is hatred and equates me to terrorism? How low can you go?

Actually, you've gone even lower.
Your comment clearly shows that you have the same exact mentality as the enemy. You view The entire race & religion as the enemy, when it's only a small group of nutcases to deal with. You think waterboarding, or torture, is fine because we're doing it to "the enemy"... Just like a terorist.

This goes further than a disagreement. It's about the subject matter. We can disagree on wheter or not 1+1=2 or 3, but I wouldn't call you a terrorist for that. However, when you endorse the need to conduct heinous actions, done by our own enemies, just to validate your need to feel safer then you're no better than the people you're fighting.