PDA

View Full Version : Water Boarding is Torture.



cabernetluver
05-22-2009, 06:31 PM
Today, I ran across the following from Conservative host Mancow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0

This made me remember Christopher Hitchens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

Which made me think of Jesse Ventura (a former Navy Seal) who talked about when he was water boarded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XGjpdJTDxI

Now I would not have even bothered to bring this up if it had not been for the Cheney-a-thon (both Dick and Liz) who seem to think that this is not torture.

Strange that when people are water boarded they have a different statement to make about this.

lakersrock
05-22-2009, 06:41 PM
....and the point is? Last time I checked, the previous 50 waterboarding threads came to the conclusion that it was torture. Just some of us don't care if they use it to get vital info and some do.

cabernetluver
05-22-2009, 06:51 PM
....and the point is? Last time I checked, the previous 50 waterboarding threads came to the conclusion that it was torture. Just some of us don't care if they use it to get vital info and some do.

Do you care if laws were broken? Some of us do.

Since Gonzo, in 2002 seemed to think that the law can be broken as proffered in his memo (Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23373-2004Jun7?language=printer)) before the Justice Department had written its infamous memos, I guess you now think that whatever the Obama White House does is legal?

Go ahead, I dare you, tell us you think it is legal because President Obama says its legal.

Why post it? Because Dick and his daughter keep talking about it. That answer your question?

PunkShizzle
05-22-2009, 06:57 PM
We executed Japanese soldiers after WWII for waterboarding Americans didn't we?

cabernetluver
05-22-2009, 07:32 PM
On October 21,1994 we ratified the an international treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture) to not torture.

The answer we have been given by Dick is that it kept us safe. I don't agree, but, never the less, that answer gives rise to the question, is that a legal reason.

Answer?


No!

Article 2(2) of the Convention states that: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."


So once again I say to all of you who defend it, I dare you all to say it is okay for President Obama to break the law without consequences.

ink
05-22-2009, 07:58 PM
Why post it? Because Dick and his daughter keep talking about it. That answer your question?

Very good article here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090521/pl_mcclatchy/3237981) about the omissions and inaccuracies in Cheney's recent speech:


Cheney's speech contained omissions, misstatements
Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers – Thu May 21, 7:10 pm ET

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney's defense Thursday of the Bush administration's policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.

In his address to the American Enterprise Institute , a conservative policy organization in Washington , Cheney said that the techniques the Bush administration approved, including waterboarding — simulated drowning that's considered a form of torture — forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, were "legal" and produced information that "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people."

He quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair , as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."

In a statement April 21 , however, Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general's investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to one of four top-secret Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month.

FBI Director Mueller Robert Muller told Vanity Fair magazine in December that he didn't think that the techniques disrupted any attacks.

— Cheney said that President Barack Obama's decision to release the four top-secret Bush administration memos on the interrogation techniques was "flatly contrary" to U.S. national security, and would help al Qaida train terrorists in how to resist U.S. interrogations.

However, Blair, who oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, said in his statement that he recommended the release of the memos, "strongly supported" Obama's decision to prohibit using the controversial methods and that "we do not need these techniques to keep America safe."

— Cheney said that the Bush administration "moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks."

The former vice president didn't point out that Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahri , remain at large nearly eight years after 9-11 and that the Bush administration began diverting U.S. forces, intelligence assets, time and money to planning an invasion of Iraq before it finished the war in Afghanistan against al Qaida and the Taliban .

There are now 49,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting to contain the bloodiest surge in Taliban violence since the 2001 U.S.-led intervention, and Islamic extremists also have launched their most concerted attack yet on neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan .

— Cheney denied that there was any connection between the Bush administration's interrogation policies and the abuse of detainee at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, which he blamed on "a few sadistic guards . . . in violation of American law, military regulations and simple decency."
However, a bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report in December traced the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the approval of the techniques by senior Bush administration officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld .

"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," said the report issued by Sens. Carl Levin , D- Mich. , and John McCain , R- Ariz. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality and authorized their use against detainees."

— Cheney said that "only detainees of the highest intelligence value" were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques, and he cited Khalid Sheikh Mohammad , the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks.

He didn't mention Abu Zubaydah, the first senior al Qaida operative to be captured after 9-11. Former FBI special agent Ali Soufan told a Senate subcommittee last week that his interrogation of Zubaydah using traditional methods elicited crucial information, including Mohammed's alleged role in 9-11.

The decision to use the harsh interrogation methods "was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaida ," Soufan said. Former State Department official Philip Zelikow , who in 2005 was then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's point man in an internal fight to overhaul the Bush administration's detention policies, joined Soufan in his criticism.

— Cheney said that "the key to any strategy is accurate intelligence," but the Bush administration ignored warnings from experts in the CIA , the Defense Intelligence Agency , the State Department , the Department of Energy and other agencies, and used false or exaggerated intelligence supplied by Iraqi exile groups and others to help make its case for the 2003 invasion.

Cheney made no mention of al Qaida operative Ali Mohamed al Fakheri , who's known as Ibn Sheikh al Libi , whom the Bush administration secretly turned over to Egypt for interrogation in January 2002 . While allegedly being tortured by Egyptian authorities, Libi provided false information about Iraq's links with al Qaida , which the Bush administration used despite doubts expressed by the DIA.

A state-run Libyan newspaper said Libi committed suicide recently in a Libyan jail.
— Cheney accused Obama of "the selective release" of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging that Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove that information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.
"I've formally asked that (the information) be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained," Cheney said. "Last week, that request was formally rejected."

However, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA , which said that it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits.

— Cheney said that only "ruthless enemies of this country" were detained by U.S. operatives overseas and taken to secret U.S. prisons.

A 2008 McClatchy investigation, however, found that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees captured in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan and Pakistan were innocent citizens or low-level fighters of little intelligence value who were turned over to American officials for money or because of personal or political rivalries.

In addition, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Oct. 5, 2005 , that the Bush administration had admitted to her that it had mistakenly abducted a German citizen, Khaled Masri , from Macedonia in January 2004 .

Masri reportedly was flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan , where he allegedly was abused while being interrogated. He was released in May 2004 and dumped on a remote road in Albania .
In January 2007 , the German government issued arrest warrants for 13 alleged CIA operatives on charges of kidnapping Masri.

— Cheney slammed Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and criticized his effort to persuade other countries to accept some of the detainees.

The effort to shut down the facility, however, began during Bush's second term, promoted by Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates .
"One of the things that would help a lot is, in the discussions that we have with the states of which they (detainees) are nationals, if we could get some of those countries to take them back," Rice said in a Dec. 12, 2007 , interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. "So we need help in closing Guantanamo ."

— Cheney said that, in assessing the security environment after 9-11, the Bush team had to take into account "dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists."

Cheney didn't explicitly repeat the contention he made repeatedly in office: that Saddam cooperated with al Qaida , a linkage that U.S. intelligence officials and numerous official inquiries have rebutted repeatedly.
The late Iraqi dictator's association with terrorists vacillated and was mostly aimed at quashing opponents and critics at home and abroad.

The last State Department report on international terrorism to be released before 9-11 said that Saddam's regime "has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President ( George H.W.) Bush in 1993 in Kuwait ."

A Pentagon study released last year, based on a review of 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the U.S.-led invasion, concluded that while Saddam supported militant Palestinian groups — the late terrorist Abu Nidal found refuge in Baghdad , at least until Saddam had him killed — the Iraqi security services had no "direct operational link" with al Qaida .

lakersrock
05-22-2009, 08:48 PM
Do you care if laws were broken? Some of us do.

Since Gonzo, in 2002 seemed to think that the law can be broken as proffered in his memo (Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23373-2004Jun7?language=printer)) before the Justice Department had written its infamous memos, I guess you now think that whatever the Obama White House does is legal?

Go ahead, I dare you, tell us you think it is legal because President Obama says its legal.

Why post it? Because Dick and his daughter keep talking about it. That answer your question?

Which law did they break? Don't show me an international treaty. Give me the specific law against waterboarding.

ink
05-22-2009, 09:02 PM
Which law did they break? Don't show me an international treaty. Give me the specific law against waterboarding.

If the US signs and ratifies an international treaty, it IS law. But if you want US law, here ...


Waterboarding is Illegal
By Wilson R. Huhn *
May 10, 2008

The United States has enacted statutes prohibiting torture and cruel or inhuman treatment. It is these statutes which make waterboarding illegal.[22] The four principal statutes which Congress has adopted to implement the provisions of the foregoing treaties are the Torture Act,[23] the War Crimes Act,[24],and the laws entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government”[25] and “Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[26] The first two statutes are criminal laws while the latter two statutes extend civil rights to any person in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world.

The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]

The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison, not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]

The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.

There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]

Washington University Law Review (http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/)

behindmydesk
05-22-2009, 09:32 PM
Mancow isn't a conservative. He's a shock jock, libertarian.

gcoll
05-22-2009, 10:11 PM
I never knew Mancow was a conservative. I thought he was just a Howard Stern wannabe.

That being said. I think more people have been waterboarded out of curiosity than we actually waterboarded during interrogations.

DenButsu
05-23-2009, 05:15 AM
Josh Marshall, about a week ago, asked one of his "deep thought" questions that I thought was pretty astute. Basically, it was:

If Cheney and Bush thought waterboarding was so damn imortant for national security that Cheney has to be out on TV every day defending it now, then why did they stop doing it after 2004?

ari1013
05-23-2009, 09:18 AM
Josh Marshall, about a week ago, asked one of his "deep thought" questions that I thought was pretty astute. Basically, it was:

If Cheney and Bush thought waterboarding was so damn imortant for national security that Cheney has to be out on TV every day defending it now, then why did they stop doing it after 2004?
That's what I don't really understand either. First they claimed that we didn't do it. Then they claimed that we did it but stopped. And now they're out there saying that it's what's kept us safe.

So torturing someone in 2003 or 2004 is what's led us to breakthroughs like the one this week in NY?

ink
05-23-2009, 11:12 AM
^ The Cheney media blitz sounds like garden variety *** covering to me.

cabernetluver
05-23-2009, 01:36 PM
I log on to answer the lengthy challenge that I invited and it is already done.

Ink it is deeper than what you said. It is trying to write their own history. I don't blame them, but, it is not within their ability. It seems that in the long run, their legacy will be that of having wrecked an economy, hurt international relations, and last but not least, ignoring the biggest threat to the United States from foreign attack until after the attack took place.

The utter failure of their eight years are the reason why Bush is held in such low esteem by current historians, and I am guessing it will be lower in the future.

ink
05-23-2009, 01:41 PM
I log on to answer the lengthy challenge that I invited and it is already done.

Ink it is deeper than what you said. It is trying to write their own history. I don't blame them, but, it is not within their ability. It seems that in the long run, their legacy will be that of having wrecked an economy, hurt international relations, and last but not least, ignoring the biggest threat to the United States from foreign attack until after the attack took place.

The utter failure of their eight years are the reason why Bush is held in such low esteem by current historians, and I am guessing it will be lower in the future.

Oh I know. It's an entire career, a legacy, and an outlook that they're trying desperately to cement in history before it washes away in ignominy. But on a certain level, it really is *** covering. Look at the mess ...

Sandman
05-23-2009, 01:46 PM
It's just a new technique that's not specifically and illicitly banned. The more they suppress it, the longer they can let it go on by re-wording what they're doing and semantically attacking the geneva convention.

ink
05-23-2009, 06:04 PM
Today, I ran across the following from Conservative host Mancow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0


("Mancow"'s remarks after the Waterboarding experiment.)

"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that’s no joke ... It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back… It was instantaneous… and I don’t want to say this: absolutely torture."

Pretty persuasive.

cabernetluver
05-23-2009, 08:06 PM
So, in summary, we all now agree that waterboarding is torture, that ordering waterboarding is a violation of the law.

Therefore, with the continuing dog and pony Dick & Liz show bringing this back up, I once again challenge those of you who have defended it, to just step right up and say it is ok for President Obama to break the law because if the president does it, it is not illegal.

Now don't ask me to say that, because as a leftie, I would never say it is ok for someone to break the law without consequences. Do those of you who defend it think it is ok to break laws without consequences?

gcoll
05-23-2009, 10:46 PM
Pretty persuasive.
Except Mancow is an idiot. Use Hitchens as your go to "waterboarded" fellow.

Plus Mancow is one of those radio personalities that you're glad don't exist in Canada.

If Cheney and Bush thought waterboarding was so damn imortant for national security that Cheney has to be out on TV every day defending it now, then why did they stop doing it after 2004?
They only had a handful of high level guys right?

It's not like they waterboarded everyone.

Now don't ask me to say that, because as a leftie, I would never say it is ok for someone to break the law without consequences.
wtf?

Lefties do realize that illegal immigrants broke the law, right?

Do those of you who defend it think it is ok to break laws without consequences?
No. I'm fine if there are consequences. I just think it's a waste of time in this scenario.

ink
05-23-2009, 11:27 PM
Except Mancow is an idiot. Use Hitchens as your go to "waterboarded" fellow.

Mancow has an audience that agreed with his previous statements, so it's significant.


Plus Mancow is one of those radio personalities that you're glad don't exist in Canada.

You got that right.

QuietWyatt
05-24-2009, 12:10 AM
I swear the Cheneys remind me of the Addams family.

gcoll
05-24-2009, 12:36 AM
Mancow has an audience that agreed with his previous statements, so it's significant.
Mancow's audience is insignificant. He's not even syndicated anymore. I think he's on a local Chicago radio station.


You got that right.
lol. If I knew anything about Canadian television or radio personalities...I could nail ya.

The only one I really know is Don Cherry. He says some pretty funny/over the top stuff from time to time. Certainly doesn't think much of European hockey players. In fact, his personality and quite a few of his views would fit in quite well with American talk radio. Canadians love that guy.

DenButsu
05-24-2009, 12:53 AM
If I knew anything about Canadian television or radio personalities...I could nail ya.

The only ones I know are these guys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVJxhhjXY04&feature=related).

ink
05-24-2009, 01:03 AM
Mancow's audience is insignificant. He's not even syndicated anymore. I think he's on a local Chicago radio station.


From what I read he's had an audience share of 11.2. Not insignificant. Besides it got international play and hundreds of thousands of views on the web.


The only ones I know are these guys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVJxhhjXY04&feature=related).

Funny thing about them is that they're spoofing guys like Cherry. They'd probably want their waterboarding done with beer.

DodgersFan28
05-25-2009, 11:10 AM
Now don't ask me to say that, because as a leftie, I would never say it is ok for someone to break the law without consequences.

So what consequences should Gavin Newsome face for allowing gay marriages despite what the law says? What consequences should all those in favor of illegal immigration face?

cabernetluver
05-25-2009, 02:08 PM
So what consequences should Gavin Newsome face for allowing gay marriages despite what the law says? What consequences should all those in favor of illegal immigration face?

You ask two questions, one which I am unaware of the law and the consequences of breaking it if it exists and one is just plain silly.

1. I don't know what law was broken by Newsome allowing gay marriages. Now don't get me wrong, at that point in time the court had not ruled that they were legal, but I don't know what law was broken. If a law was broken, I don't know what the consequences in that law are. So, if you would like to enlighten me on what law he broke, specifically what statute, I would consider myself better educated. At that point I could look it up and see what it says.

2.There is no law for being in favor of anything. If you can point out the law that I break for being in favor of something, and by that I mean point out the specific statute, I would be better educated. So please show it to me and we both will be on equal footing.

Since you have decided to do what you do, which is move the conversation, when you come back, why don't you tell me that you think it is ok for President Obama to break specific statutes because he is the president, or if I have you wrong, why don't you state that President Bush and Vice President Cheney should pay for their misdeeds.

Jerry34
05-26-2009, 11:20 AM
Mancow's audience is insignificant. He's not even syndicated anymore. I think he's on a local Chicago radio station.


Mancow's now on 890 AM in Chicago sandwiched between Don & Roma and Rush Limbaugh. So he has been instantly significant with Republicans in Chicago.
I work with a lot of right wing people and they were telling me to turn on Mancow last week because he was going to show that water boarding was no big deal. They were not happy with the results.

Randy West
05-26-2009, 01:31 PM
Why don't Dick and Liz just go away??

They were so a few years ago

ink
05-26-2009, 02:24 PM
Matthew Alexander (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/former-interrogator-rebuk_n_207483.html) (military interrogator who oversaw more than 1,000 interrogations, conducted 300 of them himself in Iraq) dismantling Cheney's argument for torture ...

Just one quote from Alexander:


"Remember, one of Al Qaeda's goals, it's not just to attack the United States, it's to prove that we're hypocrites, that we don't live up to American principles. So when we use torture and abuse, we're playing directly into one of their stated goals."

blenderboy5
05-26-2009, 03:04 PM
We executed Japanese soldiers after WWII for waterboarding Americans didn't we?

Common misconception. The Japanese soldiers we executed were punished for 20 things. Waterboarding is, at best, 19th on that list.


That being said. I think more people have been waterboarded out of curiosity than we actually waterboarded during interrogations.

It seems that have of the mainstream media has waterboarded itself.

SmthBluCitrus
05-26-2009, 03:06 PM
Common misconception. The Japanese soldiers we executed were punished for 20 things. Waterboarding is, at best, 19th on that list.

Yet ... it's on the list.

gcoll
05-26-2009, 11:49 PM
It seems that have of the mainstream media has waterboarded itself.
Yeah. And protesters have waterboarded each other quite a bit as well.

Yet ... it's on the list.
We won that war. The winner gets to punish the loser. That's how it goes.

cabernetluver
05-27-2009, 09:43 AM
We won that war. The winner gets to punish the loser. That's how it goes.

Go back and study history. When the winner punishes the loser, all the winner does is create the next conflict.

When the winner helps rebuild the loser, the winner insures prosperity for all.

Example, how the winner treated Germany following WWI as opposed to WWII.

Now if you want to say the winner writes the history books, that would be true but your statement is the same as might makes right. That is Cheney world, and in the end, causes us all to be the losers.

dbroncos78087
05-27-2009, 09:56 AM
Go back and study history. When the winner punishes the loser, all the winner does is create the next conflict.

When the winner helps rebuild the loser, the winner insures prosperity for all.

Example, how the winner treated Germany following WWI as opposed to WWII.

Now if you want to say the winner writes the history books, that would be true but your statement is the same as might makes right. That is Cheney world, and in the end, causes us all to be the losers.

Pretty much, the winner punishing the loser is how we get terror states. Attempting to bring the new leadership into the fold is the only proper way. Not everyone will want to incorporate, and that is to be expected, but to not try because it is more difficult is unacceptable in my book.

blenderboy5
05-27-2009, 04:16 PM
Yet ... it's on the list.

But it's not why they were executed for war crimes.

If I get into a car accident and slam into a pedestrian going 80 mph and I'm drunk and not wearing a seatbelt and driving uninsured and without a license, is anyone gonig to care that my shoes don't match my shirt?

SmthBluCitrus
05-27-2009, 04:24 PM
But it's not why they were executed for war crimes.

If I get into a car accident and slam into a pedestrian going 80 mph and I'm drunk and not wearing a seatbelt and driving uninsured and without a license, is anyone gonig to care that my shoes don't match my shirt?

Hardly the same thing.

blenderboy5
05-27-2009, 05:50 PM
Of course it was an overexaggeration.

But comparing waterboarding to the awful tortuous punishments the Japanese did is an insult to any of the American POW's who suffered at the hands of the Japanese.

cabernetluver
05-27-2009, 05:58 PM
Try this one on.

It is just not legal as shown in this 1983 case down in Texas

NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834)


Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

I bring this up just to get off of the Japanese discussion. I can bring up others, but this one is relatively current and happened here.

blenderboy5
05-27-2009, 06:17 PM
Try this one on.

It is just not legal as shown in this 1983 case down in Texas

NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834)



I bring this up just to get off of the Japanese discussion. I can bring up others, but this one is relatively current and happened here.

Of course waterboarding is torture. And waterboarding civilians, even non-innocent ones, is even worse (hence the execution of a japanese man for waterboarding a US civilian).

I was pointing out that most of the japanese war criminals executed were punished for things far worse than waterboarding, not trying to say waterboarding wasn't torture.

gcoll
05-27-2009, 06:51 PM
Go back and study history. When the winner punishes the loser, all the winner does is create the next conflict.

Pretty much, the winner punishing the loser is how we get terror states.

Did either of you read what situation I was talking about? It was in reference to us punishing Japanese soldiers. I'm pretty sure that Japan is neither a terror state, nor are we currently at war with them, so I'm not sure what you two are talking about.

I also wasn't talking about entire countries, but individuals. The Marshall Plan didn't stop us from trying Nazis for war crimes. We tried the Japanese as well. I'm not sure if Russia, or the US, or Britain was ever charged with any misconduct during WW2. Were they?

cabernetluver
05-27-2009, 07:09 PM
Did either of you read what situation I was talking about? It was in reference to us punishing Japanese soldiers. I'm pretty sure that Japan is neither a terror state, nor are we currently at war with them, so I'm not sure what you two are talking about.

I also wasn't talking about entire countries, but individuals. The Marshall Plan didn't stop us from trying Nazis for war crimes. We tried the Japanese as well. I'm not sure if Russia, or the US, or Britain was ever charged with any misconduct during WW2. Were they?

Did you read what you wrote and say to yourself, hmmmmmmmm what I meant was individuals, not countries so what I am writing is crystal clear? If you think it is, than we have a distinct disagreement over style. What I read was

We won that war. The winner gets to punish the loser. That's how it goes.

To me that means the winner gets to do what ever it wants to do because it was the winner, therefore....


And as you pointed out, there were trials, without torture. Seems to me we made a good example for our future relationship. Not at all what you are representing.

gcoll
05-28-2009, 12:23 AM
^Yeah. My fault. Wasn't clear enough.

And we still did punish Japan. I'm pretty sure we banned them from having a military.

We also dropped nukes on two of their cities, which I think is a bit more extreme than waterboarding a couple people. Which will make it funny if someone goes to jail over this current situation.

DenButsu
05-28-2009, 01:11 AM
^Yeah. My fault. Wasn't clear enough.

And we still did punish Japan. I'm pretty sure we banned them from having a military.

We also dropped nukes on two of their cities, which I think is a bit more extreme than waterboarding a couple people. Which will make it funny if someone goes to jail over this current situation.

Two things about this:

1). When the U.S. set up the Japanese constitution so as to prevent them from establishing a military, it was hardly a punishment. In fact, it was one of the best favors we ever did for them, and in a big way it was the foundation of their economic recovery and later economic surge that their government spending was not burdened by the enormous cost of building and maintaining a military. It has been an economic luxury that few countries can afford. True, they actually do pay the U.S. in exchange for the military protection we provide for them. But as I understand it the comparative cost of that payment vs. what it would take for them to operate their own military is much, much cheaper.

2. Many do believe that in fact the two atomic bombings were at least unnecessary and at worst war crimes. But either way, that doesn't really serve as an example which fits into this conversation, since the Japanese never imprisoned any Americans responsible for the bombings (notably Truman himself) and were never faced with the question of deciding their fates. We on the other hand did try them for war crimes, and even if it was only one aspect of their guilt, waterboarding their prisoners was in fact among the reasons they were found guilty and executed.

gcoll
05-28-2009, 04:35 AM
We on the other hand did try them for war crimes, and even if it was only one aspect of their guilt, waterboarding their prisoners was in fact among the reasons they were found guilty and executed.
Yeah. But Richard Ramirez was also charged with burglary. It's dishonest to say he's on death row for burglary. Did we execute them for waterboarding, or were there other, more serious, charges?

DenButsu
05-28-2009, 06:16 AM
The Truth-O-Meter Says: True

" ... following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."
-John McCain on Thursday, November 29th, 2007 in a campaign event in St. Petersburg



History supports McCain's stance on waterboarding

The morning after the CNN/YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, John McCain remained firm in his stand against the use of an interrogation technique called "waterboarding." He cited solid history to buttress his position.

"I forgot to mention last night that following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding," he told reporters at a campaign event.

"If the United States is in another conflict ... and we have allowed that kind of torture to be inflicted upon people we hold captive, then there is nothing to prevent that enemy from also torturing American prisoners."

McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as "water cure," "water torture" and "waterboarding," according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.

R. John Pritchard, a historian and lawyer who is a top scholar on the trials, said the Japanese felt the ends justified the means. "The rapid and effective collection of intelligence then, as now, was seen as vital to a successful struggle, and in addition, those who were engaged in torture often felt that whatever pain and anguish was suffered by the victims of torture was nothing less than the just deserts of the victims or people close to them," he said.

In a recent journal essay, Judge Evan Wallach, a member of the U.S. Court of International Trade and an adjunct professor in the law of war, writes that the testimony from American soldiers about this form of torture was gruesome and convincing. A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps.

We find McCain's retelling of history to be accurate, so we give him a True.politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/)

blenderboy5
05-28-2009, 03:44 PM
politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/)

See, that's still a bit disingenuos. Remember Tookie Williams, the gang member from California? He was also convicted of robbery, but it was probably the four murders that got him executed first.

Doc Fluty
05-28-2009, 03:49 PM
Do you care if laws were broken? Some of us do.

Since Gonzo, in 2002 seemed to think that the law can be broken as proffered in his memo (Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23373-2004Jun7?language=printer)) before the Justice Department had written its infamous memos, I guess you now think that whatever the Obama White House does is legal?

Go ahead, I dare you, tell us you think it is legal because President Obama says its legal.

Why post it? Because Dick and his daughter keep talking about it. That answer your question?

do i care if laws are broken... hmmm

let me get your take on the immigration laws being broke everyday...

hold on.. let me get a chair

cabernetluver
05-28-2009, 03:56 PM
do i care if laws are broken... hmmm

let me get your take on the immigration laws being broke everyday...

hold on.. let me get a chair

Why don't you tell me specifically which law you are writing about, include the statute so that I can look it up, then I can comment. Now get out of the chair and return with a specific and I will get up.

Doc Fluty
05-28-2009, 04:04 PM
cmon now... you know what I'm talking about.

the fact that illegals can come here, get arrested and be back out on the streets within hours.

how cities councils are "outraged" over drivers license checkpoints because they "unfairly targets the illegal population without drivers licenses".

and many other issues...

my point is.. seeing is how your a big proponent of upholding our nations laws. do you support deporting persons who are caught here illegally?

cabernetluver
05-28-2009, 04:08 PM
cmon now... you know what I'm talking about.

the fact that illegals can come here, get arrested and be back out on the streets within hours.

how cities councils are "outraged" over drivers license checkpoints because they "unfairly targets the illegal population without drivers licenses".

and many other issues...

my point is.. seeing is how your a big proponent of upholding our nations laws. do you support deporting persons who are caught here illegally?

Sure, with due process, but even more important to me would be confiscating the businesses of all of the business owners who hire them. Then I would want to throw them in jail. With due process.

How about you?

cabernetluver
05-28-2009, 04:09 PM
I am going to take the chair back now.

cabernetluver
05-28-2009, 04:10 PM
In fact, I would enforce against the business owners first.

cabernetluver
05-28-2009, 04:10 PM
Back to the chair

Doc Fluty
05-28-2009, 04:15 PM
yes throw them in jail. if they knowingly hired illegal immigrants i would support jail time. I wouldn't hire any illegal immigrants in my company. I pay all the appropriate taxes on employees and document everything just how i am supposed too.

if someone tries to hire illegals because they want to pay them under the table, avoid taxes, shun medical benifits, not pay into unemployment taxes or to avoid higher payrolls.. then yes... they should be in jail for fraud.

confiscating the business seems a little dramatic and should be on a case by case scenario

side note...funny story... my daughter, wife and I drove from Los Angeles to Indiana last week. and while there i got my car washed to get rid of the road grime..

my wife (who was an illegal immigrant at the time) thought it was hilarious that not one person working at the car wash was hispanic... full of white guys... then she proceeded to show me how they didn't do as good as a job as the Hispanics in LA. I told her that i was because of the 2400 miles worth of bugs and dirt... but she thought it to be amusing none the less... but my point to her was yes, whites will work at car washes and work in fields if the pay is right

blenderboy5
05-28-2009, 04:44 PM
Sure, with due process, but even more important to me would be confiscating the businesses of all of the business owners who hire them. Then I would want to throw them in jail. With due process.

How about you?

Confiscating the businesses? Maybe the last eight months or so have led you to believe that it's okay for the government to drastically interfere in business to the point of seizing companies, but that's still not cool.

Q: What constitutional justification could the government use to seize businesses because they hire illegals?

A: None.

Massive fines and prison terms would be much more effective.

cabernetluver
05-28-2009, 05:38 PM
Confiscating the businesses? Maybe the last eight months or so have led you to believe that it's okay for the government to drastically interfere in business to the point of seizing companies, but that's still not cool.

Q: What constitutional justification could the government use to seize businesses because they hire illegals?

A: None.

Massive fines and prison terms would be much more effective.

Oh, I am just structuring the fines to be so massive that they amount to forfeiture. However, I think RICO would apply.

Doc Fluty
05-28-2009, 05:54 PM
no no no cab...

i answered your question in my last post... now you answer mine

if ICE raids a building and pulls out 100 illegals... should they be deported or should they stay?

do you care for all laws that are broken, or just the ones you approve of?

gcoll
05-28-2009, 06:00 PM
The harsher fines on businesses, was about the only proposition that passed here in Arizona that we were allowed to keep. It seems like every time we'd try to pass tougher immigration laws, it'd get turned over in court, and fought by the state government. ****ing Napalitano.

cabernetluver
05-28-2009, 06:41 PM
no no no cab...

i answered your question in my last post... now you answer mine

if ICE raids a building and pulls out 100 illegals... should they be deported or should they stay?

do you care for all laws that are broken, or just the ones you approve of?

I did answer you, #50 in this thread.

As far as laws I don't approve of, in my younger more active years, if there was a law we did not approve of, like the Jim Crow laws, we would disobey the law with the intention that we knew we would be punished. We felt if we did this enough, laws would change, but we accepted the consequences of our actions.

So, you go back and read what I wrote, in direct response to you, and add that to what I just wrote, and it should be clear that I have no problem with disobeying a law that I find unjust, but, I would do that only if I was willing to pay the price.

DenButsu
05-28-2009, 10:20 PM
See, that's still a bit disingenuos. Remember Tookie Williams, the gang member from California? He was also convicted of robbery, but it was probably the four murders that got him executed first.

That's a ridiculous statement and a ridiculous analogy. The specific prisoners in question were being tried for torture, and torture with water (including waterboarding) was at the top of the list. It's not as if they said, "Oh yeah, and in addition to all the other crap they did, they waterboarded too so let's throw that charge in just for good measure." It was right there at the very heart of what they were being tried for. It was central, not peripheral such as your Tookie Williams example.

It's only one post down, but to recap:


McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as "water cure," "water torture" and "waterboarding," according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.

R. John Pritchard, a historian and lawyer who is a top scholar on the trials, said the Japanese felt the ends justified the means. "The rapid and effective collection of intelligence then, as now, was seen as vital to a successful struggle, and in addition, those who were engaged in torture often felt that whatever pain and anguish was suffered by the victims of torture was nothing less than the just deserts of the victims or people close to them," he said.

As a side point, the second graf there is relevant, too. Because the question has been asked often - and never adequately answered - "Why don't we waterboard mafia and gang members to break up crime syndicates?" The real reason that real proponents of torture don't want to admit (but really are feeling, imho), is that the justification of torture goes well beyond the stated need for national security. It's acceptable to do it to them because of who they are just as much as because of what they might know.

But I digress. Waterboarding was most definitely central in the case of Japanese war criminals, and there are other legal precedents as well. This sucker's 42 pages long, but if you want to see a detailed analysis on the legal history of torture in the United States and how Yoo's attempted justification of the Bush Administration's torture stands up to that precedent, have at it:

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:AzkQQR6JOHUJ:www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf

===========================
=============================

And how the hell did this turn into a thread about immigration? Gettin' waaaaaay off topic.

cabernetluver
05-29-2009, 12:16 PM
You may have noticed that I put my stress on the business owners who knowingly break the laws, because, it is they who entice people to break the law. Within the context of this thread, that is exactly the problem with how we dealt with the torture of people who we held.

The people who ordered it should be punished.

b1e9a8r5s
05-29-2009, 02:37 PM
Since this thread started talking about Mancow getting waterboarded, I thought I'd let everyone know that there is now some doubt as to weather it was a hoax....

Mancow, Was The Waterboarding All A Hoax?

Shock-jock claimed waterboarding was torture, but was it a stunt?

By PEGGY CASSIDY

Updated 10:59 AM CDT, Fri, May 29, 2009

Related Topics: Linda Shafran

Mancow's no dummy -- but he supposedly submitted to waterboarding anyway.

If his waterboarding stunt was staged for publicity, it worked: More people than ever now know who Erich "Mancow" Muller is.

Watch Mancow Waterboarding Stunt

Watch VideoWLS radio host Mancow Muller subjects himself to waterboarding.
Muller has held on to top headlines for over a week now, after, first being waterboarded in front of TV cameras, and then loudly pronouncing an "ideological conversion," from right-wing shockjock, ala Howard Stern, to an outspoken critic of the wartime procedure, which he said is torture.

Now, Gawker has Mancow back in the spotlight as it presents evidence that the whole episode may have been faked.

"A tipster has provided information that suggests the whole thing may be a hoax," Gawker reported Thursday.

The evidence comes in the form of a series of emails exchanged between the DJ's publicist, Linda Shafran, and David Kupcinet, -- grandson of legendary Chicago newspaper columnist Irv Kupcinet. Shafran apparently wanted to know if Kupcinet, an advocate for a Chicago veterans' foundation, could hook her up with a soldier to act as the waterboarder.

The emails, presented more fully in the Gawker article, seem to indicate that the publicist was attempting to arrange a "hoax" that would look real.

"It's going to have to look 'real,' but of course would be simulated with Mancow acting like he is drowning," she wrote on May 21. She later told Gawker that she had misspoken and was mistaken.

Either way, Shafran got her client lots of the attention he craves. But finding out whether Mancow was really tortured or the public simply soaked may require waterboarding Shafran.


http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/entertainment/Report-Claims-Mancow-Torture-Was-a-Hoax.html

ink
05-29-2009, 02:46 PM
Non-issue IMO. If you don't believe Mancow, ask one of the interrogators who have already come forward to discredit the excuses made for torture.

Here's one:

Matthew Alexander (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/former-interrogator-rebuk_n_207483.html) (military interrogator who oversaw more than 1,000 interrogations, conducted 300 of them himself in Iraq) dismantling Cheney's argument for torture ...

Just one quote from Alexander:


"Remember, one of Al Qaeda's goals, it's not just to attack the United States, it's to prove that we're hypocrites, that we don't live up to American principles. So when we use torture and abuse, we're playing directly into one of their stated goals."

cabernetluver
05-29-2009, 02:53 PM
Since this thread started talking about Mancow getting waterboarded, I thought I'd let everyone know that there is now some doubt as to weather it was a hoax....

Mancow, Was The Waterboarding All A Hoax?

Shock-jock claimed waterboarding was torture, but was it a stunt?

By PEGGY CASSIDY

Updated 10:59 AM CDT, Fri, May 29, 2009

Related Topics: Linda Shafran

Mancow's no dummy -- but he supposedly submitted to waterboarding anyway.

If his waterboarding stunt was staged for publicity, it worked: More people than ever now know who Erich "Mancow" Muller is.

Watch Mancow Waterboarding Stunt

Watch VideoWLS radio host Mancow Muller subjects himself to waterboarding.
Muller has held on to top headlines for over a week now, after, first being waterboarded in front of TV cameras, and then loudly pronouncing an "ideological conversion," from right-wing shockjock, ala Howard Stern, to an outspoken critic of the wartime procedure, which he said is torture.

Now, Gawker has Mancow back in the spotlight as it presents evidence that the whole episode may have been faked.

"A tipster has provided information that suggests the whole thing may be a hoax," Gawker reported Thursday.

The evidence comes in the form of a series of emails exchanged between the DJ's publicist, Linda Shafran, and David Kupcinet, -- grandson of legendary Chicago newspaper columnist Irv Kupcinet. Shafran apparently wanted to know if Kupcinet, an advocate for a Chicago veterans' foundation, could hook her up with a soldier to act as the waterboarder.

The emails, presented more fully in the Gawker article, seem to indicate that the publicist was attempting to arrange a "hoax" that would look real.

"It's going to have to look 'real,' but of course would be simulated with Mancow acting like he is drowning," she wrote on May 21. She later told Gawker that she had misspoken and was mistaken.

Either way, Shafran got her client lots of the attention he craves. But finding out whether Mancow was really tortured or the public simply soaked may require waterboarding Shafran.


from Gawker (http://gawker.com/5272691/mancows-waterboarding-was-completely-fake?skyline=true&s=x) site


UPDATE: Mancow called us back to say that even though his waterboarder didn't know what he was doing, and his publicist called the whole thing a "hoax," it wasn't supposed to be a REALLY real waterboarding to begin with. Just the radio stunt kind! "Of course I wasn't a radical terrorist," he said. "Of course it was simulated. To compare what I went through to what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed went through—of course it was not the same. I'm sure it was worse for them."
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/entertainment/Report-Claims-Mancow-Torture-Was-a-Hoax.html

from Mancows (http://www.mancow.com/blog;jsessionid=65A58ED420C20FAF24CFE66A6AC2A18F?a ction=viewBlog&blogID=521421563598514252) site



I am not a magician. Many news cameras were there!

Obviously, it was on the radio and I wasn't in prison. I'm also not a radicalized Muslim terrorist. But it was not a hoax! I repeat: NOT A HOAX.

We kept telling management, the insurance companies, and the local Chicago cops we weren't really going to do it until we did. Otherwise, they weren't gonna let us do it! We got a U.S. Marine that told us he had studied how to do it and he volunteered to waterboard me in return for a mention of his charity.

I was on a decline and I was waterboarded. Was I in chains? No. Does that make it less real? I am failing to get the point attempted by my detractors. We never claimed it was an exact recreation.

The CIA technique is exactly what we did:

1. Keep the chest elevated above the head and neck to keep the lungs "above the waterline."

2. Incline the head, both to keep the throat open and to present the nostrils for easier filling.

3. Force the mouth open so that water can be poured into both the nose and mouth.

Sorry, I thought for years it wasn't torture and now I do. The video is there for all to see.

The left has taken my message and distorted it as well. Would I wanterboard to save my daughters (or any American children)? Yes!

The three terrorists that were waterboarded at Guantanamo were done so by military professionals. And it was done to save lives with America's best interests at heart. Mine was a silly radio time filler in comparison. Its apples & hand grenades!

It would be insane to equate what I did with anything that happens in prison. I am simply a free man in a radio studio that always tries to get inside the big issues. This is an ugly issue with no easy answers. But I now see it's easier for some to dismiss me than to do any real soul searching on this very heady issue.




First, Mancow was one of three links I posted, as the newest, but he was not the sole reason why I started this thread, just the latest.

Second, Gawker is a gossip site, not a news site. Anything on their should be looked at with a jaundiced eye for truth.

Finally, even if it were a goof to get publicity, it does not change what Hitchens went through, what Ventura went through, and it does not change the fact that Hannity would not go through it, frankly, because he knows it is torture and like any reasonable person who knew something was torture, would not subject themselves to it.

SmthBluCitrus
05-29-2009, 03:12 PM
If Mancow being waterboarded was a "hoax," why didn't he man up and say that it was no big deal? Wouldn't that have resulted in a larger ratings increase for him; especially among conservatives?

gcoll
05-29-2009, 06:03 PM
If Mancow being waterboarded was a "hoax," why didn't he man up and say that it was no big deal? Wouldn't that have resulted in a larger ratings increase for him; especially among conservatives?

I don't know. Mancow is a douche bag though. Not sure what his motivations are. He started out as a Howard Stern wannabe. He then tried to become a right wing talk radio host. Even schmoozed with Bill O'reilly over how terrible "shock jocks" are.

So...I don't know what his goal is. I just know that he's a douche bag. Which is why I won't refer to him.

But, "conservative radio host says waterboarding is torture" is a big story in the mainstream press. If he said it wasn't, I doubt anyone would have paid much attention to him, except conservatives.

*note: I wouldn't have though. I'm not 'hating on' Mancow just because he said waterboarding is torture. I legitimately can't stand that douche bag.


it does not change what Hitchens went through, what Ventura went through, and it does not change the fact that Hannity would not go through it
Hitchens is the only one that has legitimacy with me. Ventura is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist.