News items like this make me question whether or not the left hand knows what exactly the right hand is doing.

If you glance at the "story highlights:"



You get the crux of the article and so one has to wonder:

1.) Is waterboarding really legal?

2.) Can it be defined as torture?

3.) How should the U.S. proceed from here?

It's only illegal if a Clinton orders it.

I can't believe this is even debated. The Gestapo used what we call "enhanced interrogation techniques". But it's another example of the lack of principle for political gain and flat out hypocrisy. We invade countries because of an imaginary threat of WMD while being the only ones to use nukes against non-combatants. And the same with torture - we can do it to our enemies, but they can't do it to us.

Nobody has the stones to tell DTOM to his face that we expect him to be waterboarded if he is captured and the enemy thinks he has information that could save enemy lives. Of course, you could live in a box and not think far enough ahead to realize our next enemy may not behead people and will play by the rules we adopt.

How can you support waterboarding while claiming to support our troops? Can somebody answer that for me while you're telling DTOM part of his job description is getting waterboarded?

DTOM clearly should not be worried about warterboarding or anything as nondestructive. As I am sure you are fully aware our captured men were brutally tortured using electric shock and mutilation not to mention beheading. Two soldiers, in uniform, were tortured and mutilated beyond recognition. So pardon me if I don’t get all teary-eyed over the three top level monsters that were waterboarded. And if you are trying to convince us that not waterboarding is going to make DTOM or any other US soldier, civilian, or child any safer in Iraq you have to be joking.

In fact as you know the Geneva Convention does not force us to treat people who regularly use torture to treat their prisoners in any particular way.

If we chose not to use “enhanced interrogation” it is because we chose to do so. The fact that no enemy we have ever fought or are likely to fight will ever not torture our men because we don’t “torture” theirs is beside the point I guess.



“BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 20 — The American military said Tuesday that a search team had found what appeared to be the remains of the two American soldiers captured by insurgents last week during an ambush south of the capital, and a senior Iraqi defense official said the two men had been "brutally tortured."
An American military official in Baghdad, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that both bodies showed evidence of "severe trauma" and that they could not be positively identified.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/world/mi...ast/21iraq.html

Why is this even an issue today? In 2002 it wasn't an issue, but now the left wants to hang Bush in the town square about it. I don't understand why it wasn't an issue six years ago when congressional leaders were briefed, but now it is. What has changed? Is it because 2002 was much closer to 2001 than we are now? That doesn't matter. There are still terrorists in this world that want to continue the attack on the west. That fact hasn't changed. Our nation is still a large target for the extremists that want to kill all that isn't Muslim. That hasn't changed. What has changed is the political atmosphere. It isn't politically correct to want to allow our CIA to do their jobs when the job can be ugly, even when it could stop another 9-11 from happening. Even when it could save 3,000 innocent Americans from getting killed just like on 9-11.

Given that the status quo, as Ted points out, is gruesome mutilation followed by vicious beheading, I'm pretty sure DTOM would be ecstatic to learn that all that all he really should expect were he to be captures is to be waterboarded. I'll leave him to speak on whether he feels us using such tactics on those we capture, which may make him or us safer, is something he condones or feels is beneficial. I could see that as an issue that would have divided opinion amongst our troops (as, indeed, it does among civilians). However, comparing our tactics to those of our current enemy in this fashion isn't really going to achieve anything, as their tactics are exponentially worse than ours. Waterboarding does not equate to having one's head sawed off, in any rationale comparison

Exactly. And since we have waterboarded only 3 high value men and then only after trying everything else tells you something. On the other extreme our enemy feels no remorse in torturing and mutilating beyond recognition the foot soldier (or anyone else).

The reason this is an issue now is the election – pure and simple. And some who saw and approved the method are now trying to run away from their approval of it.

I'm just glad they stopped. And what do you expect from Congress critters? Of course they will cleave to what is politically expedient, regardless of party.

But these comparisons to the horrors visited by others is the worst sort of excuse making; it's morally reprehensible. One person's bad behavior is never excused by someone else's. If servicemen were found that had raped young Iraqi women, would some excuse them by finding cases where Iraqis had raped babies? Our defense - or opposition - to waterboarding has to be on independent merits. We simply can't construct a moral defense based on the actions of others. One might form a compelling argument for the use of harsh interrogation, but trying to justify it merely by pointing out others', worse behavior is simply unsound moral reasoning.

1.) Is waterboarding really legal?

Not if the fact that the United States signed the articles of the Geneva Convention means we gave our word to not torture prisoners and our government is doing it anyway.

2.) Can it be defined as torture?

Would you want someone to do it to your little sister if she were arrested? Is it unusual punishment? Is it cruel? Therein lies your answer.

3.) How should the U.S. proceed from here?

Either we decide that we are people of integrity and our word is good, or we dispense with pretense and 'fess up to the rest of the world that we don't really mean what we say and that situation ethics are practiced by our government the same as in countries that we criticize for inhumane treatment.

The fact is that rape (which is considered brutal torture), while barbaric and cruel, does not mean depriving a person of air. If I was given the choice of being drowned repeatedly or raped, I would want neither one to happen, but the fear of dying is pretty scary.

Do you honestly think that the CIA is going to report any instances when a prisoner being waterboarded *accidentally* died? Do you really think that the same agency is being totally open with us about anything else if it doesn't have to be?

Just what else is there that we aren't being told? And when we know that the end doesn't always justify the means (e.g., when a tortured prisoner tells interrogators what they want to hear which may bear no similarity to the truth: "Yes, I'm a witch...Yes, I was dancing in the village square with the parish priest during the full moon and we sacrificed an unbaptized baby to Satan..."), are we just supposed to bury our heads in the sand and "trust" our leaders?

1.) Is waterboarding really legal?
2.) Can it be defined as torture?

It falls under my definition of torture, and is thus illegal. But I’m not a legal scholar; I’ll let the smart people figure out the semantics. I just know what it means for me.

I do know that if AQI or Jam or another group that we are in perpetual war with conducted waterboarding on captured US soldiers, the administration and the media would cry and howl to the high heavens that it is torture.

3.) How should the U.S. proceed from here?

If we wish to claim a virtuous and moral position in comparison to terrorists and insurgents, then hypocrisy must cease.



Are you trying to convince us that waterboarding is going to make anybody safer? With our enemy knowing that we conduct procedures that are defined as torture in most people’s eyes, it emboldens them to put away any thoughts of empathy they might have had, and will likely only succeed in creating more empathy for their cause.

Man, you hit this one out of the park DTOM- I have always wondered about America's ability to give our goverment a "pass" when we commit or aid and abet atrocities, then act all outraged when it comes back to bite us in the tail.

We are against terrorism- unless we are paying the terrorists (central America) we are all against torture- unless we are the ones doing the torturing etc etc.

And I have yet to see one unbiased third party with some proof that this has EVER worked in our favor or for intelligence gathering. We are supposed to take some CIA operative or Cheney's word for it? Puh Leaze- they are less believeable that Bahgdad bob, and only half as ethical.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." - Colin Powell

Yeah, it tells me how gullible people like you are. You continue to believe what they say even knowing they lie like a cheap rug about almost every issue they are involved in.

Good thing you're not a cop: "Yes officer - I've only had 3 beers all night".

Ted, it seems to me you're making a case to behead our enemies. If you are going to act like them in the name of self righteousness, why stop at waterboarding? That seems to be an arbitrary limit given your moral compass.

And even though you believe "military" and "intelligence" somehow go together, what will you say with our next enemy that might wear uniforms and follow the rules of conventional war? Tell them they can't use "enhanced interrogation techniques" and disregard our history?

By comparing our actions to Muslim extremists, you're basically saying we're no better than them.

DR, I am reasonably sure at this point that Ted has never served in the military, and believes that being in the military makes you a good person. And you will never lie. And it is even more so if you are in the CIA. You would never lie to your fellow countrymen, right?

All intelligence is perfect. There is no such thing as a FUBAR set of orders.

I pity those poor saps that were set up as the fall people in the Abu-Gharib (sp) controversy.

Thier defenses were never even allowed to bring up thier CIA handlers, and, in fact, thier lawyers got chastised for even mentioning it obliquely.

Hey- remember our conversation about the Iranian hostage crisis, and how Carter was to blame for the failed rescue attempt? Funny how the prez got the blame on that one, while "bad intell" is the culprit in this one?

It is very easy to tell when the GW administration or spooks that speak publically lie- you see, thier lips move.

1.) Is waterboarding really legal?

The problem with this question is that the parameters of legality change constantly. Suffice to say that it should not be legal.

2.) Can it be defined as torture?

Yes. By any reasonable definition, "torture" is the deliberate inflicting of avoidable suffering on a living being capable of experiencing that suffering. Why do human beings torture each other and animals? The reason is clear: because they enjoy it. There has never been, and there will never be, any other real reason for torture, no matter how many excuses are offered for it.

3.) How should the U.S. proceed from here?

Make it clear to everyone in the world that no official acting in the name of any branch of the United States government will ever participate in any form of activity which deliberately causes avoidable suffering. Make sure that those who participate in such activites are dealth with properly by the legal system.

VS- I am sure those that have no problem with torture do have some sort of sexual pleasure in what they do- comes with the territory- the "unbiased and professional torturer" is an oxymoron.

What is important to note here is this- the terrorists practice an unsophisticated "old school" if you will, forms of torture- good ol' bloody knuckles and torture porn script.

The US practices much more sophisticated torture, for the confusion of the masses. There are a few forms of torture that leave no bruises, and leave the person physically unharmed. Electroshock, types of meds that heightens sensitivity to pain, waterboarding- all these don't look like Hollywood's depiction of torture, unlike the types the insurgents use.

Trying to play semantics with torture, because the type that doesn't leave a mark just doesn't provide good evidence of torture- is what makes us the bad guy now so much in the world. Why they hate and fear the US and all that.

Torture doesn't work- no matter how many times Dick Cheney or his henchmen try to say it has accomplished something- I don't believe a word of it.

Michael Hayden admits that waterboarding was used three times on suspects and states that it was only used on one of them for "less than two minutes."

Source

Given the fact that the government has tried misleading us before, I'm inclined to say that this government has used waterboarding more than they are alluding to in this article.

It's been pointed out that what is legal changes often and that waterboarding should be illegal, but it would seem as if we've definitely participated in its usage. I think its almost a violation unto itself that we have international prisons since the argument can be made that human rights we agreed upon stop because the soil technically is not American, just American-operated.

And how naive you are. Never in history has enhanced interrogation not been used by all sides when they believed critical info could be gained. The Japanese went way beyond this and, in the Pacific, were brutal and murdered many American prisoners. And we did the same to them – perhaps in response.

You live in the hate bush world where ‘he” makes it all bad but the reality is a little different.

Ted, it seems to me you're making a case to behead our enemies. If you are going to act like them in the name of self righteousness, why stop at waterboarding? That seems to be an arbitrary limit given your moral compass.

I am doing nothing of the damn kind and you know it if a group of Congressmen have seen and approved waterboarding then it is fine with me. Unlike you I feel no need to fluff up the pillows of the monsters we are fighting right now.

I don’t advocate torture but nothing our enemies have done there makes me want to treat them softly and clearly nothing we can do can make what they have done to our men “better”.

Clearly this whole issue is in line with the hate bush crowd. If Al was in how many would be disputing the “approval” of this now? - Not you.

Ted- seems like alot of former republicans fall into your "hate bush" crowd. Inlcuding two former "always voted republicans" that are here on this board today- including one in Iraq, actually posting from there. How are you serving in the war on terror Ted? Go shopping today for the cause?

That seems to be the pat answer for the torture apologists- "you just hate bush"- well, you better believe that if Hillary or Obama are in power, we will 'hate" on them just as much if not more- our "moral compass" is consistant no matter WHO is in power, and understand that unethical and immoral behavior is bad- no matter who does it. I would not want OUR soldiers treated this way, which, BTW- we would scream to high heaven by this obvious violation of the geneva convention

We are also in a much bigger war here than just killing bad guys- we have to set an example to the population we are ,um, "liberating" (which, of course, is also not true it seems )- that we are fair and open society that sticks to our own values, instead of discarding them on a whim.

Seems there is one very good reason to hate on GW here Ted- the fact that he let OBL accomplish his objectives. Turn us into a pariah state that is hated the world around for our moral pronouncements and lack of real dedication to that claimed morality. When we decided to engage in torture, and rationalize it away as "well, they are worse" we have lost the war on terror already.

And you CR. All you can do is your stupid personal attacks?



The usual partisan crap – the method was fine when Nancy P saw and approved it – and our own troops are trained to resist it but now it’s “torture” because its an election year. Get real sir. The contradictions are over the top.

Ted, can you clarify this statement. I have undergone [survived] the SERE Level C course in the 1990's, and at no time were we waterboarded, nor trained on how to endure waterboarding. I'm not saying that it hasn't been part of the SERE Program of Instruction at some point in time, but do you have any evidence that is currently not in the POI? Or has it been permanently removed, since FM 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations, states:

5-75. If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include, but are not limited to—
•Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
•Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.
•Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.
•“Waterboarding.”
•Using military working dogs.
•Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
•Conducting mock executions.
• Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.
FM 2-22.3

I have no love for nancy P, and would see her in jail just as much- have said so in the past.

why so defensive as to your "contribution to the war on terror" there Ted- it isn't personal if it isn't true, correct?

With all due respect Ted, CR's posts are normally more substantive than the invective you routinely hurl around like "stupid," "idiot," or "moron."

From being beloved after standing on the pile of rubble that was 9/11 with the bullhorn, Bush is now despised and no longer trusted by at least 60% of the American people. His approach torture is part of this decline. Those who "hate" Bush include many who used to like him, not just those like me who hated him as far back as his tenure as Governor of Texas.

Well, I think that's a very valid point to the "where do we go from here?" sentiment running through America in relation to this topic. Bush has acted so unilaterally during his time in office that a lot of the moral guardianship we once possessed has run dry and we're going to have to make up for lost ground given that we haven't come out in condemnation of torture. We've actually admitted to having waterboarded detainees, and for this issue to be so large at this time, the number must be higher than what Hayden is acknowledging.

Of course it is, the 8th Amendment is pretty clear: I can't imagine how waterboarding does not qualify as cruel and/or unusual punishment. The method is thoroughly unconstitutional/illegal and should be stopped immediately...I'll start holding my breath...Now [inhale].


Yes, it involves making someone suffer until they do something for you, that is torture in a nutshell.


In a perfect world: We issue an executive order officially stating that this Administration will no longer use the practice of waterboarding anywhere and the AG resigns for not bringing the acts' Constitutionality to question

CP

1.) Is waterboarding really legal?

Absolutely not.

We prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced Nazis at Nuremberg for their use of waterboarding. Their defense?

"They were unlawful enemy combatants."

Yes, Nazis used the exact same justification for waterboarding that we are using now... and we incarcerated them for it.

2.) Can it be defined as torture?

Everyone who has experienced it says so. The only people who are ambivalent about it haven't been waterboarded.

That's a pretty stark fact. I'm amazed that anyone has the gall to claim it's not torture.

3.) How should the U.S. proceed from here?

We "should" proceed with formal, independent investigations and extradict any and all complicit parties to The Hague. Maybe we can earn some respect back that way.

though I agree with you on your points, can you please provide the source of the Nazi comments? I haven't heard that before.

My mistake. I was, across the various internet sources and message boards, misled by the ubiquitous conflation of the Nazis with the Japanese and their use of torture. Taking internet hearsay on faith is not a mistake I often make, but the conflation, although inaccurate, is understandable.
We prosecuted many Japanese soldiers at the Tokyo War Crimes Trials for their use of waterboarding. Nazis, while there has been no evidence of their use of waterboarding specifically, were well-known for many other forms of torture. At Nuremberg, the Nazis made the attempt to justify their various 'treatments' of prisoners based upon combatant status. The Judges ruled that any and all prisoners must be treated humanely, and that any "severe mental or physical pain or suffering" was indeed torture.

Although I would modify my answer to indicate 'the Japanese at the Tokyo War Crimes Trials', it is worth noting that my mistake does not change the fact that we have prosecuted individuals for their use of waterboarding as a war crime, and that we were party to setting the standard that clearly designated waterboarding as torture regardless of the disposition of the prisoners.

By our very own standards, as well as international law, waterboarding is not legal. Period.

Thanks for the swift kick. It's nice to know I'll be held to my own standards even if I forget.

Thanks- I think it is also important to note that we have prosecuted our own for waterboarding in the past, I believe a poster on this thread posted that fact.



DTOM - I believe the right wing spin miesters are using "drown proofing" as a replacable term with "waterboarding"- I know you said you went to Sere program- but most aviators have to go through that, and drown proofing is part of an aviators training as well.

I sometimes wonder if they are confusing the two?

It has been shown on the news 50 times in the last year. A Special Forces man being waterboarded in order to learn how to resist it.

Needless to say this method seems to be far too “polite” for AQ. The instruments and chambers found in Iraq testify to this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1942486/posts

Please clarify; Is it therefore your position that the barbarism of our enemies gives us license to abandon standards of civility that we ourselves have set?

If so, then just how far may we plumb those depths of barbarism ourselves and still remain 'civilized'?


It just seems that this is the prevailing view of the 'all or nothing' mindset, and I would like to see some kind of rationale. If necessary, I suppose I could make it a separate OP question so as not to detract too far from the original point... but seeing how your position directly relates to this OP, I'd like to understand it further.

Thank you.

Not at all. But if our august Congressmen including Nancy Pelosi viewed and approved the method in 2002 why are we discussing it today. When did it go from being “OK” to being torture? Could the election have anything to do with it?
I don’t favor torture as I have said even though we know it will have no effect on the barbaric treatment of our guys – but I don’t feel we have the need to make captives comfortable either – esp. those with vital information.

Dear god I hope not. Confusing waterboarding and drownproofing is like comparing torture with being sent to your room for 'time out'.



Huh? You have consistantly held an attitude [from my perspective] of "torture 'em all........and let Allah sort 'em out".

Then let me be clear. I do not favor it but neither do I favor TV, fluffy pillows, and comfort. And apparently waterboarding was just fine in 2002 so tell me why is it now an issue? The election maybe?

Waterboarding is torture. It is illegal.

I've both been through SERE and spent a bit of time working at the RTL. I've experienced waterboarding from both sides - in the training environment. However, I should remind you that US military doctrine on how our soldiers are expected to conduct interrogations does not influence the manner in which interrogations are conducted at the RTL in SERE. They are structured to replicate as closely as possible the methods our enemies may use - without causing serious damage (physical or mental) to the soldiers undergoing the training. The hard fact is that the interrogators in the RTL use methods on our own soldiers that would be illegal if they were used on EPWs or detainees. If they did not do this, then the resistance phase of SERE would serve no useful purpose.

That fact also requires that great care be taken with screening the personnel who work at the RTL - to ensure that they maintain awareness of the nature and context of the training and that the methods they use regularly in the course do not become ingrained into their system and end up being replicated operationally.

In any case, to attempt to exploit the fact that we use such methods in this type of training as justification for the use of it by any of our military or civilian interrogators on EPWs/detainees in current ops is either gross ignorance of the context of SERE training or willful manipulative communications of the worst kind.

Your use of 'august' is, in my personal opinion, far too kind for many of the wisps that fill congressional seats these days... Pelosi included, but that is not at issue. What is at issue is the notion that these supposedly esteemed individuals gave a pass to what is and has always been an immoral, unethical, and illegal practice.

I am weary of the blind and torrid partisanship that yeilds to so many acts that are nothing short of abominable to our Constitution and our very way of life. A spade is a spade, and if Pelosi did abide the actions of this administration to institute torture, then she, as all the rest involved, should at the very least resign. Personally, I believe firmly enough that the principles of America transcend her people that we should prosecute every person who has taken her so far astray as to earn the world's disdain.

It was never "OK", and yes... she's gunning for the elections, IMO, and I hope she loses her seat.



From what I gather, I shall take your disposition on faith even though the phrase "esp. those with vital information" seems to indicate your preference for making certain persons 'uncomfortable'.

I agree that they needn't have more than food, clothing, shelter, and humane treatment... but torture is right out. Not merely because it is 'immoral', I do not pretend to have an overly-developed moral philosophy, but because the drawbacks always outweigh the benefits. The best people in the field know that you don't get good information from torturing prisoners.

This is not the case for people with broad and verifiable info imo. Certainly anyone tortured will say anything to have it stop but many individuals have info that can be cross checked and verified in numerous ways.

“Consider Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 39-year-old former Al Qaeda operative who was the Sept. 11 mastermind and bearer of many Al Qaeda secrets. If anyone had a motive for remaining silent, it was the man known to terrorism investigators as “KSM.” But not long after his capture in Pakistan, in March 2003, KSM began to talk. He ultimately had so much to say that more than 100 footnoted references to the CIA’s interrogations of KSM are contained in the final report of the commission that investigated Sept. 11. Not that everything KSM said was believable. But much of his information checked out in separate questioning of other captured Al Qaeda figures.”

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/...ohammed_worked/


Does this make it “right” – NO. But you can bet the use of very tough interrogation goes up as the body count rises. Certainly the Congressmen like Pelosi and others from both sides of the isle still had the images of people jumping off the Towers when they oked this method.

To say “it doesn’t work” is not strictly accurate.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/11/opposing-view-3.html

Well, that depends on how the other Al Qaeda figures were questioned, right? If they were asked to verify evidence under torture, wouldn't they also say anything to have it stop?

And the "Pelosi OK'ed it line" is a dead horse you can stop beating at any time now. Nobody here is defending her. This isn't a partisan thing, IMO. If anyone, Democratic or Republican... left, right or middle, authorized illegal interrogation techniques, they should be held accountable.

What is being discussed is verifiable info. Info that can be checked and crossed to others. You can imagine that interrogators are a little more sophisticated in this area than just looking for yes or no answers that cannot be backed up and lead nowhere.





Seems pretty partisan to me. And beyond that is the obvious question. How can something be “ok” in 2002 and, as many claim, clearly “torture” today? Any idea?

Well, Carter was in direct radio contact and issuing personal instructions to the lead helicopter while en route. I doubt Bush was on his cell to the head interrogator at Gitmo asking how the prisoner was holding up after that last bucket of water was drained over him....

You seem to be at odds with yourself;



So you are for the use of torture pursuant to the severity of the damage we suffer?

Now, let's review the opinion piece you've linked to which suggests that torture works, specifically this excerpt;


The NRO links to an article by Deroy Murdock, not precisely an objective columnist, that suggests that Kalid Sheik Mohammed revealed the identities of dangerous terrorists poised to attack. Interestingly, this is a one-source meme that tracks from link to link with nearly identical language.

I am not so easily convinced that the same sources providing the 'torture works' meme who also have a vested interest in gaining popular support for torture can be relied upon for accurate and objective information.

Now consider this; If Jose Padilla was arrested on the strength of KSM's 'confessions', then we know that he yeilded a great deal of false information. Padilla was picked up on suspicion of plotting to detonate a dirty bomb, and then incarcerated without formal charges for years. Furthermore, after the government finally found charges to press against him, he was sent to trial and convicted on the strength of a recorded conversation from 1997 where he admitted to considering joining overseas jihad. Five years later, he had still not done so.

The details of that trial, upon inspection, reveal a corrupt process for the sake of the government saving face.

I'm not saying that Padilla was necessarily innocent, but it is plain on it's face that KSM said anything he could think of in order to avoid more waterboarding... and obviously much of it false.

The question that I would have then is 'How many resources did we divert to hunting down dead ends that could otherwise have been directed through careful investigation to the proper targets?'

Does his torture yield a favorable net result?

Well, as I've said before; "The cost for compromising our principles is immense and farther-reaching that we can even now know, while the benefits are limited and often uncertain. I would not, as an American, rob any man, even a terrorist, of his humanity and Habeas Corpus... for that would reveal that our actions are born of fear rather than justice."

We may not know whether time-honored and principled investigative work could have discovered these individuals KSM named as terrorists. Investigation has both succeeded and failed throughout our history and I have no doubt that information garnered through torture would have a similar track record. Given the immeasurable price of abandonning our principles, I would rather risk death than forfeit them... for I am not afraid.

?'

The job of the people who protect us is to follow all leads and run everything down. If info from a captive helps in that regard and it saves lives then the work was worth the effort. Obviously high value captives have info and if they essentially give us the finger when asked for info we have to chose how to proceed. In 2002 waterboarding was approved as a method to use. Now apparently it is as some say “obviously torture”. Well tell me how you think that change of perspective occurred.

I am in favor of any method short of torture that gains valuable info. I see no need to make captives “comfortable”.


Easily said but in an era of WMD where the death toll could be tens of thousands of civilians this is not as simple as it appears.

They have NO RIGHT whatsoever to Habeas Corpus under international law or US law that I know of.


And add to this the fact that even the most rights oriented people when asked if they would “approve torture” if they knew doing so would save their family, son, etc – that answer yes – do whatever but save my -----.

The fact is we want the “government” to protect us and doing that involves gathering intel from people, phone conversations overseas etc. Plots have been foiled and our luck (through hard work) has heald out. Lets hope that continues

There was never a 'change of perspective'. Waterboarding has always been illegal, and it is outlawed by virtue of our own constitution. Anyone who "approved" it is therefore complicit in it's enactment.

You seem to be making the suggestion that whether waterboarding is torture or not is a subjective position. It is not.


Like it or not, waterboarding is torture. We are party to treaties and conventions that make that perfectly clear. The US Constitution states unequivocally that any treaty we sign is the law of the land.



Easily said, and reasonably executable. We have all the law enforcement resources we need to prevent attacks without resorting to torture. The cascade of failures that led to 9/11 would not have been prevented through torture as we had all the warning and information necessary to prevent it. All that would have been required was proper communication between departments.


That question is invalid as it is predicateed upon a pre-determined result. We do not know that torture is necessarily going to save anyone anymore than diligent and vigorous investigation would. As I said; "The cost for compromising our principles is immense and farther-reaching that we can even now know, while the benefits are limited and often uncertain."

By assigning certainty to the conclusion, of course you will elicit such a response. It is an invalid question.


Many of those 'plots' that have been foiled were engineered by 'informants' who gave the 'plotters' the motivation and resources necessary and then busted them for going along with it. Sure, I'm glad to get the morons out of the picture, but why are we wasting resources on people that aren't even a threat to begin with?

Jose Padilla was one such negligible threat who got 17 years for thinking of joing Jihad. We wasted a great deal of time, resources, and reputation on just that one "lead" garnered through torture.

We needn't go in circles with this. I can agree that we don't need to 'make them comfortable', but we lose little or nothing by maintaining our principles of bringing evidence, speedy trials, and refraining from torture including waterboarding.

For every time you can say; "But think of the lives we could save with torture." I can validly respond with, "As many as we can save with good investigative work."

The only question that remains at this point is; "Do we wish to fight terrorism with or without our prinicples intact?"

Put me in the 'with' category.

You failed again to answer my question. Obviously if it was “illegal” then it could not have been approved by the Congress. Am I right here? So something is wrong with you statement above or you disagree with the US Congress .


What treaty are you referring to? Not the Genève Convention which does not apply to our current enemies since 1. They never signed it and 2. They don’t even come close to abiding by it. So give me a clue here Rose.




Such as? In what way? Our enemy could not possibly treat us worse – could he? Define what you are saying and give it a historic perspective please.


Forget the winning about Padilla please. Our efforts yielded, for example, at least 2 groups of buyers/seller of Stinger MPAD air to ground missiles as I have posted. If one of the transactions had happened hundreds of Americans would have died and our economy would have suffered “immense” damage.

The “informants” and fake buyers we have out there “bought” the weapons (and arrested the plotters) – would you not have that happen? Do you think there is no one in this country trying desperately to kill us? I think otherwise.



And you can be sure of this how? How do you do “good investigative work” in places where you have few if any “investigators” or spies.? You know the CIA field teams were decimated after the cold war – esp. under Bill. It is said it will take a minimum of ten more years to build them back up.

That isn't what your source stated. It stated that information was verified via the questioning of other prisoners. Your reading too much into your own source.



Seems to me that you are the one claiming partisanship in this thread. Who in this thread stated it was ok in 2002 and then stated it was torture today? Is that a general question? If so, the answer is that it wasn't "ok" in 2002 and it isn't "ok" today. Point to someone in this thread who has stated anything to the contrary. If you can't, then your point on that particular issue is that you have no point.



And our government stated that we would abide by it. The US is a signatory to it and, even though our enemies aren't, that fact doesn't diminish our responsibilities as a signatory.

It isn't what someone in this thread has stated, it is what our Congressional leaders have stated. In 2002, Nancy Pelosi was one of a few Congressional leaders that were briefed about the use of waterboarding.


She then made a press release in 2005 condemning torture. She doesn't actually use the term 'waterboarding' in her brief, but does that mean she doesn't consider waterboarding as torture?

And, I repeat... nobody in this thread has defended Pelosi. So... why keep mentioning it except to point it up as some sort of partisan issue that doesn't exist? Ted keeps saying, well Pelosi said it was okay... Pelosi said it was okay... why was it okay then and not now. Nobody here said what Pelosi did was right. Nobody here said it was okay then and not okay now. So, there's no need to bring up Pelosi... Nobody here is defending her hypocrisy. That's why I said it was a dead horse he no longer needed to beat.

I have failed to do nothing. It was not ok then, it is not ok now, it was never 'ok'. Those in Congress who allowed the practice are complicit and should at the very least resign, regardless of party.

If there was something unclear about my previous statements;

... then I would very much appreciate it if you could point out how I can make my statements clear enough for you. Thanks.



To my knowledge, nowhere in the Geneva Convention does it state that failure to abide by it's standards is grounds for inhumane treatment. Apparently I must be mistaken, so if you could please cite the pertinent excerpt that allows for torture should a captured combatant be suspected or even guilty of violations, I would very much appreciate it. Thank you.



Certainly. First, I wasn't kidding when I said 'farther-reaching than we can even now know'. I am saying that our principles were established for more reasons than simply to make us "The Good Guys". The reason we have such established principles is for nothing less than the very preservation of the democracy our Forefathers created. Given your position on torture, I can see why this escapes you, I'll be happy to oblige.

You see, torture and incarceration without trial have historically and consistently been the tools of dictatorships and fascist regimes. You say that 'they could not possibly treat us worse' (again reinforcing your justification for torture), perhaps this should indicate that 'they' come from 'uncivilized' nations. Now think of how well those nations hold up on issues of poverty, education, and social equity. The answer? Barely. Why? Because democracy cannot flourish in an environment where anyone can be incarcerated without charges. This one 'exception' has always been the one that allows those in power to expediently curtail political opposition under the notion of 'national security'. For 'historical perspective', we are now at a stage that every democracy-turned-dictatorship has gone through in history... and there is simply no reason to be here. When the human rights of individuals are compromised for the sake of 'national security', there are no longer any safeguards for freedom. Without the safeguards of freedom, the country is no longer free regardless of appearances. To say that 'we don't need those safeguards because bad people don't deserve them' is terminally naïve. It is also terminally naïve to think that 'only the bad people' will lose those safeguards when the loss of those very safeguards precludes the just determination of guilt.

Perhaps I can bring it home for you a little more poignantly with a question; A precedent has already been set in this country that allows the Executive to order the surveillance of US citizens without judicial oversight. Therefore there are no court records of such surveillance, and the executive can clandestinely order the surveillance of anyone without fear of discovery... including political opponents, under the curtain of 'national security'.

It has become more than increasingly probable that Hillary Clinton might become the next President and Executive of the United States. Are you comfortable with Hillary Clinton having the power to spy on her political opponents with impugnity and without fear of discovery for her own advantage?

Considering that she will also inherit the power to incarcerate American citizens without charges or a trial, I would say that I am entirely uncomfortable with that.

Is that a question you can answer?




I'll assume that you meant 'whining', and I'll also overlook the fact that, although my points about Padilla were both substantive and germane, you would rather choose the derisive assignation 'whining' rather than take the trouble to address or dispute those points as I would prefer civil and meaninful discussion. I'll simply acknowledge that you are either uninformed on the subject of Padilla with no intention of becoming otherwise, or that this is your way of choosing to dismiss those points out of hand.

Meanwhile, that's quite a 'would have' and 'could have' scenario you've presented. Unfortunately there's no evidence that diligent investigation could not have accomplished the same thing. I believe I said; For every time you can say; "But think of the lives we could save with torture." I can validly respond with, "As many as we can save with good investigative work." How many times around this particular carousel are you willing to go?




Not nearly as many as you think. I don't wet my pants over a group of incompetents that could have accomplished nothing without being supplied and supported by the FBI. Perhaps you missed what I said before;

I cannot be so afraid that I would compromise our principles. Why is it that you are?




I can be sure of this because we have brought many people to justice and foiled many plots with good intelligence and investigation. Frankly, I would be shocked if you weren't aware of this.

Do you think that we've always used torture to stop bad people from doing bad things? If that is the case, then I cannot hope for productive discussion with you here.

When you say waterboarding was approved by Congress, do you mean that selective members were briefed on the practice or that Congress actually passed a law approving the procedure?

Here is a recent link.

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/id...-31801420080206

Everyone who says its ‘torture” by definition implies its “not ok” – do you disagree.
And it was “ok” when the Congress saw and approved it in 2002 – Right? Or were that saying “torture” was OK?



No one will resign, or go to jail as you know and straight answers are hard to come by. Here is Nancy:

WALLACE: So let me ask you directly. Do you think that the interrogation techniques that have been reported — let’s not talk about what’s in the memo, but what’s been reported — in combination, head slapping, water boarding, exposure to extreme temperatures. Torture?
PELOSI: There is a legal definition of torture that I believe this would fit. The president says it is not. Again, we have to see the degree and what he is talking about, because again, to answer on the basis of something that’s been reported in the press that the president has deemed is not torture, it’s just not — I just can’t give you an informative answer on that.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nancy-p...ding-in-october

Sounds like Hillary’s non answer on drivers license for illegal aliens.

“In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said. "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7120801664.html

Lets just see if Nancy or any of the others resigns or turns themselves in for prosecution.

.

WRONG. The Constitution is for American Citizens. Read it and see. They do