Quote :

"Last night, ABC World News reported that in 2004 then-acting assistant attorney general Daniel Levin was so concerned about the administration’s use of waterboarding that he went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure himself. Levin took over former Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith’s job when he resigned and immediately began reassessing the administration’s interrogation techniques. Levin released a new memo in Dec. 2004 that replaced the 2002 Bybee memo. Levin’s memo declared that “Torture is abhorrent” but also cautioned in a footnote that his memo was not declaring the administration’s previous opinions illegal. “The White House, with Alberto Gonzales as the White House counsel, insisted that this footnote be included in the memo.” ABC reported that after Levin personally experienced waterboarding, he told the White House that it could be considered torture: After the experience, Levin told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn’t die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning. Levin, who refused to comment for this story, concluded waterboarding could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision. And, sources told ABC News, he believed the Bush Administration had failed to offer clear guidelines for its use. Levin was working on a second memo that would have imposed tighter controls on the use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding. While working on that memo, ABC reported “Levin was forced out of the Justice Department when Alberto Gonzales became Attorney General.”"

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/03/waterboarding-abc-news-levin/

Basically, this guy was so concerned with the legality of waterboarding that he decided to experience it himself. He then said that, except in incredibly limited circumstances, it was torture. Gonzales in the councel's office appended the write-up to say that it did not reflect the administration's position on the matter. When Gonzales took the AG position, this guy was kicked out. Big surprise.

Here we have yet another person who obviously knows what he's talking about, having gone through the process himself, whose opinions were ignored because they didn't fit the picture the administration had in mind. Yet another person who has experienced this first hand who says unequivocally that waterboarding IS torture. And the administration kicked him out.

11/4/2007 12:14:07 PM

11/4/2007 12:27:32 PM

Anyone who claims waterboarding isn't torture is full of shit and/or retarded.

11/4/2007 12:56:08 PM

You know, if waterboarding isn't torture, I think it's pretty reasonable to ask the guys that set the guidelines for its use to undergo the procedure as evidence that it isn't torture.

11/4/2007 1:45:38 PM

i've been advocating that ever since this debate came up.

and they'd be able to stop the waterboarding only by admitting that it's torture.

Anyone who could withstand a solid hour of it without breaking could define it however the hell he wants (although I'm pretty sure that the vast majority--if not all--of them would be calling it torture within a minute or two...maybe 5).




now if you want to make a provision that torture be allowed on a case by case basis, say, by executive order subject to public disclosure within a certain timeframe, that's fine. I can dream up scenarios where i'd authorize waterboarding and worse...but certainly not as a matter of SOP.

Saying that it's "not torture" or "not necessarily torture" is simply ridiculous, though.

11/4/2007 2:02:10 PM

There are a few people on TWW who could probably speak pretty authoritatively on this subject. I can think of two off the top of my head, but I know for a fact that they won't.

11/4/2007 2:22:51 PM

is anyone tired of hearing about waterboarding? i hate it that we (this country) can only focus on one thing at a time. You know the CIA and FBI have a dozen other techniques up their sleeves to go with if waterboarding in particular is banned. I mean, it's probably in their favor for the press and Senate and nation to continue to harp on waterboarding, because what's going to be the outcome: 1) Senate/AG/Pres decide that waterboarding is not torture. great, they'll continue doing it, under the pretenses that "we do not torture". or 2) someone finally steps up and says stop this shit, waterboarding is torture, so they stop doing it, again under pretenses that "we do not torture", but they will continue to use the other 20 equally bad techniques that have in their arsenal that nobody has bothered to ask them about because we've been so fucking preoccupied with waterboarding.

11/4/2007 4:59:50 PM

too bad you guys are missing the whole point.

even if it is torture, it won't matter because torture is a specific intent crime. since the CIA is using waterboarding to gleen information, not to "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering," they cannot be guilty of torture under 18 USC 2340

although, since intent is hard to prove...

The statute may be found unconsitutional under the "Take Care" Clause.

May be justified by "self-defense" or "defense of others."

Lastly, it is probably "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment, but there is currently no punishment or private right to sue under the McCain addendum to 2340.

The problem here is that everyone is trying to apply some subjective standard that in their opinion should constitute the crime of torture. That is not how the law works.

[Edited on November 4, 2007 at 6:29 PM. Reason : adfs]

11/4/2007 6:27:40 PM

I'm pretty sure it's not the US legal code people are worried about breaking

11/4/2007 7:44:13 PM

I am pretty sure that is the only one that matters for the purposes of our country.

I am pretty sure that the only way that you can stop this behavior is through legislation, which John McCain tried to do.

I am pretty sure that the only way to ever prosecute would be using that statute which needs further revision.

I am pretty sure that other international courts have used something similar to our statutory language and that a single event of severe physical pain has not been enough to establish a "course of events" which has typically constituted torture.

I am pretty sure if people aren't concerned with the law concerning torture then their arguments are useless.

[Edited on November 4, 2007 at 7:57 PM. Reason : sdf]

11/4/2007 7:56:19 PM

they prolly knew this was coming and just thought "we can do this until at least about 2007, lets get the most info we can before the democrats try to make an issue out of this"

11/4/2007 9:11:59 PM

Quote :

"I am pretty sure that is the only one that matters for the purposes of our country."

Depends on how big of a picture you're looking at.

11/4/2007 10:36:22 PM

Quote :

"since the CIA is using waterboarding to gleen information, not to "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering," they cannot be guilty of torture under 18 USC 2340"

wait, what?

is this not how torture "works": you "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" on the individual with the promise of stopping the "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" in return for the information you seek

[Edited on November 4, 2007 at 10:53 PM. Reason : /]

11/4/2007 10:50:20 PM

What Would Jesus Do?


Are those bracelets out of fashion now? Or is it just the morality part?

[Edited on November 4, 2007 at 11:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2007 11:03:58 PM

If exposed to the modern world, Jesus would immediately have a mental breakdown and regress into a catatonic state. What he would do is moot.

11/4/2007 11:17:47 PM

The modern world is a far nicer, more moral place than when jesus lived.

11/4/2007 11:57:03 PM

Quote :

"Depends on how big of a picture you're looking at. "

No it doesn't. Do you understand how US law operates?

Quote :

"is this not how torture "works": you "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" on the individual with the promise of stopping the "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" in return for the information you seek "

I don't agree with how the statute currently operates or reads, but this is what we have to work with.

The original wording in the Convention Against Torture provided examples of motive, such as attempting to use force to obtain information. However, when 2340 was passed to give force to CAT, which we always have to do for non-self executing treaties, the US chose to leave that part out. Our Understandings, Declarations, and Reservations lay out the groundwork for 2340 if you care to read them.

Some think that these motives were excluded as being too broad. It may have been deleted due to the well founded concern that international bodies such as the ICC would use this to prosecute lower ranking officers and soldiers in order to make a statement against US Foreign Policy. Furthermore, legislative history reveals that the high thresh hold of pain was used statutorily in order to prevent charges of torture when charges of police brutality are in order.

So, really, Congress was basically calling everyone who thinks that getting tasered and hit a few times with pepper spray or a baton is torture a big pussy.





The action is in this statute. In fact, most recently, when Mukasey was asked if the President was allowed to break a statute, what the Confirmation Group was really asking was, "If we can prove that waterboarding causes "severe physical pain and suffering" (which they probably cannot due to stare decisis) would you agree that the President has the right to ignore 2340 because it is impeding his Commander in Chief Power under the "Take Care" Clause in Article 3?"

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 12:26 AM. Reason : just sayin]

11/5/2007 12:16:09 AM

Quote :

"No it doesn't. Do you understand how US law operates?"

Yes, I do, but you're not understanding what I'm getting at, because you aren't looking at that big picture I'm talking about.

11/5/2007 12:29:39 AM

so do you think this is good or bad? that would help me out some with your posts

11/5/2007 12:33:13 AM

I don't think we should be torturing people. I'm all for aggressively interrogating them, but torture isn't something we should be engaging in. There are certainly some things that fall into a grey area, but I don't think that waterboarding is one of them.

to quote myself:

Quote :

"now if you want to make a provision that torture be allowed on a case by case basis, say, by executive order subject to public disclosure within a certain timeframe, that's fine. I can dream up scenarios where i'd authorize waterboarding and worse...but certainly not as a matter of SOP. Saying that it's "not torture" or "not necessarily torture" is simply ridiculous, though. "

11/5/2007 12:36:28 AM

how wide spread do you think this is?

like if you had to put a number on how many people you thought were tortured what would it be?

11/5/2007 12:38:33 AM

seven.

two hundred and twelve.

twenty-three hundred or so.



[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 12:46 AM. Reason : ]

11/5/2007 12:45:32 AM

50-100

11/5/2007 12:46:42 AM

I have absolutely no idea.

11/5/2007 1:11:52 AM

damn me either...i couldnt even begin to guess...my guess would probably be higher than 50-100 though...

11/5/2007 1:13:58 AM

Quote :

"Anyone who claims waterboarding isn't torture is full of shit and/or retarded."

theDuke866

Anyone who thinks we shouldn't get valuable intel from extremely dangerous terrorists by any means necessary is "full of shit and/or retarded." And don't dish out the insults unless you can't take them, Duke.

I would put jumper cables on a terrorist's fucking balls--positive and negative, of course--and hook them to a redlining dragster if that's what it took. Then, after I got the information, I'd take him in a room with a drain in the middle of it and put two bullets in his fucking brain. But just before he died I would whisper in his ear, "You could have died on the battlefield with honor, motherfucker. Now look at you."

In case some of you have forgotten, our enemies, the Islamofascists, don't just pour water on your head--they cut the motherfucker off.

11/5/2007 5:00:07 AM

you can take a horse to water, but you still can't teach him reading comprehension.

hand-to-fucking-forehead.

11/5/2007 5:15:57 AM

Quote :

"The Republic has identified 140 cases of death in the United States and Canada following a police Taser shock since 1999. Of those, coroners said, Taser was a cause of death in four cases and a contributing factor in 10 cases. In four other cases, medical examiners said Taser could not be ruled out as a cause of death."

Quote :

"[Cook County Deputy Medical Examiner Scott] Denton told the Sun-Times that he reviewed thousands of pages of information provided by Taser. But he said his conclusion was also based on the findings of James Ruggieri, an electrical engineer who in February made a presentation to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in which he said Taser shocks could cause cardiac arrest. Ruggieri, who is a forensic engineer and has consulted with police departments and the military on electrical accidents, said shocks from Taser could cause delayed ventricular fibrillation, the irregular heartbeat characteristic of a heart attack. He also said that multiple shocks from a Taser could cause someone to stop breathing and go into cardiac arrest. He said that many deaths involving Tasers have likely been wrongly dismissed as simple heart attacks or drug overdoses."

Quote :

"Taser, in a June 28 training bulletin, advised police that 'repeated, prolonged and/or continuous exposures to the Taser may cause strong muscle contractions that may impair breathing and respiration, particularly when the probes are placed across the chest or diaphragm.' In training classes and instruction manuals, Taser has previously told police to use repeated shocks to control a suspect."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0730taser30.html

How many people have died from waterboarding?

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 5:27 AM. Reason : .]

11/5/2007 5:24:11 AM

Quote :

"Anyone who thinks we shouldn't get valuable intel from extremely dangerous terrorists by any means necessary is "full of shit and/or retarded." And don't dish out the insults unless you can't take them, Duke."

Check your syntax man.

As a Marine aviator Duke has been to SERE school. Have you? I believe his opinion is a little more authoritative than yours on this subject.

11/5/2007 5:32:55 AM

^ I served on active duty in the 12th Cavalry and 7th Cavalry of 3rd Armored Division--and I'm damned proud of it, but my training and his training are irrelevant to my position and to the larger question. And there's this:

Quote :

"In case some of you have forgotten, our enemies, the Islamofascists, don't just pour water on your head--they cut the motherfucker off."

And if waterboarding is so bad, why hasn't the Democrat-led Congress specifically outlawed it? Or is it that the waterboarding issue has become nothing more than a political football to be kicked around as it has been here? The answer is self-evident.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/04/opinion/courtwatch/main3450456.shtml

11/5/2007 5:46:18 AM

Quote :

"Anyone who thinks we shouldn't get valuable intel from extremely dangerous terrorists by any means necessary is "full of shit and/or retarded." And don't dish out the insults unless you can't take them, Duke. I would put jumper cables on a terrorist's fucking balls--positive and negative, of course--and hook them to a redlining dragster if that's what it took. Then, after I got the information, I'd take him in a room with a drain in the middle of it and put two bullets in his fucking brain. But just before he died I would whisper in his ear, "You could have died on the battlefield with honor, motherfucker. Now look at you." In case some of you have forgotten, our enemies, the Islamofascists, don't just pour water on your head--they cut the motherfucker off."

lol, o-m-g...

11/5/2007 7:38:58 AM

Quote :

"I would put jumper cables on a terrorist's fucking balls--positive and negative, of course--and hook them to a redlining dragster if that's what it took. Then, after I got the information, I'd take him in a room with a drain in the middle of it and put two bullets in his fucking brain. But just before he died I would whisper in his ear, "You could have died on the battlefield with honor, motherfucker. Now look at you.""

This would be great if torture actually produced useful information.

Quote :

"And if waterboarding is so bad, why hasn't the Democrat-led Congress specifically outlawed it?"

This must be the part where you assume that we're all Democrats who think the current Congress is the greatest thing evar. Either that, or it's the part where you assume we're all such sheep that we are only capable of holding an opinion that's inline with one of the two major political parties. Either way, Congress' failure (and the President's, for that matter) to take a moral position is surprising to no one.

11/5/2007 7:51:41 AM

Quote :

"I served on active duty in the 12th Cavalry and 7th Cavalry of 3rd Armored Division"

Your service might be irrelevant, his specific training isn't.

Is it a political football? Yes. Does that absolve us of asking the hard moral questions? No.

Quote :

"In case some of you have forgotten, our enemies, the Islamofascists, don't just pour water on your head--they cut the motherfucker off."

This is the equivalent of "well Jimmy did it, why can't I?"

If the United States intends to exert its authority as a world leader, we would do well by exerting moral leadership. To argue that our enemy's use of an immoral tactic justifies our use of an immoral tactic is to surrender the very thing we're supposedly fighting for. I say supposedly because we all know that an absence of oil in the middle east would render this entire discussion null and void. If you're willing to admit that torture is necessary in the prosecution of a war whose primary purpose is the security of oil supplies in the middle east, then we could shift the debate to the pragmatism of torture as opposed to its morality.

However, even if we approach torture from a pragmatic angle (under the guise of moral leadership), then torture is counter-productive to our overall strategy. For every subject we torture, X number of formerly non-violent (though probably sympathetic) disaffected Muslims will take up the cause of Jihad against the crusader. If X = 1 then we're holding a neutral balance, but I seriously doubt this is the case. The Abu Ghraib scandal probably cost American lives and almost certainly reinvigorated the insurgency in Iraq. If you want to advocate that policy further on machavelian grounds, feel free to, but I have yet to see compelling evidence that torture is an effective, across the board, means of gathering reliable intelligence.

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 8:46 AM. Reason : *]

11/5/2007 8:43:10 AM

Quote :

"^ I served on active duty in the 12th Cavalry and 7th Cavalry of 3rd Armored Division--and I'm damned proud of it, but my training and his training are irrelevant to my position and to the larger question. And there's this:"

Weird, he's been posting here for over a year and this is the first time he mentioned his service?

11/5/2007 9:01:12 AM

Quote :

"I would put jumper cables on a terrorist's fucking balls--positive and negative, of course--and hook them to a redlining dragster if that's what it took. Then, after I got the information, I'd take him in a room with a drain in the middle of it and put two bullets in his fucking brain. But just before he died I would whisper in his ear, "You could have died on the battlefield with honor, motherfucker. Now look at you."

AHAHAHAHAAHDFASHD;FLXZCKVZ;XK

11/5/2007 9:12:11 AM

Quote :

"Anyone who thinks we shouldn't get valuable intel from extremely dangerous terrorists by any means necessary is "full of shit and/or retarded." And don't dish out the insults unless you can't take them, Duke. "

Well, you aren't even disputing my point. You aren't claiming that waterboarding isn't torture (because that would be a pretty ridiculous stance to take--I can't imagine how any gov't officials have thought it reasonable to claim otherwise). You're just saying that it's perfectly fine by you if we, as a country, engage in the practice of torture.

I think that's shortsighted.

Quote :

"How many people have died from waterboarding?"

I don't know, probably some (it's not like we're the only ones who've done it. The Khmer Rouge were pretty famous for it. as a side note, some company we're keeping, huh?) While I suppose that you could drown someone if you didn't know what you were doing or if you get overzealous, my guess is the real danger is heart failure or something.

Regardless, I'm not claiming that we're likely to rack up any significant bodycount via waterboarding. That isn't a defining characteristic of torture, anyway. There are things even worse than waterboarding that won't kill you, but they are sure as shit torture. How 'bout I tie your hands behind your back, run a rope through them and over a pulley, and pick you up by them? While you're hanging there with your shoulders dislocated, we can wrap wet rags around you and get some electric shock action going. If you still aren't talking (doubtful), there's all kinds of bones to break that won't kill you.

I know you're probably going to make the argument that waterboarding doesn't even cause any real damage, but that isn't a defining characteristic of torture, either.

Quote :

"I served on active duty in the 12th Cavalry and 7th Cavalry of 3rd Armored Division--and I'm damned proud of it, but my training and his training are irrelevant to my position and to the larger question"

I don't mean to discredit your service, and you certainly don't need to experience any of this to have an opinion on it, but I do feel like I have a little bit more credibility on this than people who've had no exposure to some of these techniques.

Quote :

"In case some of you have forgotten, our enemies, the Islamofascists, don't just pour water on your head--they cut the motherfucker off"

right, but WE SHOULDN'T BE HAVING THOSE FUCKHEADS SET THE BAR FOR US. WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS, REMEMBER?

Quote :

"And if waterboarding is so bad, why hasn't the Democrat-led Congress specifically outlawed it?"

I don't know, why hasn't the Democrat-led Congress done lots of stuff? Why didn't the GOP led Congress--IN ALL THE TIME THEY CONTROLLED ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOV'T--overturn Roe v Wade, privatize Social Security, etc?

Quote :

"Your service might be irrelevant, his specific training isn't."

Right, that's what I'm getting at.

and it doesn't make my opinion the end-all, but I do think it gives me a little more insight and credibility.

11/5/2007 10:19:39 AM

Quote :

"is anyone tired of hearing about waterboarding? i hate it that we (this country) can only focus on one thing at a time."

I am sure the average German in 1943 was tired of hearing about jews getting incinerated in the concentration camps too. We should just ignore the issue and pay more attention to shit like banning gay marriage, brittany spears's motherhood problems, and choosing which HDTV would look best in our living room.

11/5/2007 12:24:34 PM

Quote :

"The modern world is a far nicer, more moral place than when jesus lived."

What I mean is, many moral issues are more complex and have further-reaching repercussions than ones faced in his time. The subject of this thread is an example.

11/5/2007 1:22:40 PM

Quote :

"I am sure the average German in 1943 was tired of hearing about jews getting incinerated in the concentration camps too. We should just ignore the issue and pay more attention to shit like banning gay marriage, brittany spears's motherhood problems, and choosing which HDTV would look best in our living room."

Did you even comprehend what he wrote? He is saying we need to focus on all the issues, not just one polarizing one.

11/5/2007 1:36:43 PM

speaking of which i always wondered why we always learn about the holocaust but are always quick to forget Stalin's purges which killed just as many if not more people

11/5/2007 1:47:01 PM

Quote :

"I would put jumper cables on a terrorist's fucking balls--positive and negative, of course--and hook them to a redlining dragster if that's what it took. Then, after I got the information, I'd take him in a room with a drain in the middle of it and put two bullets in his fucking brain. But just before he died I would whisper in his ear, "You could have died on the battlefield with honor, motherfucker. Now look at you."

hahah

Where's that picture of the fat red-haired shirtless guy with the knife saying something along these lines?

11/5/2007 4:12:33 PM

Quote :

"Weird, he's been posting here for over a year and this is the first time he mentioned his service?"

[link]NoChance[/user]

No it isn't, you dumb fuck.

11/5/2007 4:26:42 PM

When was the last time you mentioned it?

11/5/2007 4:34:01 PM

Quote :

"[link]NoChance[/user] No it isn't, you dumb fuck."

Classic hooksaw right there.

11/5/2007 4:37:55 PM

One of his first posts (when he was a bit more pleasant) was him talking about his service, IIRC.

I would like to see kooks respond to theDuke's post though.

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 4:39 PM. Reason : ]

11/5/2007 4:38:22 PM

^ You can STFU with the "kooks" shit.

Quote :

"Your service might be irrelevant, his specific training isn't."

As I indicated, neither is relevant to my position and to the larger question.

Quote :

"Is it a political football? Yes."

Good--now you have it.

Quote :

"For every subject we torture, X number of formerly non-violent (though probably sympathetic) disaffected Muslims will take up the cause of Jihad against the crusader."

JCASHFAN

This position is naive, to say the least, and smacks of Neville Chamberlain-style appeasement. You seem to think that (1) Islamofascists need a valid reason to attack "The Great Satan," which we generally refer to as the United States of America. And (2) jihad has already begun--I mean, who was Bill Clinton torturing when the WTC was attacked the first time? The terrorists involved in that attack indicated that it was a part of jihad.

Quote :

"Well, you aren't even disputing my point. You aren't claiming that waterboarding isn't torture (because that would be a pretty ridiculous stance to take--I can't imagine how any gov't officials have thought it reasonable to claim otherwise). You're just saying that it's perfectly fine by you if we, as a country, engage in the practice of torture."

I've made it clear here before that you can call it what you will--I call it protecting the United States of America by any means necessary. This is why the "ticking time bomb" scenario is significant--despite the screeching howls from the left-wing moonbats--it cuts away the bullshit and forces a decision.

To me, any president who wouldn't order waterboarding and/or other enhanced interrogation techniques to secure high-value information from dangerous terrorists would be guilty of treason. It's that simple.

Quote :

"I don't know, probably some (it's not like we're the only ones who've done it. The Khmer Rouge were pretty famous for it. as a side note, some company we're keeping, huh?) While I suppose that you could drown someone if you didn't know what you were doing or if you get overzealous, my guess is the real danger is heart failure or something."

This is disingenuous and you know it. I meant this: How many people has the United States of America killed as a result of waterboarding? And this is where the taser comparison reveals bias on the part of some here: A number of people--who at the time were still suspects and were not dangerous terrorists--have been killed by tasers. Where is your outrage? It seems rather selective.

Quote :

"I don't mean to discredit your service, and you certainly don't need to experience any of this to have an opinion on it. . . ."

theDuke866

Thanks for the former--and in the latter part of your sentence you have it.

I mean, what do you and some of the others here want, Duke, a Terrorists' Bill of Rights?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/06/terrorists_bill_of_rights.html

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 12:28 AM. Reason : .]

11/6/2007 12:22:02 AM

Quote :

"This position is naive, to say the least, and smacks of Neville Chamberlain-style appeasement."

Quote :

"I mean, what do you and some of the others here want, Duke, a Terrorists' Bill of Rights?"

Hardly. I've mentioned on here before that I joined the Marines primarily not to pay for college, or to gain any useful skills for civilian life, or to fly jets, or jumpstart a political career, or whatever else, but to make the world a better place by killing as many shitty people as I can. Even my friends in the Marines take notice of my well-above average drive to slaughter these sons of bitches. Some of my peers are simply comfortable with the fact that they may be required to take human life in our line of work--whereas the prospect of going fangs out in combat against these people is pretty much what motivates me to do my job (along with taking care of my Marines). It's no coincidence or accident that I picked the branch of service that I did, either.

I can't speak for everyone who shares my opinion, but if you think I'm soft on these people, you've clearly lost your mind.

My concern isn't because I have an ounce of pity for them, it's because we are obligated to do what is right, regardless--even in the filthy business of war. Furthermore, since we aren't even fucking charging them and holding trials, we at the very least ought not to torture our detainees.

Finally, there is the strategic element of my position. It is imperative for our cause--for a variety of reaons--that we hold the moral high ground. We sure as shit aren't doing it with this.

Quote :

"I've made it clear here before that you can call it what you will--I call it protecting the United States of America by any means necessary. This is why the "ticking time bomb" scenario is significant--despite the screeching howls from the left-wing moonbats--it cuts away the bullshit and forces a decision. To me, any president who wouldn't order waterboarding and/or other enhanced interrogation techniques to secure high-value information from dangerous terrorists would be guilty of treason. It's that simple."

Then just call it torture and say you're ok with us doing it. At least then you'd be being honest, if--in my opinion--misguided and shortsighted.

...and I'm not talking about some ticking time-bomb doomsday scenario. I specifically mentioned that "if you want to make a provision that torture be allowed on a case by case basis, say, by executive order subject to public disclosure within a certain timeframe, that's fine. I can dream up scenarios where i'd authorize waterboarding and worse...but certainly not as a matter of SOP.

Shit, I'd do it myself in a scenario like that. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be simply a way of doing business for us, and the people doing it should be held accountable by high authorities--who should then be able to be held accountable by the American people.

11/6/2007 1:14:40 AM

^ Signed, I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm not as motivated by killing bad guys as Duke is but I'm completely comfortable with it. What I'm not comforable with is killing to justify an immoral foreign policy.

Quote :

"This position is naive, to say the least, and smacks of Neville Chamberlain-style appeasement. You seem to think that (1) Islamofascists need a valid reason to attack "The Great Satan," which we generally refer to as the United States of America."

Ahahahaha. I'm the naive one? Do you think radical Islam spontaneously arises in a vaccum? While there are dozens of factors that could lead to a young man (or woman) to "join the cause" I don't think that we need to add to the list.

Quote :

"I call it protecting the United States of America by any means necessary."

I'd prefer to protect it by the most effective means. Torture has pretty consistently been shown not to be one of those means.

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 1:43 AM. Reason : s]

11/6/2007 1:41:00 AM

^^
1. The Neville Chamberlain comment was addressed to JCASHFAN. I should have listed my retorts in a better manner.

2. I am sure that you are a finely tuned killing machine, Marine. I do not think that you are "soft" on terrorists or any other of this nation's enemies; furthermore, I am thankful that you and many others like you love this country enough to defend it. The question was a rhetorical one--and perhaps a bit over the top.

3. I understand your point about the "moral high ground"--and you may even be right. I will ponder this further.

4. I would call waterboarding torture if I truly thought that it was--but even Congress still doesn't think it is. Be that as it may, at this time, I am not prepared to call waterboarding torture or to advocate that it be discontinued--but my understanding is that it has been discontinued already.

5. You listed the following possibility: "[M]ake a provision that torture be allowed on a case by case basis, say, by executive order subject to public disclosure within a certain timeframe, that's fine. I can dream up scenarios where i'd authorize waterboarding and worse...but certainly not as a matter of SOP." This is exactly what I've been advocating, but perhaps not clearly enough. In addition--since the AG-torture issues have become inextricably linked lately--I got this thread and the Mukasey thread a little mixed up. I thought that I had posted some things in here that I actually posted in the other thread--things that may have made my position clear. Sorry.

/message_topic.aspx?topic=500464

I ask all to withhold the senility jokes as a matter of good form.

^ So, answer my question: Who did Bill Clinton order tortured that started jihad?

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 1:54 AM. Reason : .]

11/6/2007 1:47:12 AM

I did, but I'm not going to spoon feed you.

11/6/2007 2:00:34 AM