The Senate Judiciary Committee made a difficult but correct decision today in approving the nomination of Michael Mukasey for attorney general. The full Senate is expected to vote next week.
Mukasey is well qualified but ran into opposition after refusing to tell the Judiciary Committee whether he thought waterboarding was torture. That’s a serious concern, given the loss of United State’s standing on human rights in recent years after reports of torture. But Mukasey must be careful about expressing legal opinions, and he said that he personally found the interrogation procedure "repugnant" and would enforce any waterboarding ban approved by Congress.
Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., the only two committee Democrats who voted to send the nomination forward, also had a practical argument for supporting Mukasey: He’s the best candidate we’re likely to get from the Bush administration.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- writerdog on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
329 Comments
If Bush wants him, he sucks.
That’s all you need to know.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a thousand times . . .
F*ck Feinstein and Shumer. If you can’t vote against a candidate for Attorney General who refuses to say whether waterboarding is torture, you don’t deserve to be called an American.
Torture is unamerican. Those who endorse it, or allow it, are traitors.
CF2K,
What if we don’t think water boarding is torture?
No one is saying we should torture or endorse it’s use.
We are saying water boarding isn’t torture, so lets use it.
Used to be that when one of our sons was captured and tortured, the moral outrage from most of the rest of the world was such that our enemies thought twice before trying that again. We ourselves have tried and executed those of our enemies who practiced the same methods we are now using.When our torturers come to trial for war crimes and are hanged, will the world view us the same way they once viewed the Nazis and the Japanese, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese?
Nathan – If a serial killer, say BTK, strangled their victim nearly to death, revived them, and then started all over, several times, would you not consider that torture. Is it just because the U.S. is using this tactic that makes it okay to you?
Look.
You are not going to get a candidate from this presidency who is a) not a conservative republican and b) going to immediately shoot down an opinion from the administration during a confirmation hearing. You want to get an AG and Department of Justice that will stand up against torture before this administration’s tenure is done, it’s going to have to be done with a candidate that the BA puts forward. Not having an AG just makes things worse by making the DOJ weaker than ever.
This is the first candidate that the Bush Adminstration actually consulted with the Senate on. Blame Mukasey’s wish washy response on the Administration that put him up for the job. Then, Congress needs to do their job and pass a law saying that waterboarding is off the table, period. If Bush vetoes such an act, as he might (without Rove, I think he is THAT tone deaf), the Congress should go to Mukasey and request an opinion. He will be in office.
Rather than attempt to block Mukasey, the Senate Democrats should have tried the following.
1) Request that the President sign any law regarding the legality water boarding passed by the congress as a precondition to approval.
Or, and my preference:
2) Get an agreement that prohibits this President from dismissing the Attorney General without the advise and consent of the Senate (assuming it won’t take a constitutional amendment) on the grounds that the Justice Department really needs to be politically independent at this time. Personally, I am questioning whether the AG should only be accountable to the executive branch.
As it is, the word is that while a conservative, Mukasey has historically been independent. I think Schumer and Feinstein were correct on this one for the reason stated in the editorial:
“He’s the best candidate we’re likely to get from the Bush administration.”
I agree.
“CF2K,
What if we don’t think water boarding is torture?
No one is saying we should torture or endorse it’s use.
We are saying water boarding isn’t torture, so lets use it.”
Regardless of what I said up above.
This quote is Orwellian logic at its worst.
If “we” (the United States government) say it’s not torture, it’s not torture?
Riiiight.
TDT,
Waterboarding is not bringing someone nearly to death and then reviving them.
When done correctly in controlled circumstances it is purely psychological.
For the most part, there are already existing laws which prohibit this from being done to practically everyone regardless of it being torture or not.
This was approved for prisoners who do not fall into those categories… terrorists, etc…
ksagnostic,
Ok, where is the line on torture then?
The exact opposite is true as well. Is anything you liberals call torture, actually torture?
I know liberals who would argue that not allowing prisoners access to a library, cable TV, 3 hot meals a day, and who knows what other comforts is torture.
So answer me this, do you consider any interrogation techniques which are used to coerce information out of someone by making them uncomfortable as torture?
Nathan,
You talk about God a lot. Would Jesus waterboard? Would he approve its use?
CF2K,
No I don’t think he would use it. I don’t think he would approve of it’s use either.
I also don’t think Jesus would condemn those who did use it in a controlled and moderated situation either (in context).
I would sat the same thing about a hundred different things.
Would Jesus play an X-box? No. Would Jesus condone someone playing an X-box? Probably not.
I still play X-box though.
Nathan – we tried and convicted Japanese for waterboarding US POWs. Back then we called it torture.
Nathan,
Comparing waterboarding to playing an X-Box. I see.
If there is a bigger moral relativist on this board than you, Nathan, I have yet to see him.
Ben,
Source? I am aware of several Japanese torture techniques, none of them were as mild as waterboarding.
I call BS.
Hank
Nathan,
“I also don’t think Jesus would condemn those who did use it in a controlled and moderated situation either (in context).”
So, are you saying a) that Jesus would forgive them for having done something wrong, or b) that Jesus wouldn’t see them as having done anything wrong?
If they hadn’t done anything wrong, Nathan, why would Jesus need to forgive them? And if they DID something wrong in Jesus’ eyes, then what justifies this–or possible COULD justify it?
Ben,
We are talking about the treatment of POW’s.
If we were waterboarding POW’s of course it would be wrong.
Then again, doing anything to a POW is wrong whether it is torture or not.
The only thing a POW is required to give is their name, rank, SSN, and DOB. ANY coercion to make them tell you more is against the geneva convention regardless of it being called torture or not.
That is the difference.
Hank Price,
BS right back at you:
“Following a series of Senate hearings led by Massachusetts Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, the Army tried Maj. Edwin Glenn in a court-martial in the Philippine province of Samar for misconduct and breach of discipline, including “infliction of the water cure” on suspected Filipino insurgents. The Army’s judge advocate general rejected Glenn’s defense of “military necessity,” and he was suspended from his post for a month and fined $50 (not an insignificant sum in 1902). President Roosevelt affirmed the major’s conviction.
More severe punishments were meted out to the Japanese imperial officers who inflicted the water cure on Allied military officers and civilians during World War II in such places as Korea, the Philippines and China. In war crimes trials overseen by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the supreme commander in the Pacific and a great Republican hero, testimony about water torture led to numerous convictions — and sentences that ranged from years of imprisonment at hard labor to death by hanging. As head of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, MacArthur voted to uphold those convictions and sentences.
Just so there can be no mistake about what the Japanese perps were convicted of doing, here is a sliver of the copious testimony that can be found at Law of War, where an excellent essay on waterboarding and American law can be found. It comes from the trial in Manila of Sgt. Maj. Chinsaku Yuki, a Japanese military intelligence officer. The witness is Ramon Lavarro, a Filipino lawyer suspected by the Japanese of providing assistance to resistance forces. “I was ordered to lay on a bench and Yuki tied my feet, hands and neck to that bench lying with my face upward,” Lavarro testified. “After I was tied to the bench Yuki placed some cloth on my face and then with water from the faucet they poured on me until I became unconscious. He repeated that four or five times.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/10/26/giuliani_and_torture/
The record shows you’re wrong, Hank Price. Will you man up and admit it?
CF2K,
In situations like this, we can only speculate as to what Jesus may or may not do to some extent.
There are areas where things are very clear, but honestly, we could build a case either way for what Jesus may or may not condone.
I am almost postive he wouldn’t do it. But would he condone it? I don’t think he would advocate for it, but neither would he dismiss it as wrong.
I look at it in terms of self defense.
Jesus had a purpose and he knew what it was. He didn’t defend himself from his attackers and wouldn’t let his disciples defend him either.
However, he still let the disciples carry swords for protection.
I hope that clears it up.
I am not a moral relativist. Stick to the subject and leave out the ad hominem.
Isn’t that what you liberals wanted? I would hate to see JM run you off too.
CF2K,
POW’s are given special treatment under the Geneva convention.
You can’t do anything to them let alone waterboard them.
Bush is not out waterboarding anyone he wants to or can.
It was not a universal declaration that water boarding was ok.
Ben
What we now call waterboarding is not the same as “real” waterboarding.
Real waterboarding literaly involved holding someones head under water.
What the CIA now terms as waterboading involves placing a piece of plastic over someones face and pouring water over it. It gives the sensation of drowning without actually putting them under water. They still get wet and scared but there’s no physical trauma.
I hope Mukasey is to bush as Sandra Day O’Connor was to Reagan – a disappointment.
Investigate! And then investigate some more! Dig and keep digging! Shed light on the crimes of bushco and hold them accountable!
I won’t wait for someone to accuse me of being a bush hater – I’ll admit how much I hate the damage bushco have done to our Constitution, to America’s reputation, to our economy, to innocents in Iraq, to our military, to the truth and our ability to trust that a person who holds our country’s highest office also holds America and Americans first and foremost in his decisions. The ONLY Americans he cares anything about are the haves and the have mores. He’s earned my disdain!
Heckler,
I am not sure it is plastic, but you are right.
What Bush authorized is a very limited and controlled technique.
When administered correctly it is not the same or as bad as these dramatic examples that are given.
Nathan:”I am not a moral relativist.”Are you out of your mind!!!
Nathan,
So, Jesus wouldn’t dismiss as wrong simulating the effects of drowning in order to coerce an individual to give testimony?
While Jesus himself wouldn’t do bad things, he wouldn’t tell us we shouldn’t, either?
Seems to me, Nathan, that whatever else you are, on this issue, you are certainly endorsing a morally relativistic position. Whether that makes you a moral relativist is, you properly point out, not my place to determine.
Still, wow.
CF2K,
Your statement assumes the premise that it is bad.
I am arguing that using waterboarding in a controlled and moderated way against select people who are not given any protection under the law right now is not bad.
I have made several posts now which I believe to be on point and the only thing you can do is go after me.
If I am endorsing a morally relativisitic position, then explain to me what the moral standard is that I am being relative with?
Even to accuse me of being morally relativistic you have to assume the premise of the moral standard to which you are trying to bound me to when I have made no such distinction yet.
Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding, including the United States.[13]
13. ^ a b Pincus, Walter, “Waterboarding Historically Controversial; In 1947, the U.S. Called It a War Crime; in 1968, It Reportedly Caused an Investigation” Washington Post, October 5, 2006, pg. A17. viewed October 5, 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-WashPostWaterboarding_100406
Nathan – In this we will have to agree to disagree. However, I know how much you hate flip flopping, so you might want to remind yourself of The United States stance on it in previous years.
CF
Waterboarding is not to be done by those in uniform.
Waterboarding is not to be done to those with valid POW status.
However, there is NO international law, and NO United States law, that says our CIA can not use waterboarding on terrorists who do not have POW status.
That is the LAW.
You dont know what the hell you are talking about.
“I know liberals who would argue that not allowing prisoners access to a library, cable TV, 3 hot meals a day, and who knows what other comforts is torture.”
Nathan – Do you really, truly know liberals like this? Or is it some Republican Urban Legend?
Dear Linda,
Many years ago I pretty much gave up on hate. I don’t hate anybody. I don’t wake up each day or any day for that matter holding a grudge from the day before.
When you hate someone, anyone, you are no longer capable of rational thought or capable af expressing yourself in a meaningful manner about that person.
I’m sorry you’ve allowed your hate for our president to cloud your judgement.
TDT,
Stance? That could mean anything.
When Clinton was president it was the executives view that the 2nd Amendment afforded no individual rights.
Now that Bush is President the executive sees the 2nd Amendment differently.
It has nothing to do with flip flopping on the issue.
It has to do with whomever is in control of the executive branch’s interpretation at the time.
“However, there is NO international law, and NO United States law, that says our CIA can not use waterboarding on terrorists who do not have POW status.
That is the LAW”
No law is the law??? How does that work?
Exactly Econ 101.
I have been saying that several times. They are comparing past bad treatment of POW’s to this current treatment of non-POW’s.
Huge difference.
Under the geneva convention it doesn’t matter whether waterboarding is torture or not, you can’t do it to a POW.
“Waterboarding is not bringing someone nearly to death and then reviving them.
“When done correctly in controlled circumstances it is purely psychological.”
Underlying this rationalization, is the premise that if a treatment is “purely psychological” it is not harmful, or at least not as harmful as physical trauma.
I would contend that this premise is categorically False, and I suspect disingenous, because as a near or actual college graduate, Nathan should have been exposed to more accurate informaiton.
Bush, or any President, should state, publicly, than anyone who waterboards those who know the next terrorist target, or anyone who waterboards those who know where WMD’s might be located, in order to save lives, will get a full government pardon.
End of story.
The Preisent’s pardon power is Constitutional, and President Bush would be far more justified, stating in advance, what would be pardoned, than Clinton was, in granting pardons to real criminals.
“I’ll admit how much I hate the damage bushco have done to our Constitution, to America’s reputation, to our economy, to innocents in Iraq, to our military, to the truth and our ability to trust that a person who holds our country’s highest office also holds America and Americans first and foremost in his decisions. The ONLY Americans he cares anything about are the haves and the have mores. He’s earned my disdain!”Posted by: lindainks55 |
Linda seems to be listing her hatred of Bush’s actions and is not stating that she hates the sinner. I thought Christians understood this distinction. I guess not all do.
gster
The Geneva Conventions do NOT cover “illegal enemy combatants” or those who are not in uniform and do not answer, directly, to a foreign power, or a signatory to the Conventions.The Geneva Conventions are treaty.
Also, what military people can and can not do, and what CIA interrogators can and can not do, are entirely different matters.
Foreign governments have no say in how we treat criminals, for instance.
Those who do not qualify for POW status, do not qualify due to their own conduct.
If you grant full Geneva protections to barbarians, you are not giving THEM any incentive to be civilized in their conduct.
Nathan,
Nice attempt to shift grounds from the moral/theological to the legal.
If this was your position earlier, your move ought to have been to reject my query about Jesus’s response to waterboarding. But you didn’t, and by not doing so, implicitly accepted the terms of the debate.
Jesus, for his part, doesn’t mince words: as you have done to the least of my children, so you have done to me.
By advocating the use of waterboarding, you’re advocating its use on Jesus. That’s Jesus’ standard, Nathan–not mine.
Econ101,
Your distinction between those who do and don’t have POW status is moot with respect to the question of waterboarding. US tradition has forbidden its use in all circumstances–even on non-official, insurgent forces.
“Following a series of Senate hearings led by Massachusetts Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, the Army tried Maj. Edwin Glenn in a court-martial in the Philippine province of Samar for misconduct and breach of discipline, including “infliction of the water cure” on suspected Filipino insurgents. The Army’s judge advocate general rejected Glenn’s defense of “military necessity,” and he was suspended from his post for a month and fined $50 (not an insignificant sum in 1902). President Roosevelt affirmed the major’s conviction.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/10/26/giuliani_and_torture/
How does it feel to be not just kind of a blowhard dumbass who doesn’t know jack-shit, Econ101, but a complete one?
Under the Geneva convention it is not allowed to coerce information from a prisoner in any manner. Name, rank and serial number is the only information that a uniformed POW from a nation that is a signer of the Geneva convention has to give.
Terrorists that wear no uniform, terrorists that fight for no country, terrorists that disembowel helpless children in front of their parents, terrorists that hijack and fly planes into skyscrapers killing thousands of innocent civilians, terrorists that would use various weapons of mass distruction on our cities have no rights to the protections of the Geneva convention.
To equate the modern interrogation tacticts of today’s CIA with the atrocities practiced by the Japanese on our POW’s in WWII is either disengenuos or stupid. If you must avoid the facts to make yoiur point, maybe you have no point.
Looks like Schumer and Feinstein stabbed the You Peoples right in the back. Ouchie!It must suck to be a Lib right now. Can’t trust anyone.
CF
“Tradition” LOL
Your white flag is waving though you dont seem to admit it.
You lost.
There is NO law againts waterboarding terrorists.
There is no “tradition” of people flying planes into buildings, but now that it has happened, we need to waterboard those who might do it again.
“Would Jesus waterboard?”
It’s translated to baptism from the Aramaic.
CF
You are dense, arent you?
How does a charge against an Army Major (Hint, he is in uniform and in the Army) — how does that charge have ANYTHING to do with my accurate statement that the CIA CAN waterboard illegal enemy combatants in selected circumstances?
Your posts and your examples are off topic and off base.
You have proven nothing.
By the way, waterboarding has only been used a handful of times, by our CIA, and they claim that it has saved lives.
The blood is on liberals’ hands if you make it impossible for us to defend ourselves!
Econ101,
Since you clearly don’t know how to read, I’ll spell it out for you:
The…Army…Court…Martialed…An…Officer…For…Waterboarding…A…Suspected…Philipine…Insurgent…Even…Though…He…Did…Not…Have…P…O…W…Status.
Got that, Econ101? When waterboarding has been used in the past, whether against regular or irregular forces, its use has been prohibited and punished.
I know you live in fear, Econ101, and you need to feel that your impotent rage is being vented on someone else. But don’t try to invoke law to make your case; that dog won’t hunt.
Mukaskey will get in only because the dems know that bastard bush would just recess appoint someone worse if the dems reject Mukasky.
bush is truly one despicable piece of shi>
I am ashamed deeply to live in a country that practices torture.
Econ101,
Damn. TypePad cut off my post.
As for your ‘argument,’ waterboarding is illegal when the Army does it against POW’s and irregular fighters, but OK when the CIA does it to irregulars?
That alone makes no sense. But leaving that aside, Econ101, if this is a war on terror, and war is a legal state, doesn’t that reinvoke the military’s precedent for the use of waterboarding–given that we’re supposed in a War on Terror and all?
Can’t have it both ways, Econ101: can’t call a war without the rules or laws of war being in force.
“bush is truly one despicable piece of shi>”
Do you mean Schumer and Feinstein?
CFThe ARMY cant do it, but —
The CIA CAN!
Get it? (to use your phrase!
CFBullWhat the CIA is doing is legal.
I DO have it both ways!
We do not grant the same rights to terrorists, pirates, criminals and other scum that we give to those in uniform.
Also, the military is not the proper jurisdiction for those who are NOT POW’s, so they should be held by the CIA, if in a foreign Country.
And the CIA can do waterboarding to terrorists, period.
You lost.
Your wishes are not law, and never will be, thank God!
You would get us all killed!
How does it feel to be not just kind of a blowhard dumbass who doesn’t know jack-shit, Econ101, but a complete one?Posted by: CF2K | November 06, 2007 at 02:14 PM
I can’t imagine why the WE keeps closing the blogs.
Huh, go figure!
CF is so sure of himself that he sucks at real argument.
Might as well argue with a wall.
At least the wall doesnt insult me when I make a valid point!
A few things, water boarding cause psychological trauma. The dictionary defines torture as:Noun:Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.
Creating a situation where someone is being convinced they are drowing over and over again causes mental agony and anguish, therefore it is torture, period.It’s shows how far down the road to fascism we have come, when we are debating torture tactics and whether they are okay. Mukasey, if he wanted the AG job, could not say it was torture, because that would retroactively make criminals of the Bush Administration, so no surprise he ducked it and was vague.Levin had it done to him, said it was torture and was removed from his job, McCain, as much as I think he’s a warhawk, was tortured and he says it’s torture. Make up whatever excuse you want, but big time former CIA officals, like Bob Baer, have made it clear that there are much more effective tactics that don’t involve torture. By the way there isn’t anyone on this forum that wouldn’t admit to being the goodship lollypop if they thought it would get them out of another trip to the game of dunking for info.
It is funny to see how the posters on this Blog are even further to the LEFT of the Dems in Congress.
LOL, to hear them talk, here, I bet they would “waterboard” Feinstein and Shumer in a heartbeat!
LOL
Isnt this fun?
If Schumer and Feinstein think this is the best candidate the Bush regime can find then it must say loads about the type of people who are willing to get on the Bush staff. Seriously, what nut can’t comprehend that simulating drowning so a person thinks they are going to die isn’t a form of torture?
Perhaps since the conservatives find higher education a threat to America there is a shortage of conservatives with anything better than a fake degree from a Pat Robertson diploma mill.
The record shows you’re wrong, Hank Price. Will you man up and admit it?
Posted by: CF2K | November 06, 2007 at 01:38 PM
Of course not!
Not a single conservative has ever admitted they were incorrect about ANYTHING since the Blog started.
That’s the thing about “faith-based” conservative arguments. Even if you’re wrong about the facts, the conclusions are still valid.
Because you start with the conclusions.
More guns for instance ALWAYS means less crime, even when massive longitudinal studies show they don’t.
Vouchers/NCLB/Schools for profit ALWAYS makes public school education better, even when the Wichita Edison project experiment et al. shows that they don’t.
Private industry ALWAYS outperforms government (socialism) even when our private health care system is far less efficient, more costly and results in poorer health outcomes.
Cuba fer gosh sakes has a longer life expectancy than we do.
Republicans ALWAYS create a better climate for business than Democrats do–ignore the massive contradictory data like real wage growth, job growth, GDP growth, and balancing the budget.
And on and on it goes.
Oh . . . and Kerry didn’t earn his medals. Pay no attention to his commanding officers who said he did.
They be Radical Left Econ.
Radical.
“It is funny to see how the posters on this Blog are even further to the LEFT of the Dems in Congress.”
Why does that surprise you, Econ?
The vast majority of American people are to the left of Democrats in Congress.
Unfortunately, that majority happens to live in major cities where their representation is trumped by effing Utah.
Econ101,
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention DOES apply to those who are in CIA detention. At least, according to Alberto Gonzales’s response to a letter from Senator Durbin, it does.
Durbin: “During the July 24th hearing, you also suggested that Common Article 3 would not apply to some detainees held by the United States, which ironically would entitle al Qaeda detainees to a higher standard of treatment than other detainees. This is the first time an Administration official has publicly claimed that such a legal loophole exists. I asked you, “Do you now agree that Common Article 3 applies to all detainees held by the United States?” You responded:
Gonzales: What I can say is that certainly Common Article 3 applies to all detainees held by the United States in our conflict with al Qaeda. … If there were a different kind of conflict that on its face isn’t covered by Common Article 3, then obviously we would not be legally bound by Common Article 3.
Durbin: This is a misinterpretation of Common Article 3 and the Supreme Court’s Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision. As you acknowledged in your testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on August 2, 2006, Common Article 3 is “the baseline standard that now applies to the conduct of U.S. personnel in the War on Terror.” The law is clear: Common Article 3 protects all detainees, regardless of their status. The Hamdan court cited the official commentary on the Geneva Conventions, which states simply, “nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.”"
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003848.php
If you want to argue that those in CIA custody aren’t “detainees,” well, Econ101, I suppose you can embarrass yourself if you so choose. But based on the passage above, the upshot is clear:
I win. You lose.
Econ101,
Must suck to get your ass kicked around the blog by someone who “sucks at real argument.” How’s that feel, Econ101?
JMYou are way off topic, another indication that you libs lost thos one!
No liberal that agrees with any of you will ever get elected President.
Hillary will vote FOR confirmation, what do you want to bet??
Where are the comments condemning Schumer and Feinstien? Methinks they are the ones who did you dirty. Not Bush, not Econ.
fleetwood,
Do you even KNOW how to read? Look at the top of the thread; it’s the FIRST thing I posted.
Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex,[3] and can make the subject believe death is imminent. Waterboarding’s use as a method of torture or means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure.[4] Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-WashPostWaterboarding_100406
Nathan and Econ – I think we are discussing this from entirely different viewpoints. I DON’T CARE whether it is legal or illegal, I am looking at it from a totally moralistic standpoint, not only as an individual but also as an American. I think it is torture, I think that torture should not be used by OUR GOVERNMENT in ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, which I’m sure makes me naive, and it shouldn’t matter the person’s status, whether POW or alleged “terrorist”. What I’m hearing from you is it’s okay to TORTURE someone AS LONG AS they are accused of being a terrorist. Is that truly your position?
The Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights forbids “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Those arguing for waterboarding are arguing against the Constitution.
Saudi Arabia freely and openly tortures. Maybe you conservatives would be happier living there.
CF
Is your own memory failing you?
You had claimed that wateboarding, as done by the US, was illegal.
You were proven wrong.
You then said it was “tradition” that was a hoot.—-
Two guys in Leavenworth:
“What are you in for, buddy?”Aw, I stole some supplies and shipped them home, and did some blackmarket stuff. How about you?”
—”Oh, I violated TRADITION” LOL—-CFyou LOST, big.
And I am only keeping score because you are so insufferably arrogant.
JM,
Indeed. Traitors to America support torture.
JMThe Constitution does NOT apply to non United States Citizens and non POW’s on FOREIGN SOIL!
Sorry, cf2k, but you don’t count.
In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, “There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is ‘cruel and unusual’.”
The “essential predicate” is “that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,” especially torture.
“A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.”
“A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.”
“A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.”
This would matter to people who care about the process of law.
That’s why it doesn’t matter to conservatives, who only care about power–getting it, having it, and holding on to it by any means necessary.
TDT
I disagree with your position, of course, but you have been humble enough to admit that your position is not, necessarily, the law.
Much appreciated.
Econ101,
“You had claimed that wateboarding, as done by the US, was illegal.
You were proven wrong.”
I said nothing of the kind. Prove it or be a liar.
JMThey are illegal enemy combatants and do not fall under the protections citizens of the United States or the protections of POW’s.
If you give EVERYONE full protections of these laws, you give noone any incentive to follow the rules.
Illegal combatants should be encouraged to follow legal means of warfare.
IF they dont?
Well, they asked for it.
Econ–
Bullsh*t.
The Constitution should at all times inform and constrain the actions of the US government whose sworn duty it is to uphold it.
The Declaration of Independence talked about “self-evident” and “inalienable” rights.
The right to not be tortured surely fits under those two catagories.
If you want to split hairs and quibble and equivocate, fine. Burn the Constitution and be done with it.
As for me and my house, I’ll defend and uphold it.
What the CIA now terms as waterboading involves placing a piece of plastic over someones face and pouring water over it. It gives the sensation of drowning without actually putting them under water. They still get wet and scared but there’s no physical trauma.
Posted by: Heckler | November 06, 2007 at 01:43 PM
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Hearing on U.S. Interrogation Policy and Executive Order 13440
September 25, 2007
Statement by Allen S. Keller, M.D.
Associate Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
Thank you for the privilege of testifying before this committee today. I am testifying on
behalf of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture and Physicians for Human Rights.
As a physician, I want to share with you my perspective on torture and abusive interrogation
practices. My perspective is not a theoretical one. It is based on more than 15 years of experience
as a doctor in evaluating and caring for victims of torture and mistreatment from around the
world, and studying the health consequences of such trauma. I will also address the ethical
restrictions for health professionals regarding interrogations as well as the impact of US policies
on torture and mistreatment worldwide.
Water-boarding
Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and
water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in
immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of
imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected,
including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for
breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage
to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and
PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath
whenever it rained even years after his abuse.
Sorry I forgot to include the web site if you want to read the full report.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/070925/akeller.pdf
CF
So you can be perfectly legal and be “UnAmerican” as you put it?—-F*ck Feinstein and Shumer. If you can’t vote against a candidate for Attorney General who refuses to say whether waterboarding is torture, you don’t deserve to be called an American.
Torture is unamerican. Those who endorse it, or allow it, are traitors.
Posted by: CF2K | November 06, 2007 at 12:45 PM
—–
CFYou also had some rather lengthy posts in which you gave Military history of punishment.Not at all valid, since the CIA is now doing the waterboarding with approval of the Aministration, in very select circumstances, against non-POW’s.That is a huge difference.
You thought it should be easy for an AG candidate to say it was “illegal” didnt you, that is the whole point of this thread?
“If you give EVERYONE full protections of these laws, you give noone [sic] any incentive to follow the rules.”
Even if this so-called practical argument were relevant to whether torture is right or not (it’s not right and neither is the argument relevant), it FAILS as a practical argument as well.
For this means that the insurgents we fight are justified in torturing our guys because we do it too.
There’s no incentive for them to not torture us, if we torture them.
I believe in the golden rule on this one and it has NOTHING to do with my politics or religion. The US should treat all detainees, POW’s or whatever someone being held is called, the same as they would like our soldiers to be treated. It’s common human decency. Physical or psychological torture should not be used in civilized society. Reducing ourselves to any other country’s level only hurts us.
Econ101,
Stop twisting my words. I never equated being “unAmerican” with “illegal,” so take back your assertion.
Econ101,
By the rules of argument, Econ101, you DEFINITELY lose by imputing a meaning to my words that was not my own, and then developing a counterargument to what you perceived–incorrectly–to be my argument.
CFYour logic is twisted.
You are mad that an AG candidate would NOT say that waterboarding is always illegal.
Therefore, it is obvious that YOU believe that waterboarding is always illegal.
Or, the only other rational conclusion:
You are mad at the AG candidate for NOT saying something that YOU actually believe to be false, anyway.
LOL
You are really messed up.
Oh, and for the record I think our prison population is too pampered, and I believe in the death penalty.
Youbetcha, Econ.
Anyone reading this thread can see who the “messed up” one is.
Hehehe.
Wichiwoman
A terrorist plants a nuclear bomb, with a timer.
The terrorist is then injured in a shoot out, and hides in your house, taking you hostage, along with a child.
The terrorist has only a knife.
You have a boiling pan of water on the stove.
You defend yourself by tossing the scalding water on the terrorist.
He is blinded and then drops the knife.
You ask him where the bomb is planted.
He doesnt tell you.
You have ANOTHER pan of water on the stove —-
????????????????
Econ101,
Now you are reduced to arguing with what you think I will have to say, but that I haven’t said. Which means, Econ101, that you’re arguing with yourself.
As it stands, though, Econ101, I’ve decisively shown two things:
-That when dealing with irregulars, American military precedent has been to disallow the use of torture with them; put otherwise, to punish as ILLEGAL the use of waterboarding;
-That even if you want to invoke a specious disticntion between “military” and “intelligence” activities (as if, in the case of the Philipines insurgency, both these functions weren’t filled by the military), that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention ABSOLUTELY applies to persons in CIA custody.
So, Econ101, you got really excited, but you shot your wad.
Waterboarding is illegal by military law, and the Adminsitration has affirmed that torture of any detained persons by any agents of any state–whether military or intelligence–is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions.
So. You’re wrong. And you’ve embarrassed yourself by a) trying to talk down to someone who was right when you were wrong and b) basing your “arguments” on a distinction that, in the end, turned out not to be one at all.
If you’re going to try to trap me, Econ101, you would be well advised to start from what I actually DID say, rather than from how you construed what you THOUGHT must have been my meaning.
And now, of course, you start with the hypotheticals. One gets the sense, Econ101, that you sit around, late at night, playing these scenarios out in your head. To what end, I will not venture to guess.
Bush preserved his “constitutional” right to torture by way of a signing statement to the defense department bill that included the McCain anti-torture amendment. I do not believe that such use of signing statements has received support from the supreme court. Thus, it does not seem to me that one can say Bush is empowered to torture enemy combatants or anyone else. I think it might be more accurate to say that his potentially illegal actions have not been legally challenged, yet.
So far, the courts have not been in agreement with this administratioin’s arguments on this subject in general.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/
Not at all valid, since the CIA is now doing the water boarding with approval of the Administration, in very select circumstances, against non-POW’s.That is a huge difference. Posted by: Econ101 | November 06, 2007 at 3:10 PM
The administration calls this a “War on Terror” right?
In war you have prisoners right?
The CIA is a part of our government, right?
Just because the administration has change the name of “prisoner of war” to “enemy combatant” and is having CIA personal doing the interrogating doesn’t mean the Geneva convention doesn’t apply.
During the American Revolution the British were treating the American soldiers horrendously. They were beheading Americans and torturing Americans.
The generals came to George Washington and said, “How do you want us to treat British soldiers, British prisoners of war?” and George Washington said, “Treat them with respect and dignity. If we lose that, we’ve lost the reason why we’re fighting this revolution.”
The “war” phrase now?
Ok, you libs pretty much think that terrorism is a law enforcement matter and not a military matter.
Law enforcement can pretty much ignore the Geneva Conventions, too, since Miranda and other laws are in play, rights of US citizens dictate.
When we catch a terrorist in the United States, does ANY foreign power have any say over how he is treated?
NO!
Since that is a criminal matter, not covered by the Geneva Conventions at all.
ks city dude
George Washington also had deserters shot, on site, without hearing.
Liberals want us to lose the war.
That is why liberals love the terrorists so much, I guess.
Liberals and terrorists all hate America.
Ironically, the liberals dont realize that the terrorists hate liberals as much as they hate any other American.
Econ101,
Not pretty, watching you grasp at ad hominem straws. The fact that you’re shouting into the wind (’liberals hate America!’ ‘Liberals love terrorists!’) shows that you know you’ve been beaten, but aren’t man enough to admit it.
kc dude
The Bush administration did not “change” the term for POW.
We have POW’s in our custody.
They are honorable soldiers of our enemies who followed the rules of warfare.
The term “enemy combatant” is described in the Geneva Articles.
Legal warfare is also described.
Those who are not “legal” are “illegal”.
How can you say that there are rules of warfare for the United States, but not hold the terrorists to ANY standard what so ever?
Those in uniform, following the rules of warfare, deserve a higher standard of treatment that rogue criminals, terrorists and pirates.
Well, to be fair, it may not be pretty, but it *is* kind of funny.
(Seeing that Econ101 is caught up in his own loop, like a dog that can’t stop itself from barking at the wind, CF2K slips off to get some work done.)
CF why do you still waste time on Econ Paul?
Paul insults our troops in suggesting that the war is loseable. They already won.
Paul further endangers the troops by diminishing the standards of treatment of prisoners. NOT the best idea from someone whose next breath will be spent defending US military occupation of other nations.
You one bad apple there Paulie.
The majority of the American Public is firmly on the side of defending America.We are not talking about soldiers captured on the battlefield.We are talking about homocidal criminals who target civilians on purpose, who do not wear a uniform, and who do not obey the standard rules of warfare.
Liberals deserve the “weak on defense” label, precisely because of the looney left, represented on this Blog.
Again, I think Hillary will vote to confirm and that Obama will vote against.
What do you liberals think?
JR,
What purpose did that post serve?
You are no better than Kansas when you come here to do nothing to add to the topic rather try to attack the poster.
If an American Citizen wants to go to a foreign country, not wear any uniform or answer to any military authority, and target civilians for terrorist attacks —
Well, then maybe that citizen might be waterboarded by our enemies, if captured???
You people are ridiculous.
There can be NO parallel because we do not do what these barbarians do.
“Underlying this rationalization, is the premise that if a treatment is “purely psychological” it is not harmful, or at least not as harmful as physical trauma.
I would contend that this premise is categorically False, and I suspect disingenous, because as a near or actual college graduate, Nathan should have been exposed to more accurate informaiton.”
Posted by: Steven Davis | November 06, 2007 at 02:07 PM
Steven,
I never said that something being “purely psychological” meant that it wasn’t harmful.
You assumed that I meant that premise. My statement didn’t make it.
Once again, another liberal tries to make this about me rather than the topic.
For something to be torture “harmful” is not the standard. “extreme” mental or physical harm is the standard.
I don’t think that controlled and monitored water boarding is “extreme” mental or physical harm.
We could argue that point and I believe that is what we are doing.
Nathan,In 1947 we tried and convicted Japanese officers of war crimes for waterboarding American POW’s. Exactly what has changed since then, other than it’s us doing it to Iraqis?
Ok so let me get this straight, the AG candidate has a great law pedigree, accomplished more than 99% of the population. and you disagree with one point of his views, so he is not qualified to be the AG. let me ask you this.. is their anybody so perfect that would fit into your catergory for this job. Because I have never agreed totally with every candidate, you have to take the best option, and he is it. He is at the top of his profession and your going to bitch because he refused to anwser if it is illegal.. come on people get a grip.
I’m of the opinion that the Geneva convention is a bunch of bullcrap. One does not win wars by always looking in the rule book to make sure everything is “legal” one wins by killing the enemy, terrorizing the enemy and breaking the enemies will to fight. If that means hanging a terrorist by his genitals until he/she talks or killing the children of terrorists so be it. As for the fear that American Soldiers will be tortured if captured well that’s an incentive not to throw down your arms and wave a white flag, which in my opinion makes one a coward.
JedAsked and answered.Wateboarding, itself, can be done in different ways.Japan was far more brutal, in many ways, than most of our enemies.Also, Prisoners of War deserve better treatment than spys or terrorists or pirates.The Geneva Conventions are not only intended to specify the treatement of captives, but also serve to classify what warfare is illegal.
POW’s should NEVER be waterboarded.
The United States waterboarded a few, select TERRORISTS, who were not covered by Geneva Conventions granted to honorable POW’s.
Tom Paine,
Thanks for the honest post. Folks around here need to see precisely what we risk losing in allowing torture. Your eagerness accomplishes that.
“I know liberals who would argue that not allowing prisoners access to a library, cable TV, 3 hot meals a day, and who knows what other comforts is torture“.
First off Nathan that is purely “Apples and Oranges” and if you do not know it that is just sad. Second, everyone of OUR OWN voluntarily or involuntarily whom have suffered it agree. It is torture, without a doubt, no question, water boarding is torture! I am afraid that next you will be arguing that pulling out finger nails out does not actually cause the person to die! You depend on a handful of “know nothings” who wish to justify the unjustifiable. To excuse the lowering of this nation to no better then the very enemies who only wish to end this nation. In doing so they are more effective then our enemy, accomplishing what no amount of bombs could do.
What shall we do next? Argue as long as we are using a sharp sword instead of a dull sword like the terrorists. We would be morally justified in beheading! Just when taking a moral high ground in this war of ideology. Is it a matter of miles or millimeters that count?
WeBlog libs:
Further to the left than Shumer or Feinstein!
(Or Hillary)
JMThey are illegal enemy combatants and do not fall under the protections citizens of the United States or the protections of POW’s.
WHAT IS AN ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANT? IF WE’VE DECLARED A WAR ON TERROR DOESN’T IT MAKE SENSE THEN THAT ANY TERRORIST WE CATCH IS A POW? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR SAYING THERE ARE LEGAL AND ILLEGAL WARS ??
If you give EVERYONE full protections of these laws, you give noone any incentive to follow the rules.
THAT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE — ISN’T EVERYONE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTED BY LAWS?
Illegal combatants should be encouraged to follow legal means of warfare.
THAT MAKES LESS SENSE IF IN YOUR EYES THEY ARE ILLEGAL WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO BE LEGAL ?
IF they dont?
Well, they asked for it.
Posted by: Econ101 | November 06, 2007 at 03:06 PM
Dear kscitydude,
The Geneva convention very clearly defines the circumstances for defining a POW.
The detainees at Gitmo do not come under that definition.
Commanders in the field can summarily execute prisoners that fight you without a country or uniform.
Instead we send them to Gitmo where they recieve better treatment than they would ever get if captured by their own country.
Hank
Pall,When the torturer is the one deciding who’s the terrorist and who’s the innocent civilian, of course only “terrorists are tortured. The question is, were they terrorists before or after they were tortured?
AREN’T ARMIES BY THERE VERY NATURE TERRORISTS ?
HankWell said.
These libs dont get it.
If out of uniform and shooting at the United States, they can be shot at any time, even after capture, even if unarmed.
KenYou are negating the reason that we have a Geneva Convention in the first place.You do not seem to believe that there is such a thing as honorable military service?You do not believe that there is such a thing as honorable warfare and dishonorable warfare?
Pall, in other words, anyone can be shot at any time at the discretion of an officer. Convenient!
Jed
Nope, the terrorist decided to be a terrorist.
Where is the uniform?
Where is the chain of command?
What country does he serve?—-Again, the military does not do the waterboarding, and waterboarding is not done against members of any foreign military unit.The waterboarding is done by the CIA against illegal enemy combatants, or terrorists, who have very few rights under the law, and under the law, may be executed at any time.
JedYES,
But if the officer has someone shot who DOES deserve POW status, then that officer, rightfully, will be up on charges.
However, shooting a combatant spy or combatant terrorist or pirate, someone out of uniform, after capture, is fully allowed under United States and International law.
When the torturer is the one deciding who’s the terrorist and who’s the innocent civilian, of course only “terrorists are tortured. The question is, were they terrorists before or after they were tortured?
Posted by: Jed | November 06, 2007 at 04:29 PM
Well then you dont want the perp to survive the interrogation and to avoid blow back you kill his family also. In fact killing the families of terrorist would ultimately decrease the number of active terrorists. In fact it should be the policy of the military to kill all family members of suicide bombers that would also decrease the number of those happening.
Econ101,
Once again, you’re factually wrong. CIA doesn’t have free reign to torture: Article 3 still applies. If you disagree, you’re disagreeing with Alberto Gonzales’ offical testimony.
Repeating false stuff more times doesn’t make it any more true, Econ101–despite what you Repukes believe.
“For something to be torture “harmful” is not the standard. “extreme” mental or physical harm is the standard.
“I don’t think that controlled and monitored water boarding is “extreme” mental or physical harm.”
I think you are splitting hairs.
Alberto Gonzales would be proud of you. You’d better sign up quick with the current Justice Dept. I don’t think you’d have a job in Jan. 2008, though.
And my point that Bush “has” the power to define what is torture and order it be done by virtue of his declaration of same in executive signing statements (that have not been constitutinally tested) does not trouble you?
Unfortunately, it will take a while to clean up the mess this administration will leave.
The Bush administration did not “change” the term for POW.We have POW’s in our custody.They are honorable soldiers of our enemies who followed the rules of warfar Posted by: Econ101 | November 06, 2007 at 03:51 PM
Who are these “POWs”? I didn’t know that al Qaeda had a uniform.
The solution is simple — give the terrorists uniforms, tanks, fighter jets, cruise missles, etc, and then fight an “honorable” war. ;)
CFNope, you are wrong again.
Waterboarding is not torture, as the CIA uses the technique.
“honorable soldiers of our enemies”??? Who the hell are these assholes?
Paul – then why was it torture when Japan used it?
Actually, the Taliban did have some of its folks in uniform.
I believe they are still in captivity.
We also captured many of Saddams uniformed soldiers. I believe they have all been released, at least to the Iraqi government.
Pall,”You do not believe that there is such a thing as honorable warfare and dishonorable warfare?”
As I recall, our “honorable intentions” on entering this war were that “Saddam has WMD’s aimed at us.”While I didn’t buy that from the beginning, a lot of people did, so we invaded. Wouldn’t the honorable thing have been to withdraw, apologize, pay reparations and rebuild the instant we discovered that those WMD’s were a lie? Therefore what we are in now is a dishonorable war, and those who lied to promote it should be turned over to the World Court for war crimes trials, wouldn’t you agree? Wouldn’t you want to start our nation back down the path of national honor?
“honorable” means they honored the rules of war and wore a uniform, not that I honor their cause.Yes, their are honorable and dishonorable enemy combattants.Honorable ones deserve POW status.
JedYour above post is a lie.
I challenge you to show me where Bush said, even once, that WMD’s were the only, or even the primary, reason to remove Saddam.
That having been said, I can show you a bunch of times that Hillary and Al Gore and John Kerry said such things about WMD’s.
JedDo you want Hillary Clinton tried in a international war crimes trial?She was far more strident about WMD’s than W., after all.
Remember the Hamdi case, it is evidence that the Bush adminstration is hardly infallible in its broad assertions on the detention of enemy combatants:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html
The rule of law will eventually prevail on the torture question also.
You are negating the reason that we have a Geneva Convention in the first place.
(I don’t think so.)
You do not seem to believe that there is such a thing as honorable military service?
Be careful — please don’t assume you know what I believe by one post on the blog. I was trying to understand the logic in your statement — has nothing to do with honorable / dishonorable service — Isn’t a terrorists who has declared war on us (regardless of their tactics) the same as Japan declaring war with us ? What makes them illegal combatants?
You do not believe that there is such a thing as honorable warfare and dishonorable warfare?
The only honor I see in any warfare is the honor of most of the individuals who have stepped up to serve their country and have done so honorably. Are you trying to say that the only legal wars are the ones where someone / some country says I’m at war with you ?
Not really it seems only we (America) thinks they are not POW’s,
Pall,If your definitions are going to be so narrow, I recall reading that many of Washington’s troops never had uniforms, and they certainly didn’t have their own country at the time, so you’re saying the Brits would have been justified to summarily execute any of those they captured?
How many times are you guys going to keep comparing what was done to POW’s as being wrong in the past to what we are doing now?
POW’s have special protections under the geneva convention and regardless if we think waterboarding is torture or not it can’t be used against them.
That is why the Japanese were prosecuted for war crimes when they did it.
Pall,”Do you want Hillary Clinton tried in a international war crimes trial?”
If they can make a legitimate case for her involvement, they should go for it!
How about non-military citizens of Iraq? Do they have no protections?
Jed,
For heavens sake, obviously Econ101 isn’t saying that having a uniform is the only thing which makes someone classify as a POW.
The geneva convention has several guidlines for making that distinction. We are not listing them all here. Go read it instead of trying to nit pick Econ.
Besides, there was no geneva convention during the Revolutionary War. The British probably didn’t treat any POW’s they captured very nicely at all.
There is a huge difference in a cruel and vindictive use of waterboarding and a controlled and monitored use of it.
It is not a matter of splitting hairs either.
I believe that many coercive interrogation techniques can be turned into torture when done vindictively with no regard for the life you are doing it to.
Do those of you who say waterboarding is torture support any type of coercive interrogation techniques?
I challenge you to show me where Bush said, even once, that WMD’s were the only, or even the primary, reason to remove Saddam.That having been said, I can show you a bunch of times that Hillary and Al Gore and John Kerry said such things about WMD’s.Posted by: Econ101 | November 06, 2007 at 04:51 PM
The re-writting of history. The primary reason for invading was WMD’s.
Where do you think Clinton, Gore, and Kerry got their information from?
Neither did many colonial milita groups. and the british viewed tactics like hiding in trees and picking off officers as dishonorable yet thats how we won
“Where do you think Clinton, Gore, and Kerry got their information from?
Posted by: kscitydude | November 06, 2007 at 05:08 PM “—-FROM PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, perhaps?Several Democrat members of Congress did write PRESIDENT Bill Clinton a letter, stating that Saddam had WMD’s.Clinton and several members of Congress stated that the policy of the United States, towards Iraq, was “regime change”.
Tom
“That how we won”???
Agreed
Then “hiding in trees”
Now “wateboarding”
YES YES
Thats how we WIN!
And, by the way, we can do so while honoring REAL POW’s and their rights under Geneva.
Moderates and more reasonable Republicans should notice a strange and disturbing thing about SOME Republicans.
How very eager they ARE to find some justification for torture!
Consider Paulie’s carefully constructed far out scenario above.
Witness Nathan’s equivocation.
What is with these people that SO wants to justify inflicting cruelty on other human beings?
Is it from the same source that calls people human resources? Does it find its home in the same place as decisions based on economics and not people?
It is almost as if SOME Republicans are just not quite human let alone humane.
24 former intel officials demand hold on Mukasey.In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee heads Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), 24 former intelligence officials today urged the senators to “not send [Attorney General nominee Michael] Mukasey’s nomination to the full Senate before he makes clear his view on waterboarding.” From the letter:
If Mukasey continues to drag his feet, you need only to facilitate a classified briefing for him on waterboarding and the C.I.A. interrogation program. He will then be able to render an informed legal opinion. We strongly suggest that you sit in on any such briefing and that you invite the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to take part as well. Receiving the same briefing at the same time (and, ideally, having it taped) should enhance the likelihood of candor and make it possible for all to be–and to stay–on the same page on this delicate issue.
If the White House refuses to allow such a briefing, your committee must, in our opinion, put a hold on Mukasey’s nomination. We are aware that the president warned last week that it will be either Mukasey as our attorney general or no one. So be it.
Where do you think Clinton, Gore, and Kerry got their information from?
Posted by: kscitydude | November 06, 2007 at 05:08 PM ”
Well Hillary Clinton has said that she got hers from Madeline Albright. Now Dude where do you go with that?
KCDude
Try this out:
“As late as October 2002, Hillary Clinton agreed with Hamza on the link between Osama and Saddam. “He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,” she said of Saddam. “. . . if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
The evidence that Saddam had WMDs was overwhelming and almost assuredly accurate. “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction,” said a convinced Ted Kennedy in September 2002. “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power,” agreed Al Gore that same year.
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein,” added John Kerry in January 2003. “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” Kerry should know. He served many of those years on the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence.
Yet today, Kerry and his colleagues allow the lie to persist that “Bush lied.” Many of them repeat it themselves even though they all know better. They know too that the dissension caused by such dishonesty motivates the enemy and demoralizes our troops.
To paraphrase the bumperstickers, “When the left lies, our soldiers do die.”
http://www.cashill.com/terrorism/untelling_bush_lied_lie.htm
Dear Linda,
Many years ago I pretty much gave up on hate. I don’t hate anybody. I don’t wake up each day or any day for that matter holding a grudge from the day before.
When you hate someone, anyone, you are no longer capable of rational thought or capable af expressing yourself in a meaningful manner about that person.
I’m sorry you’ve allowed your hate for our president to cloud your judgement.
Posted by: Hank Price | November 06, 2007 at 02:03 PM
——————————–
FIRST, I have asked you multiple times NOT to address me as anything except my name which is “Linda.” Endearments from you to me DO NOT sound at all endearing. Out of respect for your elders (ME!) or something similar could you please refrain?
SECOND, I have the right to an opinion whether it is, or is not, based on hate of what bushco have done to our country over the last years. I stuck to the topic, did not address any criticism of anyone outside public figures. I certainly didn’t attempt to make a judgment of you or your opinions.
THIRDLY, an acknowledgment that I have read your loving tolerance in posts. Especially when the subject at hand is Hillary or Bill Clinton. Sometimes it is patently obvious how much you gave up hating.
JR
leader of a new movement
JERKS FOR PEACE!
LOL
Seriously, JR, if you want to play the role of peacemaker, you should try to fit the part.
Here, on this Blog, you tell people to go away, you tell people they wont last, you claim we have been paid by outside sources to post, and you hurl insult after insult after insult.
That is not the way of Mother Theresa.
That is not the way of Martin Luther King.
That is not the way of Ghandi.
JR, If you thought you could do it, and get away with it, you would “waterboard” me, in a heartbeat.
On the otherhand, if I saw you injured, in an accident, I would apply first aide and try to help.
You, sir, have no idea what I have done for my fellow man.
Your actions, on this Blog, would seem to indicate that you would justify anything against anyone who disagrees with you.
— I would sum it up this way: Defeating this enemy, Islamic Terrorism, is the MOST important challenge before us, today.
The kindest thing we can do for the entire world, everyone included is to win this war.
Yes, there are rules to follow, but those who will not even follow the rules of civil discourse have NO business telling the rest of us how to fight people who want us dead.
Learn to follow a few rules of engagement, on this Blog —-
And maybe some of us will listen to you when you tell us to “play nice” with these homicidal maniacs.
Yeah and Hank was just barely even on topic too there Linda.
Hate? Huh. You aint SEEN hate.
Hate was those goons who stopped the votes being counted in Florida. Hate was more goons outside the Vice Presidents residence screaming for Al Gore to “get out of Dick Cheney’s house!”
And if Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat wins you just watch the lack of hate coming from (S)aint Hank.
Dear Linda, one thing Hank was kind enough not to mention was that hate is like a cancer it consumes the container holding it.
I don’t ever remember Hank professing to hate anyone. You can strongly disagree with someone without hating them.
Your container is showing strong signs of erosion.
Peacemaker?
Not me paulie. And sure as hell not with you.
The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is indifference.
With adjustments to some US foreign policy and security measures FAR cheaper than war and FAR easier to justify than torture, a hating terrorist on the other side of the world is just about zero threat to me.
The same AINT true of you and yours Paulie. You’re about just one thing. You. THAT is a bigger threat to America and its future than any terrorist could ever be.
You know JR I have seen nothing but kindness from Hank to you. I have heard him invite you and your son to his house. I heard him volunteer to help you get a computer when yours bit the dust. I just can’t understand this viciousness you have toward him and others on this blog.
With adjustments to some US foreign policy and security measures FAR cheaper than war and FAR easier to justify than torture, a hating terrorist on the other side of the world is just about zero threat to me.
Posted by: J R | November 06, 2007 at 06:42 PM
Like it or not when Bush took the fight to them there have been no further attacks on our soil, our carriers, our military barracks, our embassies, etc…
Those are the facts JR – like it or lump it.
Huh?
What planet are you posting from.
I wasn’t vicious with Hank at all.
Uh huh JM
And how much has that cost us in money and blood.
That any terrorist attacks were stopped as a result is speculative at best.
More could have been done in that direction with a secure border and NOT trying to outsource virtually everything including control of our ports.
J R your innocent act is becoming transparent. Doesn’t hold water anymore. You have been exposed for what you are and it isn’t pretty.
JR is against the “outsourcing” of waterboards.
He wants to keep them all here, in the United States, to use against “evil” Republicans, and everyone else, that he holds responsible, for his own misery.
By the way:
Hillary will vote to confirm!
She is on MY side, on this one.
Uh huh JM
And how much has that cost us in money and blood.
That any terrorist attacks were stopped as a result is speculative at best.
Posted by: J R | November 06, 2007 at 06:53 PM
I don’t know J R why don’t you tell me. Aren’t you the answer man around here. Always around. Always right. Knows it all. Stabs any one who might befriend him in the back.
To me the results are telling unless you have some better intellingence.
I see JR all over the blog crying about Kansas. I think the ratio was 10 posts about Kansas, to 1 post cutting down another poster.
Some hero. Save the world JR.But could you maybe do it somewhere else?
Econ did you see the way the repubs backed Dennis into a corner today when they said let the debates start on Cheney’s impeachment? Boy did the dems have to back pedal to send it to committee. No debate. Typical.
Paul and “kansas”
Now there’s a dynamic duo.
Have at me boys. I’ll be back to mop ya up later.
Ta!
And Pat stop IM ing me. I do NOT date con women.
J R you aren’t as smart as you think you are. You don’t have a clue who I am and it’s killing you. I want honest dialogue. I want a blog with both side able to discuss topics. I want a blog without your potshots all the time while giving us all your innocent ‘who me’ act.
But I am not Kansas or JM or anyone you would think I am.
Have fun JR see if you can get this thread shut down also.
JRIn any room with a random sample of, say 100 people, you would have a hard time winning any real debate, on any topic.
You thrive here, because you dont have to know anything, you can use all the insults you want, and you are useful as a tool or foil.
In other words, most people who come to this Blog dont post anything.
You are alienating those people.
YOU, JR, are the face of liberalism, and the American public is far closer to Republican ideals than they are to you.
Selfish?
You are harming your supposed “cause” just by posting.
However, I suspect that your psyche needs this Blog to vent your hate.
You must have someone to blame for your own failures in life.
Your misery demands company, so you try to make us miserable, like you.
LOL
Its not working.
Life is good.
bye-bye!! ;-)
“Like it or not when Bush took the fight to them there have been no further attacks on our soil, our carriers, our military barracks, our embassies, etc…”
I see you still have difficulties with statistics eyebrows.
“Those are the facts JR – like it or lump it.”
You made a statement of conclusion. I am certainly hopeful that our government has been active in investigating and stopping terrorist plots, but there have been lulls before 9/11 as well.
The main thing is, you seem to be confusing correlation with causation.
Whew, I love to see the Pukes in full attack mode because a Lib has the audacity to stand up for himself.
Keep it up, JR.
When they screech like little girls–like Econ and Pat and Divit Head just did–that’s how you know you’ve won.
And dittos to Linda too.
You don’t need to take that patronizing crap from the Price is Wrong.
Thanks for the update ^^
I just read about it!
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/republicans-keep-cheney-impeachment-bill-alive-2007-11-06.html
Republicans KNOW that the Dennis wing is NUTS.
The lefties on this Blog won’t understand this at all, they think THEY are the voice of America!
How do you define causation, ksagnostic? I’m curious, because of the way you left the statement open for interpretation. Are you suggesting that we caused Al Qaida to attack us, and that since 9/11 we have stopped causing them to attack us? Or are you simply suggesting that Al Q has not caused any more attacks on the US, and our defensive and offensive strategies have had nothing to do with it. Help me follow what you are suggesting, please.
JM
So you win, on this Blog, by calling people names, making threats, and attacking character?
Ok,
JM is ALSO the face of liberalism.
All you observers out there, is THIS the Democrat Party you thought you signed up for?
agnost this is the longest ‘lull’ we have had in the last 14 years. How do you explain away that causation?
Get those statisticians goings. Hope you have enough fingers and toes.
” All you observers out there, is THIS the Democrat Party you thought you signed up for?”
Isn’t that cute! Pall thinks people still read him!
Guess that failed journalism dream never died did it Pall? For you anyway. Put the rest of us out of your misery.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Weblog (you too JM), it is now six weeks into fiscal year 2008 and our democrat majority congress has failed to do it’s job and pass the 2008 appropriation bills. Strike one.They also have violated their own Pay as You Go rules. Strike two. Further, they have failed to impeach any republicans. Strike Three!
After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.
–Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), January 4, 2007.[9]
Fact: The House has already waived its PAYGO rules, and Congress has voted to increase entitlement spending by $179 billion. Offset by the $98 billion in tax increases, these policies would increase the budget deficit by nearly $81 billion.
Runaway entitlement spending represents the most perilous part of the federal budget. Entitlement programs, which automatically grow without limits or oversight, constitute more than 60 percent of the federal budget. Large entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are growing between 7 percent and 12 percent annually. Unless they are reined in, entitlements will eventually consume the entire federal budget or force European-sized tax increases.
In recent years, members of the current Democratic congressional majority regularly derided runaway spending and called for “fiscal discipline” and “substantial curbs, if not cuts, in spending.”[10] They campaigned in 2006 on PAYGO budgeting that would require fully offsetting all new entitlement increases with entitlement cuts or tax increases.[11] They have not held to that standard. Earlier this year, Congress actually voted to ignore PAYGO altogether when allocating new entitlement money to a bill that wouldprovide for congressional representation of Washington, D.C.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2081.cfm
They should aske him for a commitment to experience it first hand like that other guy in the AG office. Bet he could make an informed decision then!
i am guessing JM and JR are the same person.LOL
Hey, JROne of the reasons you failed in life is that you never learned to grow or change.How many 65 year olds, do you know, who are working in the same job they were doing at 23?How many 50 year olds are working at the same job they were doing, at age 23?I failed at nothing, career wise.I did something better.
Unfortunately, you cant seem to learn any new skills.
You love the government, JR, because you need the government.
At least, you love the government that supplies your needs, not the government that kills our real enemies.
JR, you hate Republicans but you have no fear of terrorists.
A true peace activist would not hate anyone.
You are like the “weather underground” or the “Black Panther Party” — the war gives you an audience for anti Bush hate, but the fact is, you simply wish our guns were turned on “corporate America” — those mean Republicans that expect you to actually WORK for a living.
I feel sorry for you JR.
There is not an ounce of hate in me.
I have had people cause me, and my family, severe, criminal pain.
I dont even hate them.
You, you arent even a bump in the road. —
And, you are helping us recruit Republicans so why would I want you to shut up?
JM,
I’ve resisted your baiting, and am continuing to do so, I hope, but with my very limited experience with Blog, I would have to agree that virutally all you posts have some element of personal insult or attack included in them. Maybe you’re having a run of bad days, or weeks, but frankly, your posts seem to be as nasty as they are vacuous. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that this isn’t the first time someone has suggested that you don’t play very nice. In fact, I’ll go a bit further and guess that you’ve had employers who have suggested the same thing to you over the years. I’m assuming–and I certainly hold out the option I could be very wrong–that the folk here are not saying anything to you that hasn’t been pointed out several times and in several ways over your life. Chances are, they aren’t all wrong. You’re gonna have to trust me on this: It’s really past time for you to learn to contribute constructively rather than destructively. It’s truly a mark of wisdom and maturity.
Oh, PS to JR… I hate to say it, but the same thing could be said about your rancid retorts.
Why would Al-Quida attack us, they are just standing back and letting bush complete what they started. The decline of America.
The full Senate should have a live demonstration of water-boarding before they cast their votes.
President Bush was hot as a whorehouse on nickel night, when he told Congress off last week. You libs gotta give credit when it’s due, particularly since youall were likewise critical of the republican congress – this time last year. WooooooooEh!Bush sure did give em a thorough whippin’.
President Bush on Friday criticized Democrats for their failure to send him any of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008, which began on Oct. 1, the Washington Post reports (Williamson, Washington Post, 10/27). The House has approved all 12 of the FY 2008 appropriations bills, and the Senate has passed seven. The House and Senate have not resolved differences in the bills approved by both chambers (Levey, Los Angeles Times, 10/27). Cabinet departments and federal agencies since Oct. 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year, have been operating on a continuing resolution (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 10/18).
At a news conference, Bush said, “Today, Congress set a record they should not be proud of: October the 26th is the latest date in 20 years that Congress has failed to get a single annual appropriations bill to the president’s desk” (Washington Post, 10/27). He added, “This is not what congressional leaders promised when they took control of Congress earlier this year,” adding, “In January, one congressional leader declared, and I quote: ‘No longer can we waste time here in the Capitol, while families in America struggle to get ahead.’ He was right” (Curl, Washington Times, 10/27). In addition, Bush said that Congress needs to “stop wasting time and get essential work done on behalf of the American people” (AP/Boston Herald, 10/26).
Hillary Clinton once stated that, should we have someone in custody who knew the location of a nuclear bomb, set to detonate, that the President would have to make the decision concerning torture.
She later backed off a little bit.
Big surprise!
Libs, Hillary is closer to my views, on fighting terrorism, than you are!
The cause of 9-11 is actually quite simple and has nothing to do with “they hate us for our freedoms.”
Al Qaeda terrorism against the United States began at a specific time. It did not occur in the 80’s when Reagan was President. Did we not have freedoms then?
The terrorist organization we now call Al Qaeda first showed hostile intent when one El Sayyid Nasir was arrested in New Jersey in November 1990 with plans to blow up New York Skyscrapers.
What happened previous to November 1990 to make Al Qaeda want to carry out terrorism against America?
Wikipedia points out that “Six days after Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, the United States started to deploy Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force, and Coast Guard units to Saudi Arabia(Operation Desert Shield), while at the same time urging other countries to send their own forces to the scene.”
And
“The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden’s offer[to protect Arabia from Iraq], opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy on Saudi territory. The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the ‘land of the two mosques’ (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil.”
Bin Laden who had returned a conquering hero from helping kick the Russians out of Afghanistan now finds his homeland occupied by American ghaffir soldiers.
The original name for Al Qaeda was The Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites.
This is what enraged Al Qaeda to the point of suicide bombings–Dick Cheney’s lie that “US troops would not be in Saudi Arabia one day longer than necessary.”
We had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia until the Spring of 2002.
Hillary is PRO TORTURE:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212006/postopinion/editorials/hillarys_torture_exception_editorials_.htm
David–
Wow, that would really hurt me, man.
If I were JM, that is.
JMThe US Military has had at least some presence in Saudi Arabia for decades.
I’m JM.
No! I’m JM!
You know, Dave, that didn’t seem very Christian of you.
What would the kids down at MegaBaptist church say . . .
I finally read the last line of Phillip’s commentary, it explained the headline, and everything that came before the last sentence!
JM someone on here the other night I believe it was JR could have been JM, not sure – anyhow they said Wiki was not an information source. Gonna have to do better that that buddy. That is just someone’s opinion and it doesn’t hold water. Sorrry about that.
The Phantom is now assuming his alter ego!
and JM
So what?
OBL can go to hell.
We had a right to go to Saudi Arabia and to fend off Saddam.
US Foreign Policy is not hostage to Moslem radicalism.
JM is your grandmother, baking apple pies. JM is the face of a kid with a typewritten novel in his hand and an ache in his heart. JM is the little girl who grows up to be a surgeon. JM is the poor black child who becomes a Supreme Court justice. JM is the migrant worker who comes with the dust and is gone with the wind.
JM is you and me.
JM is America.
This JM says that Wiki IS a good source.
And I’ll fight any JM who says different . . .
If I were JM, that is.
Posted by: JM | November 06, 2007 at 08:00 PM
The sockpuppet JR/JM makes a mistake in his haste to post his smart ass response.
He then tries to cover it with the two subsequent posts.
Truly he is insane. There can be no doubt his posts today throughout the weblog – are far worse than Kansas ever was.
Kansas TRIED to stick to posting his opinions and beliefs. JR/JM exists soley to attack and degrade. Too bad they couldn’t have hired a more qualified candidate for that role. Because he sucks at it.
“We had a right to go to Saudi Arabia and to fend off Saddam.”
Correct, Econ.
Absolutely correct.
And you have a right to hit a hornet’s nest with a stick.
In fact, I invite you to hit a hornet’s nest with a stick.
How many voices do you have in your head, JM? If I’m not mistaken, there are improved therapies nowadays that can help you have a better outcome for that condition. Ah, but what do I know? =)
Hey, Pat.
There’s something happening here, and you don’t know what it is, do you, Mrs. Jones.
Bob Dylan
Well JM which ever one you are – as I said – one man’s opinion and you know what they say about opinions.
Go wave your hands in the air and speak in tongues, David.
JM are you having flashbacks to a day when you played around the Maypole waving your hands in the air? That and the confusion you are having about your identity are serious symptoms. I’m not a doctor and can’t diagnose you but I would make an appointment first thing tomorrow. Better yet go to an emergency room tonight and tell them your symptoms.
There’s something happening here, and you don’t know what it is, do you, Mrs. Jones.
Bob Dylan
Posted by: JM
What it is ain’t exactly clear.
But I do know your above post was the last post before the WEBLOG closed the blog the other night.
Cry baby.
JM/JR, you are having an emotional breakdown. Please sit back in your chair, close your eyes, and take a deep breath.Breathe in. Breathe out.
There now. I’ll bet you feel better already don’tcha?
Shall I get Chas. to pray for you?
Heh heh
Even when I aint “here” I’m here.
Hey Paul?
Feel sorry for yourself there bud. Seems you squeeze me in between actuarial tables and call it a life. I’m not sorry for how you are treated here. You did that to yourself.
Nope I posted nothing about wikipedia.
Wikipedia is only semi reliable as a source. For something like JM used it for it’s likely close.
Hey Pat I know you WISH there was more than one of me. Sorry.
I’m still curious about this Republican need to torture. What is up with that?
This really gives one a window on the right-wing mind, doesn’t it, JM.
The simple, easy answer is staring them right in the face and they weave improbable mysteries to explain it.
JM/JR
Hillary is pro torture:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212006/postopinion/editorials/hillarys_torture_exception_editorials_.htm
JM which half is reliable. Do we get to choose? I choose to say your post was bull. So where is your evidence that we were attacked because of something the US did?
Talk’s cheap.
The evidence shows that we have not been attacked since 9/11. Those would be the years under Bush. Look at the previous 8 years and the repeated attacks. Those would be the Clinton years.
Republicans need to torture because they have an authoritarian world-view.
That’s what authoritarians do–they punish. People are not good. They must be MADE good by fear of punishment.
That’s why they think that guns can solve any problem.
Got a daughter that won’t study math?
Hey, buy a handgun . . .
We had a right to go to Saudi Arabia and to fend off Saddam.
Maybe.
I don’t know that was what set bin Laden off. It was more the continuous US presence there long after the first Gulf war was over.
Sorry, Divit Head.
I don’t talk to punctuation.
JR/JM
I care about issues more than I care about parties or candidates.
I am guessing that the things I care about will do just fine, no matter who wins.
The country is pro defense.
The country is anti tax.
The country is pro business.
The country is anti terrorism.
— In fact, I think that if we all really wanted to see you at your worst, we would wish for a Hillary victory, so we could laugh as Hillary stabbed you in the back as she did what the country wanted!
You Know You’re Going to Pay More Under the Liberal Tax Increase When …
… You’re a family of four earning $60,000 a year: Your income-tax bill will rise 61% in 2011, from $3,030 to $4,893.
… You’re an elderly couple earning $40,000 a year: Your taxes will go up by 156% in 2011, from $583 to $1,489.
… You’re a woman: You could be one of the 83 million American women who could see their taxes rise by an average of $2,068.
… You’re married: You could be one of the 48 million married couples who will pay an average of $2,899 more under the liberal tax increase.
… You have kids: 42 million families with children will pay an average of $2,181 more in taxes.
… You’re a small-business owner: 26 million small-business owners will get a tax bill for an average of $3,960 more than before.
Which one are you?
Where Are Your Representative’s Priorities?
One more thing: While liberals in the House were busy voting to cut off funding for our troops in Iraq last week, their allies in the Budget Committee were busy making sure that amendments to the budget bill to reverse these tax increases will never get a vote on the floor of the House.
It’s a depressing indication of the new House majority’s priorities: They don’t want to stop at defunding the troops — they want to defund the taxpayers, too.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20085
Hillary is pro torture:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212006/postopinion/editorials/hillarys_torture_exception_editorials_.htm
It’s also pro-abortion, pro-government health care, pro-living wage, pro-union, and ANTI REPUBLICAN.
I think the subject was torture.I don’t think we have had an election as to that.
I DO know what Americans have come to think of bush preemptive wars.
Hello 23%ers
Hillary is pro-torture?
Well, great, Econ.
You can vote for her then.
Bleh no fun. Never did enjoy swithching nics.
I DO know what Americans have come to think of Congress worthless session.
Hello 15%ers
Okay, I’m out.
Carry on, JM.
The Republican I listened to attacking the tax increase plan said it would affect those mid-income people in the 200 to 400 thou. a yr. range. The not-yet-but-striving to be rich group. A person making 40 to 60 thou. doesn’t pay any AMT tax now, I expect that brackets tax to decline after the dems. go after the ultra-elite, and those prive firms like blackrock.
Pat–
You mean the Congress with a 49 percent Republican Senate?
Take the time to read the link JR/JM.
There is simply not enough money going after the top 5%. The democrats are coming after the middle class.
Count on it. And yes, I will be back to laugh at you when it happens to you.
The 8:23 and 8:28 posts are mine. If I’m get accused switching nics, I thought I’d give it a try.I don’t like it. Makes me hide my snappy style.
Say, did Capn America, Farmer Girl, and the other intelligent liberals all get banned?
Is there nothing left? Left?
How about this?
When would you cons NOT torture?
I mean, you’d want to be real sure you weren’t doing it to an innocent person …right?
Instead of, “If I’m get accused switching”
Try using, “If I’m being accused of”
when attempting to type an intelligent sentence.
Save the world JM.
Someone needs to quit reading the RW propaganda and get the facts on the tax increase. It will cause 2mil. people to pay more, those with incomes over 500,000 per yr. I’d bet that includes no one posting on the WEblog!Read more at
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/102607C.shtml
^ ^,
I would have to agree with those who point out that the Bush/Clinton metric for evaluating terror attacks is inadequate. I agree with those (not necessarily on this blog), who think the first terror attack dates back to the Iranian hostage crisis, if not earlier. That period spans Carter, Reagan, Bush the Sr., Clinton and W. That forces me to conclude that the reason we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 is that W. finally took the fight to them. No one else was serious about that, including one of my heroes: Ronald Reagan.
I think there are two aspects of the absence of attacks on the homeland:
1. It seems that, both now and historically, the only thing the radical Islamic world responds to is a big stick wielded with deadly results. In fact, that seems to me to mark the whole middle east. They “get” that, if you kill ten of us, we’ll kill a thousand of you. I will add, though, that their skulls seem thick, both now and historically, and it takes time to beat through it. I hope we see it through, because they won’t quit trying to kill us until we have decimated them.
2. The presence of US forces in the middle east has served as a magnet for every terrorist in the world. They want to go there to kill us. As difficult as it is to acknowledge, the military is serving part of its purpose, even from the aspect that they are dying–with honor and nobly–in the place of Americans in the homeland. That is the unspeakably difficult and, again, noble assignment of those who defend us. Theirs are acts of heroism, with over 4,000 laying down their lives so that we can post opinions in freedom. Incredible.
JM/JR I will go out on a limb and say that after Hills first 4 years if she gets in that is, the house and senate will become overwhelmingly repub because those clueless demos will realize that they have been had. The party of the rich – demos – has stuck it to them good.
Oh, BTW, in light of my last post…
Waterboard away!
:-)
Say JM/JR that link is 2006. Mine is more current. Regardless, yours is over a year old. The politics have all changed since your link. (sigh)
My pidgin English is parta my charm there Patty pesterme.
Worked on you didn’t it?
How sure of their guilt would you have to be to torture another human being there Pat? I mean with more than your stalking.
I didn’t post any links dingbat.
The old ‘military as a sacrificial lamb’ routine. Just move the troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan and the Al-Quida types will follow us there, and we can fight them from a single united front, along with the U.N.
David I would certainly have to agree with most of what you said. This didn’t happen overnight. We ignored them for too long and they started to feel invincible. It is hard to fight someone who places no value on life – theirs or anyone elses. They kill their own children for Alahs sake, I guess we do that to in some ways.
Whoever our next prez is I hope they are prepared to stay tough.
Hey if we move the troops to the Mexican border do ya suppose the terrrorists will swim the Atlantic?
Better security and that would be their only option.
I didn’t post any links dingbat.
Posted by: J R | November 06, 2007 at 08:52 PM
JR/JM you are getting delusional. Waving your hands in the air, hearing voices, having an identity crisis and now arguing with yourself – other self – I mean.
By tomorrow you could be over the top. To late for help.
Hey, that’s not a bad idea, JR.Good job!
I confess, I posted the link attributed to JM, here’s a more current link http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3781524&page=1
See? Told you I didn’t post a link.
SOME of you cons are so dense.
Well dancing with the stars is over and time to move on. JR/JM I will live to fight another day.
Try to get help – you need it.
have to be to torture another human being there Pat? I mean with more than your stalking.
Posted by: J R |
So you want to ask ME about water torture? I was wondering when someone would.
To be bold as brass and perfectly honest – I would give you the same response I gave when John McCain was BEING tortured by the north vietnamese.
I would lay them all out naked on sheets of 3/4 inch plywood (the fishheads are skinny little brown bastards), I’d tie them all down like Jesus on the tree with rusty nails. Then, I sorta liked the 16 gauge copper wire (18 will work, but 12 g is too hard to bend) wrapped around their teeny tinny reproductive organs and gonads. Hook that up to an old WWII airraid siren adapted without the sound woofer – just straight current, and wind that puppy up.
Do you want to talk, or do you want to fish?
All this politically correct posting is all BS! Even Hillary acknowledges that.
If it comes to saving AMerican Lives – I’d authorize any type of human depravement that would work.
I would not hold back a thing.
(Even if it was JR/JM we were protecting).
Feel better? At least I am honest. And I’m willing to bet – despite the polls, despite the “christianlike” politically correct crap you are hearing in and BY the media and the parties -
We’d all do the same if WE were in charge.
And I’d pray it is so.
Had that idea way upthread and also a long time ago.
“Fighting them over there” yada yada does NOTHING to keep them from coming here.
Well I guess it brings out the less committed and lazy maybe. Targets of opportunity and all.
JR,
Just wondering…
If terrorists or illegals swim the Atlantic or the Rio Grande, would that be classified as self-waterboarding? And if it is, would you advocate for purchasing air tickets for them to fly them over and, thus, immediately stop their self-torture while they are trying to force us to convert to Islam? After all, if we buy them tickets to prevent self-waterboarding, surely they will buy us tickets to go to Iran and force them to convert to Christianity, right?
You got a real scary side to ya there Pat.
I asked how sure you’d have to be that someone is guilty BEFORE you would torture them.
I’m guessing by your ghoulish jump at the opportunity that guilt or innocence would not mean much to you.
Pat,
If had to choose you or JR to protect me, I’d go with you every time.
=)
I WAS almost gonna take you seriously there Dave. Thanks for disabusing me that confusion.
Advisory:
Despite the crazy claims, JR and JM are essentially the same poster. If not physically (although I’d bet they are), they communicate with their tight little clan of blue people in Wichita via email/communicator.
So, if you cut off one head, you got another coming at you.
They are coiled to strike as they are in real danger of loosing their private free posting blog.
PS to Ashley: NEVER NEVER EVERY REVEAL ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL SELF LIFE ON A BLOG. DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT TRUST ANY OF THE TRUSTY PEOPLE POSTING ON THIS BLOG. I CARE, OR I WOULD NOT SAY ANYTHING.
BUT EVEN THE OLD REGULARS WILL TELL YOU THEY REGRET PROVIDING THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION.
IT IS POOR SECURITY AND INVITESHARM AND PERSONAL ATTACKS. STAY WITH A NIC BUT DO NOT GET CLOSE ON THE WEBLOG…….
What if in your zeal (and you all got a LOT of that) for torture you GASP abuse the wrong person?
Not good for international relations is it?
Ah, JR, it’s late. What can I say? I’m getting sleepy.
Uh yeah Pat?
The only real threats around here came from one CrusaderX who threatened to kill Ed. (before your time)
AND “kansas” who threatened to break into someones office.
In case you hadn’t noticed? CrusaderX is not about and neither is “kansas”
On behalf of all who helped make that happen?
Your welcome.
“communicator”??
How very Star Trek of us!
THAT was funny!
Wiki is a very good information source. Is it perfect? No. But consider the Encyclopedia Britannica. This has long been considered the “Gold Standard” in encyclopedias.
I have a 1980 hard-bound EB set. It states that a Cessna innovation was the cantilever wing. A few years ago, Cessna’s website claimed that Cessna introduced it. Now it has altered the claim to “Cessna produced the first full cantilevered wing light airplane to go into production in this country.”
Junkers invented cantilever wing aircraft in 1915. In 1921, a Fokker aircraft with cantilever wings piloted by two U.S. Army airmen flew nonstop from coast to coast, and they passed over Wichita. The 1924 the Ford Motor company funded R&D on a cantilever-wing plane that began providing airmail service in 1926.
( “Frontiers of Flight”, Smithsonian Institution, 1992, with documentary photos)
Wiki gives correct credit to Junkers.
One way to tell if wiki is a reliable information source is to test it against your personal knowledge, if you have expertise. Another is to search other sources. If you do these things, you will find that its content is not just usually right, it is almost always right. And if you find an error, you can submit a correction. Just make sure you can document your refutation.
“they communicate with their tight little clan of blue people in Wichita via email/communicator.”
Heh heh
One last comment before my glass of milk…
In war, we posit that those who are commanding our military are competent, and we give them authority to make WAR TIME — not court room — decisions to protect American lives. A war cannot be prosecuted or decided by a deliberative jury. The rules of evidence employed in juris prudence don’t apply to the battlefield. If you ask me about how far you go toward to waterboarding a possibly innocent person during war, I’m pretty sure the answer you get from me will never satisfy you, because I’d be looking at it from a fundamentally different perspective: one of war, not a court room with judge and jury. There is a lower level of evidence required in war. Like it or not. Be careful not to misread that I said “no evidence” is necessary. It’s a lower standard, but there remains an obligation, however, to make a good faith determination of the guilt, innocence or value of coercive treatment of the enemy. That’s war, and war is hell.
JR you are so full of shit your head is floating.
Kansas answered to all the things you bring up. It’s like the “terrorist” threat you attribute to him.
It all comes down to worthless chatter. And you know that.
But you beat it in to him even AFTER he apologized, was banned, and the editors let him return.
You make him out to be an ogre, when he was a lamb. And a military vet at that.
You sir, are an ass.
Sorry no link.
Not good at that yet.
We’ve released lots of folks from Guantanamo. Seems they were innocent.
Maybe not? Maybe we should have tortured them into admitting guilt where there was none?
Olberman was right. Torture is being used to manufacture threats to keep us afraid and allow bush to continue undermining the Constitution.
Oh yeah Pat. I been back and posting all of a month or so and I am personally responsible for a threat “kansas” made when I wasn’t even around?
JR,
Since I have been gone, two things have happened.
You started posting in here adding nothing to the discusion other than attacking the posters.
Since then the thread has deteriorated into the typical crap and now JM is back.
We actually had a good discussion going early today before you showed up.
Seriously, look at the posting here. The first couple of your posts added nothing to the topic. And after your second things have gone down hill.
If you can’t add anything constructive to the topic then why bother posting here at all?
Absolutely, JR. Absolutely.
Good nite. =)
Read again Nathan
I posted to the topic.
Paul tried to make me the topic.
I went away and came back and went back on topic.
And while you’re judging me Nathan, I’ve a little back for you.
There is a nastiness to you Nathan that I don’t remember from before.
How about you Nathan?
What is your threshold for torturing someone?
JR,
I am not being nasty. My purpose is not to be mean. I am simply stating my observations.
Your first post was calling Bush a piece of crap.
Your second post was attacking Paul or Econ.
Your 3rd post was attacking Republicans who support torture, me by name and once again Econ or Paul by name.
And after that one it has turned into an open thread type slug fest.
So I am not doing anything other than asking you to take a serious look at yourself.
You have spent so much time trying to run of Kansas for being a nuisance and look at what you are doing.
Can we please keep this place civil or not?
JR,
I don’t believe in using torture.
So, I have no threshold.
Just for you Nathan, you should know I went back and looked.
I don’t live in front of this thing. I post on the fly when I can and on several topics.
My first post was to the issue.
My second took Paul to task for suggesting our troops had not won the war.
But let’s get back current.
“I don’t believe in using torture.
So, I have no threshold.”
Now THIS is the Nathan I am used to. You get to define what torture is and is not. So any further questions you get to evade.
As usual, I’ll not let that go.
In your mind Nathan, what would justify you PERSONALLY water boarding someone?
How sure would you have to be?
It’s a good thing somebody doesnt believe in using torture, since the CIA has declared water boarding to be not just torture, but also illegal, and they have done so since the 80’s. That was made quite public yesterday on Olberman’s Countdown. His rant is posted somewhere on the Blog.
Waterboarding is most certainly torture, and it should not be used. Numerous psychiatrists have already stated many times that torture never produces desired results. John McCain – an expert in torture as one who has been tortured more than anybody on this Blog could ever hope – has stated that waterboarding is torture, and should remain illegal.
Now, what is all the fuss? I am not a fan of McCain for President, but he at least knows first-hand what torture is, and what it can do! And the former CIA guy who had it done to himself, even though he knew he would not be harmed, said he was scared to death he was going to die!
Seems there is a very solid case to keep waterboarding illegal, and to call it torture.
What say you, Mr. Judge Mukasey?
And we will have to continue later Nathan.
When we speak of torture, I think it is wise to put ourselves in the position of the person doing the abuse. They are scarred in a way by it as much as their victim in that they lose some humanity. It is easy to let them do our dirty work. I think we owe them and their victims thourough thinking.
JR,
The entire discussion in this thread has been about whether or not waterboarding is torture.
I have held the stance that it is not torture.
You ask me a loaded question about torture.
Then you act indignant because I point out that I don’t support torture and don’t answer the question.
The only questions I am evading are the ones you set up as being loaded.
If this is how you want to play, then go play by yourself.
So, do you want to have a discussion with me or not?
Nathan, you said earlier:
“I don’t believe in using torture.”
The CIA says waterboarding is torture, and is illegal. So, you would disagree with the CIA?
Chas,
Reference please?
Ok I wasn’t coming back. I’ve spent too much time this evening.
I was afraid you might do this Nathan. Get the last word I mean and make it confusing.
Ok
SO to you, waterboarding is NOT torture.
What would move you PERSONALLY to waterboard someone Nathan?
Simple suspicion enough? Hard evidence?
YOU are the torturer Nathan.
We all have to be before we farm it out and distance it from ourselves.
So I ask again. What would make you waterboard someone?
Nathan, that has been all over the news for two days now. YOU go look it up to prove me wrong! I am not going to do your leg work for you!
Try checking out Keith Olberman’s commentary from last nite… He has it quoted in there, and it dates back into the 80’s! Waterboarding, is torture! Go read it and see for yourself!
Hey “I am…etc”?
Face me with your usual nic if you have one.
And I asked Nathan not you.
My guess is “Iam fighting man” whatever is econ paul rosell.
The rant is similar.
JR,
If I was in the CIA or some other type of interrogation unit trained in extracting information out of people who there was no specific law protecting from coercive interrogation techniques and I was instructed to waterboard or was given premission to use it then I would.
“1. It seems that, both now and historically, the only thing the radical Islamic world responds to is a big stick wielded with deadly results. In fact, that seems to me to mark the whole middle east. They “get” that, if you kill ten of us, we’ll kill a thousand of you. I will add, though, that their skulls seem thick, both now and historically, and it takes time to beat through it. I hope we see it through, because they won’t quit trying to kill us until we have decimated them.”
David Atkins, the intellectual from out of town, hookay, gotcha. Oh brother, this must be the newest nic for Kansas. This guy is a boob, with a very small “b”.
He was being all condescending and threatening to leave us because we were too dumb. Right…
There nust be no limit to dumb asses like this. Let’s see 28% of 300 million would amount to 8 million, 400 thousand – waaaay tooooo many nuts in this country.
Save me, Hillary and Bill. Cast into the outter darkness these incredibly stupid citizens. Thank you.
What would a person not admit to or tell their torturers to stop the water boarding? And, how can you be sure?
No dice Nathan.
I asked YOU.
The “I was just following orders” bit is evasive.
YOU Nathan.
You get to decide. Who do you waterboard? What are the qualifications? Do you make the judgement AND carry out the procedure? And based on what.
From Friday’s CBS Early Show >>>
“BRENNAN: I think it is, certainly, subjecting an individual to severe pain and suffer, which is the classic definition of torture. And I believe, quite frankly, it’s inconsistent with American values and it’s something that should be prohibited. But I think Judge Mukasey is in a very difficult position right now, as the attorney general nominee, to be asked whether or not this is torture and if torture then is unconstitutional or illegal, they’re asking whether or not water boarding is illegal and whether or not the individuals, which includes the president and others, if it was used, who authorized and actually used this type of procedure, may be subject to some type of judicial action.”
Brennan is former director of the CIA.
JR,
I am growing tired of you calling me evasive.
I asnwered your question. If you want a different answer then simply ask me.
Once again, do you want a civil conversation or not?
Because it is getting rather redundant you asking me loaded questions and then acting indignant when I don’t answer them and then asking me question which I don’t asnwer the way you want me to and then being called evasive.
Quit trying to mischaracterize me and stick to the topic.
And I am beat and have to go to bed.
This is your position Nathan.
YOU have to decide who to waterboard. Then YOU have to carry it out.
I want to know your standards.
As I said earlier, it is easy to have others torture. It removes one from the experience of inflicting it. That is not fair to the torturer or the tortured. We owe both better.
Chas,
Everyone has an opinion. That doesn’t mean it is the official stance of the CIA.
You said that the CIA said that waterboarding is torture and is illegal.
Where was that the official stance of the CIA?
“According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself a torture victim during the Vietnam War, the water board technique is a “very exquisite torture” that should be outlawed.”
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870
JR,
There is an entire science to interrogation.
I don’t presume to know all of it.
There is also years of experience on who is able to be waterboarded and how to decide that.
I don’t presume to know all of it either.
Yet you ask me questions to outline a policy which would obviously have to be more than anything I could ever write on this blog in one day let alone in a month.
I am not going to try to outline a policy for who I would waterboard and why in a paragraph on a blog for you to endlessly nit pick to death because I wrote it in a paragraph.
What is the point you want to make already?
Oh, so now who is being evasive?? I have given you enough information — you can find it for yourself — Natham, you say you dont believe in torture, but advocate the use of one of the oldest forms of torture still around!!
Make up your mind on something, even if it opposes your beloved President!!
Well, its been a long day!!
Good Night; Good Luck; God bless, whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings All!!
Chas,
Have fun. We have gone down this path before. It is pointless.
When you actually share some evidence for what you claim I will comment.
Otherwise, please don’t feel insulted when I usually don’t respond to you.
I have learned that it is a matter of futility.
Ummm here is one, and I listed several other references, which I am sure you are capable of finding.================================http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870
Posted by: Chas. | November 06, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Nathan, yuou claim a good education. I am SURE you are quite aware of what was done during the Spanish Inquisition, and that it was torture then, and if Waterboarding done then was torture THEN, it still is NOW!
That doesnt take a genious to figure that out. I sure dont want our countrey to be practicing some form of interrogation that has been known and recognized for years as torture, and illegal.
We convicted a Japanese soldier for waterboarding after WW II. I dont think the standards for torture and illegal have significantly changed in 62 years.
Chas,
Did you even read the posts in this thread at all?
We have gone over the difference in waterboarding POW’s as being wrong and how that is completely different than waterboarding being wrong period.
The geneva convention provides for very specific treatment of POW’s. It doesn’t matter if waterboarding is torture or not, it can’t be done to a POW.
I have already pointed out that there is a huge difference in waterboarding someone to be vindictive with no regard for their life and using it as a controlled and monitored coercive interrogation technique.
I think you could turn almost any coercive interrogation technique into torture when you have no regard for the life of the person and you are doing it to be vindictive.
This is why talking with you is pointless.
I have said these things and answered these points several times now.
Ad hominems don’t become you, Steven. That’s a bit of a reversion to the “Jane, you ignorant slut” schtick. We were trying to clean up the place and do better, remember? Let’s make it nice for everyone to play here. No bullying or hating.
=)
Oh, BTW, Steven, I never said anyone was dumb, nor would I. I have no idea of your intelligence. In fact, as I had observed the blog for several days, I said something along the lines of “you seem to do well” in representing your position. Don’t disappoint. “Dumb” is a word you chose to categorize or mis-categorize yourself. Neither the word nor inference was ever part of my post. Ad hominems don’t become me, either.
The only problem is DA is that your schtick is only about hatred and crap. Sorry, get a better ideology and we’ll talk. BTW, not holding my breath.
:-)
JM was a big phan of those emoticons too. How strange…
Steven, let’s see… Which JM would that be? :-\
Now, I’m fond of the political philosophy I’ve embraced. I believe I’ll hold to it, thank you. I’m certainly persuadable, though, by reasonable arguments that are persuasive and/or point out inconsistencies in what I think. I embrace those, since I prefer to embrace Truth and adjust my life to it as much I can.
Have you any more reasonable, persuasive arguments, Steven? In general, I tend not to be persuaded by, “This guy is a boob, with a very small ‘b’”, and, “dumb asses like this”, and “incredibly stupid.”
If the statement I made from a historical perspective of the arabic/middle east world came across as hateful, know that it was not intended in such a way. Perhaps you are aware of the different waves Arabic/Islamic advances over the past two thousand years or so. If you are, then I assume you are aware that in each of those waves, Western civilization had to aggressively fight back the assault and ultimately use disproportionate force to beat back Arabic culture to maintain what became the greatest civilization of all time: Western Europe, and ultimately the United States. It wasn’t a statement of hate, but rather one made in examining a long history of clashes between the West and the Middle East. Those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it, you know.
Those above quoted statements, which you may consider hateful, are quotes from you post. Again, you won’t find that in my words.
Sorry no link.
Not good at that yet.Posted by: J R | November 06, 2007 at 09:30 PM
The one who said he was here to save the world, has not yet learned how to copy and paste!
Who will save us now?
Ahh… the buzzer just went off on the dryer… Off to fold clothes and then to bed.
When I read this blog, I swear I hear Dueling Banjos.
Is that JM and JR rocking on the front porch?
There nust be no limit to dumb asses like this.
Posted by: Steven Davis | November 06, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Steven won’t be saving the world either.
There should be torchure allowed on people who blow up babies, childrens and domestamephated animuls!!!
Ima suggestin ta put that water board where the sun dun shine and crank up the volume!
Gib em koncern for their putrid terrorist life stile and sine them up for the San Fran S&M club on a regoolar basus.
Creep, if only you could spell, I would vote for you for President.
http://www.spelling.hemscott.net/
Nathan, I dont much care if the victim of waterboarding is a POW, or an enemy combatant, or a hooker off of S. Broadway… Waterboarding is Wrong, Cruel, Repugnant, Torture, and is, in fact, Illegal.
Now, when you can post to some link that says it is NOT illegal, then you will have something to say.
I dont know why you have to try to make everything personal!
Well, I am outta here for tonite. I see the Blog is still mostly Ad Hominem, even without the “obvious” presence of Kansas, and others.
Nite all!!
ACLU learns of third ’secret’ torture memo from Gonzales Justice DepartmentRAW STORYPublished: Tuesday November 6, 2007
Legal papers filed in federal court Monday in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations disclose that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued three secret memorandums relating to interrogation practices of detainees — one more than has been publicly revealed.
The New York Times revealed two memoranda authored in 2005 relating to “harsh interrogation” of prisoners held by the CIA. One explicitly authorized interrogators to use combinations of psychological “enhanced” interrogation practices including waterboarding, head slapping, and stress positions. The second declared that none of the CIA’s interrogation methods violated a law being considered by Congress that outlawed “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment.
More details in a press release sent by the ACLU Tuesday afternoon follow.
Until now, the existence of only two of those memos had been reported and it was not known precisely when the memos had been written. The memos are believed to have authorized the CIA to use extremely harsh interrogation methods including waterboarding.
“These torture memos should never have been written, and it is utterly unacceptable that the administration continues to suppress them while at the same time declaring publicly that it abhors torture,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “It is now obvious that senior administration officials worked in concert over a period of several years to evade and violate the laws that prohibit cruelty and torture. Some degree of accountability is long overdue.”
The memos should have been – but were not – identified and processed for the ACLU as part of its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit requesting information on the treatment and interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody. In response to legal papers filed by the ACLU on October 24 objecting to that omission and requesting the release of the two memos, the government filed papers Monday stating:
“OLC has reviewed its opinions from that time frame and has determined that there were in fact three opinions issued to CIA relating to the interrogation of detainees in CIA custody … Two of the opinions were issued on May 10, 2005 … The third was issued on May 30, 2005 … OLC has not located any legal opinions issued to CIA from January 31, 2005 through May 9, 2005 that relate to the interrogation of detainees in CIA custody.” (emphasis added)
In addition to neglecting to provide the relevant memos to the ACLU as part of its FOIA lawsuit, the government has also withheld the documents from key senators in a congressional inquiry.
“The Justice Department’s failure to identify and disclose these memos is yet another example of its efforts to thwart public inquiry into its authorization of illegal interrogation methods,” said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The memos must immediately be disclosed, and high ranking officials must be held accountable for authorizing torture.”
The OLC memos – and the possibility of others that might remain unknown – take on particular meaning as the confirmation process continues today in Congress regarding the nomination of Michael Mukasey for attorney general. Mukasey has been the subject of intense criticism over his refusal to identify waterboarding as torture.
A hearing regarding the ACLU’s request for the release of OLC torture memos is scheduled for November 13, 2007 at 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time in federal court in New York.
A copy of the ACLU’s brief requesting production of outstanding documents is online at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/32572lgl20071024.html
The government’s response to the ACLU’s brief is online at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/32573lgl20071105.html
More information on the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody and an index of documents received by the ACLU in its FOIA lawsuit can be found online at: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia.
Many of these documents are also contained and summarized in a recently published book by Jaffer and Singh, Administration of Torture. More information is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/administrationoftorture.
Waterboarding is legal in Israel.
Voting along Party lines?
I will not be letting this one go Nathan.
I don’t think I can be anymore clear. I will continue to try.
It is up to you Nathan. YOU get to make the policy and YOU get to carry it out.
Who do you waterboard Nathan? How do you decide who warrants such treatment?
In trying to be evasive, you are evading my central point.
When we decide it is ok for a soldier or a CIA agent or anyone else to torture another human being, we have placed them in the position of carrying it out for us.
AGAIN, this is not fair to the admininsterer of torture and far less so to the victim.
I’ll reduce it to fewer words.
Who does Nathan decide to torture?
Whoops I forgot and left wiggle room to parse “torture”.
Who does Nathan decide to personally waterboard?
“ksagnostic,
Ok, where is the line on torture then?
The exact opposite is true as well. Is anything you liberals call torture, actually torture?
I know liberals who would argue that not allowing prisoners access to a library, cable TV, 3 hot meals a day, and who knows what other comforts is torture.”
This is a form of bad argument known as the “straw man argument”. It goes like this: 1) Label your opponent (e.g., “you liberals”) then 2) assign an extreme version of the position you oppose to people of that label (e.g., “I know liberals who…”). Reason for this strategy, try to get the opposition to differentiate himself from the extreme version of the “liberal” point of view rather than the actual subject of the topic. It didn’t work, Nathan.
“So answer me this, do you consider any interrogation techniques which are used to coerce information out of someone by making them uncomfortable as torture?”
Note the continued change of subject.
This is the statement from Nathan I originally responsed to:
“What if we don’t think water boarding is torture?
“No one is saying we should torture or endorse it’s use.
We are saying water boarding isn’t torture, so lets use it.”
The subject is “waterboarding”, NOT “any interrogation technique”. CFK clearly was able to present evidence for the contention that the United States recognized waterboarding as torture (indeed, against non-uniformed insurgents) more than 100 years ago. The argument whether the recipient is in uniform or not is a red herring. If a technique is torture (and I consider the deliberate infliction of pain torture, and dunking someone in water or covering their face with cloth and pouring water on it is the deliberate infliction of pain), then it is torture no matter who the recipient is. And just to make the point further, the statement of Nathan’s that I responded to was:
“We are saying water boarding isn’t torture, so let’s use it.”
Nothing about whether the recipient is in uniform. It’s saying that water boarding isn’t torture because we say it isn’t. It is a specious argument. Period.
I’m gonna nail him down on this one ks ag.
Who would Nathan waterboard? How does he decide?
Eyebrows:”agnost this is the longest ‘lull’ we have had in the last 14 years. How do you explain away that causation?”
Exactly my point, oh dense one. You claimed that the lull in terrorist attacks on the US is directly attributable to the Bush Adminstration’s “taking the fight to them”. There are all sorts of reasons there could be a lull in attacks. It may be due to what we as a country have done, including better intelligence work, international cooperation, financial freezing of assets, or…
the terrorists could have simply redirected their efforts to more convienient targets. The fact is, you haven’t established the causation of “taking the fight to them”. I personally think that some of the things our administration has done has been helpful, but other things have been disasterous.
“Get those statisticians goings. Hope you have enough fingers and toes.”
Gratiutious implied insult to my mathematical abilities. Doesn’t change the fact that you still confuse correlation with causation.
I’ll reduce it to fewer words.
Who does Nathan decide to torture?
Posted by: J R |
Congratulations Nathan!
Looks like the NIC switching/sharing/stealing libs have found a replacement for Kansas.
Tag. You’re it!
We are supposedly in a “War on Terror”. The ENEMY COMBATANTS are supposedly Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. If they are enemy combatants who we are at war with, how can they not be considered POWs? This question is for Paul or Nathan.
JR,
There is an entire science to interrogation.
I don’t presume to know all of it.
There is also years of experience on who is able to be waterboarded and how to decide that.
I don’t presume to know all of it either.
Yet you ask me questions to outline a policy which would obviously have to be more than anything I could ever write on this blog in one day let alone in a month.
I am not going to try to outline a policy for who I would waterboard and why in a paragraph on a blog for you to endlessly nit pick to death because I wrote it in a paragraph.
What is the point you want to make already?
Again from you Nathan the oldest dodge.
“I was just following orders.”
And of course the attendant.
“My orders were misunderstood!”
Torture should be treated with more deference than that.
I ask again. Who would you waterboard Nathan? How do you decide?
Certainly bush and cheney and that crowd have no exposure to
“an entire science to interrogation”
But they DO order waterboarding don’t they?
Again Nathan,
Who do you waterboard? You personally. And how do you decide?
And again, when you either reply to what I wrote or add something new, I will respond.
But you do defend waterboarding Nathan.
You don’t want to hold any responsibility for that. You just defend it.
Well you are not alone.
bush and cheney don’t have to inflict any torture on another human being personally. Yet they defend ordering it, just as you do.
How diminishing to humanity that is. How opposite of personal accountability and responsibility for one’s actions.
Ya know? As far as I know, Adolf Hitler killed personally not one single person. I doubt he personally inflicted any of the horrors that his regime inflicted on any number of people.
Because I am tired in more ways than one, I put it to you Nathan and I leave it to you.
When we can remove the order to torture from direct contact with the victim, we harm not just the tortured but the torturer who diminished his own humanity.
Because someone told him to.
JR,
Where have I said I don’t want to hold any responsibility for defending the use of waterboarding?
Yet again, you say that I am defending the ordering of torture just as Bush and Cheney do.
I have already said this to you once and you just don’t get it.
This entire discussion is about whether or not waterboarding is torture.
I don’t think it is in these circumstances.
To top of your post, you end with a comparison to Hitler.
If there could have been any further proof of your not wanting to have a serious discussion here, that was it.
JR,
Do you support any coercive interrogation techniques?
Please name a few that you do.
I did put it to you and leave it to you Nathan.
Would that I could do that with bush and cheney.
I asked who you personally could waterboard and what would make you ok with doing it. It was a thoughtful question. You are not going to answer and I’m done tripping the light semantic.
‘Night.
JR,
It is not a thoughtful question. It is an obvious trap question.
But since you want an answer so bad, here you go:
I would personally waterboard this man:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
I would decide that based on the almost certain presumption that since he was such a high ranking member of Al Qaeda and the alleged master mind of 9-11 and several other terrorist attacks that he would have vital information on the capture of other terrorists and the prevention of further terrorist acts.
Now, would you answer my question?
Republicans have no brains, Democrats have no balls. Which is worse?
Answer for an question, posted above, by at least one lib:
The Geneva Conventions clearly state a difference between legal and illegal combatants, and those who deserve POW status.
By the way, McCain says, in the event that a terrorist had knowledge of WMD’s about to detonate, he, McCain, would grant a full Presidential pardon to anyone who would use torture against that person.
Hillary is further to the “right” than McCain, on this one. Hillary would want it written into law that torture was exceptable if done to prevent WMD attack.
SoThere you have it.
NO MATTER WHAT,
Most of our government officials would assume that they would receive a full pardon, if their chosen torture methods saved American lives, by discovering a WMD about to explode.
One other point.
If McCain says that waterboarding should be MADE illegal, by law, does it not follow —
That waterboarding is not, already, illegal, in all cases?
Confirmed!
Nathan I sorta owe an answer.
Since he sorta answered MY question.
I HOPE Nathan would agree with me about these zealot, crazy ranters like econ.
These carefully constructed scenarios built to justify torture?They are less likely than they are insane.
But I owe Nathan an answer. By the way Nathan, I didn’t see your question until econ’s insane rant.
JR,
Do you support any coercive interrogation techniques?
Please name a few that you do.
Well, to support them, I’d have to be willing to carry them out myself. I could not order someone else to do it. That’s for a start. Damn I’d have to be sure.
Well I’ve been given plenty of highly unlikely context. I think I’ll have to create my own.
Ok
Remember that guy Cooey or whoever? The guy who raped the little girl and buried her alive?
Here goes the hypothetical. Let’s say I get him and the people in the house. The other people in the house tell me the little girl was alive just a little while ago.
I have to tell you. I am REALLY stretching to try and find a viable scenario.
I have a reasonable belief the little girl might be alive.
Yeah. I torture the guy. I do it myself and I get REAL creative.
But see? This is an exercise in asking others to act on “what if”?
Too, torture is not a viable tactic against a zealot. Against someone not even afraid to die even less so.
The point you missed (I think) in all this Nathan, is the administer of torture. Unless you have a real human failure to start with for an actor, you are going to damage the person you order to do the deed.
Oh by the way?
See that? Econs positive glee at Mukasey’s confirmation?
The guy was evasive on waterboarding. He will be in charge of our justice system. Not just terrorists, all of us.
And econ Paul is happy as a pig in slop.
Sad. Scary too.