Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects

[hotatlboi]

If you really believe that nonsense

That's the difference between you and I. I don't consider our international partnerships and obligations nonsense. So yes, I surely do.

 

[HenryReardon]

That's the difference between you and I. I don't consider our international partnerships and obligations nonsense. So yes, I surely do.

I just did some checking regarding uniformed combatants and non-uniformed combatants. Things might not be quite as cut and dried as you believe. This was on a blog and I have not verified the validity of the claim. It does, however, confirm what I have always been told.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

"# 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
# 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;

4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Uniform is not mandatory as long as the combatants or militias carry arms openly to qualify for POW status.

The United States has not signed this part of the Geneva Conventions that covers militias and resistance movements.

Source Link (added by moderator): http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3906101&postcount=2

 

[TX-Beau]

What was done could only be considered torture by liberal bedwetters whose collective thongs are in a wad because a few murdering scumbags might have been made uncomfortable.

LOL. You're a hoot Henry. Like the swallows returning to Capistrano, we can always depend on you to represent the ignorant and intractable.

 

[hotatlboi]

I just did some checking regarding uniformed combatants and non-uniformed combatants. Things might not be quite as cut and dried as you believe. This was on a blog and I have not verified the validity of the claim. It does, however, confirm what I have always been told.

1. The SCOTUS already ruled that the Geneva convention applies to these combatants.

2. Even disregarding the Geneva convention entirely, it is still a violation of the Convention against Torture which we signed under Reagan.

 

[HenryReardon]

LOL. You're a hoot Henry. Like the swallows returning to Capistrano, .

Tis better to be a 'hoot' than an anti-Amrican fool and traitor.

 

[White Eagle]

Actually I wasn't aiming that at anyone in specific, just the general idea that what Bush/Cheney did was somehow not torture, effective, and legal, and the false claim that it somehow foiled the supposed LA bombing, which it didn't.

Ok thanks, I see your point.
'Now for all the wingnuts here and especially HenryReardon.
I've changed my mind. You don't have to prove that torture saved lives. There is no proof. If there was then Cheney wouldn't be going around begging for CIA documents be declassified that would show that torture saved lives. I'm sorry, that should be enhanced interrogation instead of torture.
I went to Fox's website to get a right angle on the story but couldn't find it even tho reports are that Cheney went on it to beg again.
But I did find this at the Washington post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403645.html?hpid=topnews

Cheney Requests Release of 2 CIA Reports on Interrogations

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 25, 2009

Former vice president Richard B. Cheney is asking for the release of two CIA reports in his bid to marshal evidence that coercive interrogation tactics such as waterboarding helped thwart terrorist plots, according to documents released yesterday by the National Archives and Records Administration.

So there you go. There is no proof that torture, errrrr Enhanced interrogation saved lives.

There I go again, corrected by me this time.......
coercive interrogation tactics

 

[Glafna]

Tis better to be a 'hoot' than an anti-Amrican fool and traitor.

Henry.

Shut up before I actually start reporting some of these posts of yours. They are offensive, inflammatory, and no one should be labeled as such over words on an online forum: it shows a lack of character and of wisdom.

 

[opinterph]

Moderator Notice

Please be reminded that personal insults are not allowed in this forum. Express your views about the topic of discussion. Do not attempt to characterize or otherwise demean fellow Jubbers.

 

[Kulindahr]

In the mid 1770s there were no television cameras to carry dissent around the world and encourage the other side to carry on their struggle.

A different era calls for a different paradigm.

It's really quite simple - when the country is at war, public protests give aid and comfort to the enemy. This is particularly true when it comes from members of the government.

In the era of 24/7 around the world news coverage, considerable restraint is called for.

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is one of the definitions of treason.

A "different paradigm".
So, what you're saying boils down to this: that in an era when communications are easier, one has to cede more power to the state, giving up personal liberties, and thus encourage tyranny.

Sounds like you're a John Bircher... you've pretty much shown you're not much of a libertarian.



"Aid and comfort to the enemy"?
Sir, to have remained silent would have given aid and comfort to the enemy! For the real enemy were Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and the other to-hell-with-reality, to-hell-with-the-Constitution, to-hell-with-the-truth crowd. No one in Iraq was ever really our enemy; there was no cause for the invasion... and once we'd violated the integrity of a foreign country, we did in with such incompetence that everyone involved in that decision should hang.

The most important enemies are almost always within -- it's why, ultimately, there's a Second Amendment: to protect the inherent right to insurrection against tyranny. Under Bush, we came closer than I believe the U.S. has ever come before to reaching the point where that right of the people should have been dusted off.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you seriously think they don't have satellite television in the middle east and Afghanistan? Get real.

The mindset of the middle East and, for that matter, the orientals is such that the fact that public protests are allowed to take place is viewed as a sign of weakness.

So... what you want us to do is to return to an era when being macho was what states did to look tough, to a condition of greater weakness, instead of standing proud in our freedom and strength?

Because our strength doesn't lie in the force of arms, but in the fact that we have the courage and resolution to allow others to be different, to allow sovereign autonomy to reside in the place from which all sovereignty derives: the individual citizen.

Free speech, and open criticism of the government, proves that we are strong. Yet you want us to bow to the will and worldview of cowards!

You are a statist at heart, it seems.

 

[HenryReardon]

Free speech, and open criticism of the government, proves that we are strong. Y

Free speech is wonderful. A good thing.
No problem.

People have the right to speak out.
That being said, there are times when it isn't 'right' to do so.

When the country is at war, we should circle the wagons, so to speak, and present a united front.

 

[White Eagle]

A "different paradigm".
So, what you're saying boils down to this: that in an era when communications are easier, one has to cede more power to the state, giving up personal liberties, and thus encourage tyranny.

Sounds like you're a John Bircher... you've pretty much shown you're not much of a libertarian.



"Aid and comfort to the enemy"?
Sir, to have remained silent would have given aid and comfort to the enemy! For the real enemy were Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and the other to-hell-with-reality, to-hell-with-the-Constitution, to-hell-with-the-truth crowd. No one in Iraq was ever really our enemy; there was no cause for the invasion... and once we'd violated the integrity of a foreign country, we did in with such incompetence that everyone involved in that decision should hang.

The most important enemies are almost always within -- it's why, ultimately, there's a Second Amendment: to protect the inherent right to insurrection against tyranny. Under Bush, we came closer than I believe the U.S. has ever come before to reaching the point where that right of the people should have been dusted off.

I will always believe the reason for the invasion was because daddy 41 failed to dethrone Hussein.

And you are more than right about the last para.

 

[Kulindahr]

I though it was pretty self explanatory myself , but OK I'll go edit what I can.

As I noted before, it's a matter of "fair use" laws (unless they changed them): you can quote to support an argument or establish a fact (etc.), but just reproducing in isolation isn't allowed. So you have to have commentary, even if it is self-explanatory.

Allowances are often made on internet debates -- but often enough, they aren't, and rather than try to second-guess which sources will make allowances and which won't, site owners are safer just adhering to the rules/guidelines in all cases.

What we were taught for doing scholarly articles is that the length of your own argument or commentary needs to exceed the length of your quote. I don't know if that applies here, but it's not a bad rule of thumb.

 

[Kulindahr]

I can see the difference between using such weapons on your own defenseless people to maintain power as opposed to using them on a major world power who could obliterate you should you decide to engage them.

Darned straight!

The whole world bloody well knows what U.S. doctrine is for responding to the use of WMDs on its people or allies: nukes. Saddam's interest was in holding on to power; when you get down to it, that's what everything he ever did was about. There was no way any WMDs he had were a threat to us, or Europeans, or even Israel -- he was smarter than that.

His love of power is why he told Bush he would allow in all the inspection teams Bush wanted, let them go anyplace they wished, with all the security they wanted to bring. That Bush didn't take it (or other offers) indicates that the military adventure was never about Saddam and never about WMDs; that was all a smokescreen for the public. What the operation was about was the agenda of the "New American Century" folks wanting to project American power into critical areas to maintain U.S. dominance as the world's only superpower by making sure that essential resources remain under our control. That's further shown by the fact that Bush wanted not just a base or two, but dozens, even hundreds, left in Iraq after we "departed". It was all about control: anything else along the way was either an excuse or a means to establishing that control.

And although it did help keep attacks from hitting American soil, by putting Americans nearer at hand and easier to get to, it also increased hatred of America and gave the terrorists more justification for their claims. It also crippled our ability to respond in the future, by increasing our national debt so vastly that it will be more difficult to borrow in the future. As part of that, waterboarding has also been counterproductive; it gives an image of the U.S. as hypocritical, self-serving, untrustworthy, and such like. It doesn't make us look strong in the least: if we want to seem strong in such an area of behavior, we should be as ruthless as the KGB used to be, not stop with wimpy measures we argue really are civilized when it's obvious to the whole bloody world that they aren't.

There's no evidence that waterboarding has given us any useful information. There's plenty that its use has increased negative views of the U.S., among allies and enemies both.

 

[Kulindahr]

What was done could only be considered torture by liberal bedwetters whose collective thongs are in a wad because a few murdering scumbags might have been made uncomfortable.

I'll try to remember, when they come for you, to let them, since you have deep statist convictions.

The sad thing is that waterboarding isn't even productive. We'd be far, far better off using drugs.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you really believe that nonsense, I've got a bargain for you in Florida real estate. I guarantee it's dry (once in a while). LMAO

Henry, at this point I have to say that you are just plain full of shit.

My view of the terrorists is that once they're convicted and we've gotten useful information out of them by civilized and effective means, they ought to be executed by near-hanging followed by a firing squad, with one bullet for each probable and/or intended victim -- starting at the toes. If we had the mental technology, I'd make them experience one terrifying death for each victim, only to come back and realize that they're not dead... but knowing that they're going to experience another death, and another, and another, until we finally actually let them die.
If they were fortunate, and not exceptionally evil, on a good day I might settle for having them executed by beheading in a public square, using an axe polished with pork fat.

But I am opposed to torture, opposed to Gitmo, opposed to being a nation that stands for "liberty and justice for all those our leaders haven't decided to call terrorists without proof".

 

[HenryReardon]

I

The sad thing is that waterboarding isn't even productive. We'd be far, far better off using drugs.

Whether or not it is productive has yet to be proven.

As far as drugs go, I've wondered about that. In the context of the current debate over alleged torture, drugs are not mentioned. I wonder why?

 

[HenryReardon]

Henry, at this point I have to say that you are just plain full of shit.

My view of the terrorists is that once they're convicted and we've gotten useful information out of them by civilized and effective means, they ought to be executed by near-hanging followed by a firing squad, with one bullet for each probable and/or intended victim -- starting at the toes. If we had the mental technology, I'd make them experience one terrifying death for each victim, only to come back and realize that they're not dead... but knowing that they're going to experience another death, and another, and another, until we finally actually let them die.
If they were fortunate, and not exceptionally evil, on a good day I might settle for having them executed by beheading in a public square, using an axe polished with pork fat.

But I am opposed to torture, opposed to Gitmo, opposed to being a nation that stands for "liberty and justice for all those our leaders haven't decided to call terrorists without proof".

Full of shit? LOL. I didn't know you cared.

I agree, get the information and shoot the bastards. Many times. As slowly and painfully as possible.

Believe it or not, I am opposed to torture - as it used to be defined, not this current watered down definition.

 

[Kulindahr]

Tis better to be a 'hoot' than an anti-Amrican fool and traitor.

Someplace, Henry, you have a circuit missing.

You claim to believe in liberty, yet you support the unrestrained power of the state to detain anyone merely by proclaiming them terrorists. You claim to believe in human rights, yet you believe that when honest, patriotic citizens want to voice their concern and their belief on the ideals on which this country was founded, they should sit silently and let the government do as it pleases.

Your position is one that supports the transition of free countries to authoritarian states, one which is willing to surrender liberty after liberty in the name of security and loyalty.

I, as one who actually does believe in liberty, would rather see us true to our ideals, clinging to our liberties, and suffering a terrorist attack a week, than descending down the path to servitude. "Give me liberty or give me death!" is not just a historically admirable sentiment, but a valid guide for the body politic today: better to expose ourselves to threatened fatal actions than to back down on the slightest aspect of our traditional liberties.

 

[Kulindahr]

Free speech is wonderful. A good thing.
No problem.

People have the right to speak out.
That being said, there are times when it isn't 'right' to do so.

When the country is at war, we should circle the wagons, so to speak, and present a united front.

When the war is immoral, and the leaders more so, we should oppose it with every breath we have. And when a government threatens to silence us, threatens to invade our liberties in order to keep us in line, then it's time to start dusting off the ultimate use of the Second Amendment.

The greatest patriotism is to stand ready to take up arms against one's own government when it acts to establish tyranny. Were it not for the fact that Bush was guaranteed to go away, I would have been advocating organization for implementing the right for armed insurrection.