CIA Waterboarded Mohammed 183X in 1 Month, Zubaydah 83X in 1 month

[Mrs Jolly]

If I had the graphic artist skills I would write out a tidy little flow chart with nice boxes and arrows. There would be rectangular boxes with questions in them such as, "Do you think elected officials should uphold the constitution?" "Do you believe in the rule of law?" "If you execute torturers for waterboarding is it then logically consistent to apply the same penalty to yourself?"

Most people faced with these and other answers would have little difficulty if following the boxes and I am fairly confident that a sizable majority would be all for defending the constitution and the rule of law. Not so our elected representatives, we are in the midst of a disgraceful episode where elected officials come on to television to defend the practice of subverting the very rights of those they were elected to represent. If this was all good and necessary then why was it never acted out in daylight? The question answers itself.

I am not so naive as to be surprised by politicians of all stripes fudging questions of accountability and responsibility - that's what politicians do. I'm saddened by which branches of the media either give them a free ride or actively support the actual wrongdoing. Beyond that I am sickened by chunks of the public buying into this as if the squabbling of career politicians more concerned with their ranking position on a committee and its attendant parking spot is more important than holding representatives accountable to the basic tenets of the constitution.

Time and time again the voting (and the non-voting) public express low confidence in the people they elect and yet here we are with brazen examples of wrongdoing and instead of throwing them out on their fat behinds the public seem to be responding like sheepish enablers.

 

[Facial_King]

^^^

Good points, Mrs. Jolly. The problem has been (and, sadly, continues to be) that our elected leaders are playing a fucking shell game with the rule of law. Messing with definitions, issuing executive orders that, in effect, say "If we do it, it's okay." When you assert the authority to just do whatever the hell you want and say that whatever you do can't be illegal, and the people don't call you on your b.s., that's a major problem.

 

[bustybbwlover]

mmmm politics of torture

 

[Philbert]

Every one of the high ranking Dems, including Pelosi, were involved in all activities after 911 trying to find out what else was planned...Bush and the admin did not operate in secret and in a vacuum.
Yet all the castigation and hand wringing is so typically pointed in one direction...typical agenda driven tunnel vision.
I'm more disgusted with the crying about morals and compliments paid to the slaughter monkeys when discussing our most frontline intelligence operatives...I'd rather they did their job and got what they needed to maybe fight a nasty and determined enemy who cares nothing about your moral dilemmas, only where they can strike the easiest to cause the most heartbreaking results...the more cute baby and shredded Mom body parts scattered around and stuck on walls of buildings the better.
Spare me your elitist wailing and get some non-rose colored glasses that work...

 

[don_equis]

I really don't care about someone who wants to bomb our country and kill many people in the name of their religion. Big deal they should have waterboard his camels also. I am waiting for the first reality series to waterboard someone and make it look like Fear Factor.

 

[Mrs Jolly]

The issue is not how an individual feels about terrorists. Neither is is relevant to which party those who drew up and implemented the procedures belong. What is in question is the fact that there were signed laws (and the US is a nation of laws) and these laws were broken in a very deliberate manner. In the same way that you and I get arrested and prosecuted when we break the law, so should these people. It could not be more black and white.

Fair enough that you and others would like to see these practices made part of official policy. Then there should have been a little conference in the rose garden of the White House where the president told the world that he was removing the US signature from the Geneva Convention and he was sending a torture bill up to the house for a vote. This was not done (Hmmm I wonder why not?) and instead somebody took a crap on the constitution.

If the transient wishes of currently elected representatives trump the rule of law and the constitution in your view, then good luck to you. I beg to differ and would posit that I have some big guns in my corner. ie Thomas Paine, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson etc etc.

Lastly and most trivially, pointing out the errors enacted by the first and second most powerful men on the planet doesn't really define you as an elitist.

 

[don_equis]

The issue is not how an individual feels about terrorists. Neither is is relevant to which party those who drew up and implemented the procedures belong. What is in question is the fact that there were signed laws (and the US is a nation of laws) and these laws were broken in a very deliberate manner. In the same way that you and I get arrested and prosecuted when we break the law, so should these people. It could not be more black and white.

Fair enough that you and others would like to see these practices made part of official policy. Then there should have been a little conference in the rose garden of the White House where the president told the world that he was removing the US signature from the Geneva Convention and he was sending a torture bill up to the house for a vote. This was not done (Hmmm I wonder why not?) and instead somebody took a crap on the constitution.

If the transient wishes of currently elected representatives trump the rule of law and the constitution in your view, then good luck to you. I beg to differ and would posit that I have some big guns in my corner. ie Thomas Paine, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson etc etc.

Lastly and most trivially, pointing out the errors enacted by the first and second most powerful men on the planet doesn't really define you as an elitist.

Do you know Geneva Convention applies to organized armed forces from a country?? not a group that goes around cutting heads? stuffing people's kids bodies with bombs so when the parents pick them up it blows them up for not helping their cause..where are the rights under Geneva for those victims? so please you all need to stop sounding like a broken record with the Geneva Convention because it does not apply!

Wake up and smell the roses these people and other countries will laugh at these "harsh interrogation techniques"

Frankly I don't care about this shit, yeah the whole shit, because know "we the people" want to run the CIA because the media says so...and I frankly don't care about anyone that had to do with the 911 attacks they should all been dispatched from this world.

 

[Philbert]

The issue is not how an individual feels about terrorists. Neither is is relevant to which party those who drew up and implemented the procedures belong. What is in question is the fact that there were signed laws (and the US is a nation of laws) and these laws were broken in a very deliberate manner. In the same way that you and I get arrested and prosecuted when we break the law, so should these people. It could not be more black and white.

Fair enough that you and others would like to see these practices made part of official policy. Then there should have been a little conference in the rose garden of the White House where the president told the world that he was removing the US signature from the Geneva Convention and he was sending a torture bill up to the house for a vote. This was not done (Hmmm I wonder why not?) and instead somebody took a crap on the constitution.

If the transient wishes of currently elected representatives trump the rule of law and the constitution in your view, then good luck to you. I beg to differ and would posit that I have some big guns in my corner. ie Thomas Paine, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson etc etc.

Lastly and most trivially, pointing out the errors enacted by the first and second most powerful men on the planet doesn't really define you as an elitist.

Please quote what exact laws were broken...since you seem to have exact knowledge of this.
And yes, being an elitist does involve much more than pointing out the errors of the entire legislative body (the President isn't a King, didn't you notice that while studying Constitutional Law?)...but it's a start.
So...you wonder why it wasn't done? Now, after all that opinion posting, you just now wonder why? Get back to us when you finish that train of thought...maybe do some field research on why it isn't very effective to announce to everyone what your intel service is doing.
Or is the current elitist "better morally than thou" mindset too superior to the rest of us more practical types to even go there?:rofl:
I doubt if the founding Fathers would flock to your weak and condescending standard...they had some big balls and stood up to a powerful, deadly, implacable enemy and knew what was important to defend.

 

[Philbert]

While watching C-SPAN this morning they rebroadcast a hearing on the torture used.One of the testifying lawyers mentioned a case that happened in the 1980s.Here are the details on the case.

http://gampac.wordpress.com/2009/05...vey-majority-of-evangelicals-support-torture/

"More recently, Texas Sheriff Convicted of Torture (1983):
In 1983, James Parker (Texas Sheriff for San Jacinto County) and three of his deputies were charged by the Department of Justice with committing torture because of their use of water torture on prisoners. The four were convicted of “water torture,” which was upheld on appeal. They were sentenced to 10 years each. The case name was United States v. Parker et al.

Sheriff Parker & three deputies were convicted of “water torture.” The conviction was upheld on appeal (United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Lee, Defendant-Appellant).

In the indictment the officers were charged with subjecting prisoners to “a suffocating ‘water torture’ ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning.”



So obviously this case upheld that water torture/boarding is illegal.10 years sounds like a fair sentence for those that authorized and performed such abuse.

So, using your obvious logic, since a man convicted of shooting someone while committing an armed robbery can be sentenced to Death, a soldier in the US military should be convicted of the same Felony Murder offense for killing an enemy combatant while taking control of a strategic point like a building or a hill, and given the death penalty.
Pretty smart thinking there...:thumbsup:

 

[Boothbabe]

@ Philbert:

The question you have to ask yourself is why did congress grant Bush and those involved in the torture of prisoners immunity form prosecution of war crimes? If what they did was perfectly legal there would've been no need to do so.

 

[Hot Mega]

Please quote what exact laws were broken...since you seem to have exact knowledge of this.

US and International laws against torture. It's been admitted that water boarding has been employed as an interrogation technique. That's against the law, we've already punished people in the past for doing it.

In the US as POTUS you can't just decide by fiat to change a law on your own then get some sycophant to right a legal opinion granting you the right to usurp the law.

That ought to be common sense.

The specious argument that no code shows "water boarding" as specifically illegal is obviously absurd.

There are many if not all forms of torture that are not specifically named as illegal but are nonetheless STILL illegal because they are prima facie torture.

And yes, enemy combatants, HVD, etc. are covered under the Geneva Convention. See below...

Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),

(again that's "the Protection of All Persons")

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

 

[Philbert]

@ Philbert:

The question you have to ask yourself is why did congress grant Bush and those involved in the torture of prisoners immunity form prosecution of war crimes? If what they did was perfectly legal there would've been no need to do so.

That's like saying someone who gets a lawyer after being accused of some crime must be guilty...while the truth is that so much bullshit can be found no matter what the reality is, that prevention is better than chasing around after some truth and not being able to see it for all the lies, distortions, and pointless accusations.
In the Upanishads there is a structure described...the various levels of enlightenment and ranking the types of participants.
The highest level of enlightenment are the holy men, the "priests"; they are ready to leave this plane of existence and break free of the Wheel.
The second highest level are the warriors...they willingly give up their opportunity to reach enlightenment, to enable the holy men to seek their enlightenment in peace and safety by accepting the negative karma that comes from killing and violence.
My kinda guys...:thumbsup:

 

[Facial_King]

Originally Posted by Facial_King

I love how 95% of the time, the pro-torture people just operate on the blind assumption that if someone's locked up in one of these places (Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc.) then they're automatically a terrorist.

So, what you are contesting is being labeled pro-torture - because now you are the victim(s) :crying: of a sort of witch hunt? You don't contest my characterization of your assumptions regarding War on Terror prisoners? Please elaborate.

I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on that... :dunno:

Please quote what exact laws were broken...since you seem to have exact knowledge of this.
And yes, being an elitist does involve much more than pointing out the errors of the entire legislative body (the President isn't a King, didn't you notice that while studying Constitutional Law?)...but it's a start.
So...you wonder why it wasn't done? Now, after all that opinion posting, you just now wonder why? Get back to us when you finish that train of thought...maybe do some field research on why it isn't very effective to announce to everyone what your intel service is doing.
Or is the current elitist "better morally than thou" mindset too superior to the rest of us more practical types to even go there?:rofl:
I doubt if the founding Fathers would flock to your weak and condescending standard...they had some big balls and stood up to a powerful, deadly, implacable enemy and knew what was important to defend.

As for the broken laws thing, see here for a good start:

http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/

 

[Boothbabe]

That's like saying someone who gets a lawyer after being accused of some crime must be guilty...while the truth is that so much bullshit can be found no matter what the reality is, that prevention is better than chasing around after some truth and not being able to see it for all the lies, distortions, and pointless accusations.

Lol, you are really thick headed. According to US law torture is illegal, end of discussion. You can twist it any way you want but that's just the way it is, period. You're defending a president who knowingly and willingly broke the law and by doing so you're taking a piss @ the constitution of the United States.

 

[georges]

Lol, you are really thick headed. According to US law torture is illegal, end of discussion. You can twist it any way you want but that's just the way it is, period. You're defending a president who knowingly and willingly broke the law and by doing so you're taking a piss @ the constitution of the United States.

And so are you thick headed as well, murdering people, bombing foreign embassies with innocent people as well as selling and distributing drugs and rackeetering is forbidden as well. When one is convicted of murder or any other criminal and serious charges, you expect law enforcement people to treat him like an angel right?

 

[Boothbabe]

you expect law enforcement people to treat him like an angel right?

No, I expect them to act according to the values they are fighting to preserve.

 

[Philbert]

No, I expect them to act according to the values they are fighting to preserve.

Why is that?
Are you picking out one value over another as more important?

 

[Boothbabe]

I give up.

 

[Hot Mega]

I give up.

That's the strategy isn't? Wriggle around with semantics, obfuscations and misdirections to frustrate you into giving up.

Here's a hint though, when they resort to those tactics they've already given up but just don't know it yet. :rofl:

 

[Philbert]

That's the strategy isn't? Wriggle around with semantics, obfuscations and misdirections to frustrate you into giving up.

Here's a hint though, when they resort to those tactics they've already given up but just don't know it yet. :rofl:

I can hardly stand it...:rofl:
"They"...who's "they"?
"They resort to those tactics"...what "tactics" ?
"...just don't know it yet." Don't know what yet?
First you suggest a directed conspiracy (Wriggle around with semantics, obfuscations and misdirections to frustrate you into giving up.); then you say "they've already given up but just don't know it yet. "
Which is it? A diabolical intention to confuse the weak minded and unsure into giving up, or a clueless theorist who has no idea what they're saying?

Tin-foil hat time!:rofl: