Cheney enters 'torture' memos row

[Robor]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The grave danger I spoke about previously is making our interrogation methods known to the world. The memo discusses exactly how they have to performed and that removes any fear and all bite from them, effectively eradicating any potential coersion. That's what's going to come back and bite us in the ass. Our enemies know exactly what we do now. Cheney releasing the memos at this point on the suceses of those methods doesn't change a thing, so trying to paint me as some hypocrite for bitching about the original memos being released just doesn't fly because you haven't comprehended why I was complaining in the first place.

In addition, this has already been cherry-picked to favor one political side of the aisle. It's alittle too late to claim it's not fair if we even out the story and tell both sides. That doesn't fly either.

In regard to your claim that torture may be effective, that could be so. That's not my claim though. My claim is that our interrogation methods, which nobody has actually shown to qualify legally as torture under our laws, were effective. All the hullabaloo with conflating how the Chinese, Russians, Nazis or anyone else applied their techniques (just like Jonks did in his post above) is a lame attempt at equivocation and is ultimately pure FUD.

How, in your mind, does someone knowing about a specific method of torture make it less effective? If I owe money to the mob, and I know that they will rip out my fingernails with pliers if they catch me, it's not going to make me more likely to get caught. It's certainly not going to make me think, "meh, I already know what to expect, so this will be a cakewalk." Torture is torture. Knowing about it in advance isn't going to make ripping someone's fingernails off with pliers any less painful. Knowing about waterboarding in advance isn't going to make it a comfortable experience.

Jessus jumping H on a pogo stick. Erm, we aren't ripping out fingernails. We aren't inserting bamboo shoots under them either. We aren't attaching jumper cables to testicles and pumping up the juice or anything resembling that.

The hyperbole on this subject is outrageous. You guys are trying to make it sound like we're placing the detainess in iron maidens and Igor is stretching them out on the rack. It's no wonder that none of you can have any sort of level-headed discussion about this when you blow the methods we used completely out of proportion and try to wrongly equate them with all sorts of atrocities.

When you overstate your case like that, you lose any credibility on the issue. You are trying to turn into a bunch of screaming twits yelling 'OMG, TORTURE TORTURE TORTURE.' I can only think that the reason people are doing that is to attempt to drown out anyone who wants to reasonably discuss the aspects of this because you guys know that, essentially, you don't have any reasonable counter argument.

You didn't address his point. How is knowing about torture going to make it less effective?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Cheney is taking an affirmative defense - simply trying to reduce his criminal culpability.

I think the torture house of cards is imploding around these clowns ...

First Defense: "We don't Torture."
Second Defense: "On occasion we use 'enhanced' interrogation techniques. We don't waterboard"
Third Defense: "We only waterboarded a few times to prevent imminent attacks."
Fourth Defense: "We only waterboarded the 'worst of the worst' (several hundred times)."
Fifth Defense: "Our Torture was effective."


The initial defense of the use of torture (widely used by Bush administration officials) was the "ticking bomb scenario."

Now the best they got are dubious claims of ***effectiveness***


Give 'em enough rope .....

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
My claim is that our interrogation methods, which nobody has actually shown to qualify legally as torture under our laws, were effective.

The decision to destroy the tapes was made by Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., who was the head of the CIA Directorate of Operations (purportedly - think he was on Cheney's speed dial?).

1) Republicans have opposed the direct codification of interrogation techniques as outlined in the Army Field Manual because intelligence officials would lose ""valuable tools"" and "specialized interrogation procedures" (Bush words);

2) Republicans have opposed ouitlawing such ""valuable tools"" as waterboarding, hypothermia or mock executions, withholding food, water and medical treatment, hooding prisoners, stripping them naked, forcing them to perform or mimic sexual acts, or beating, electrocuting, burning or otherwise physically hurting them, and the use of dogs;

3) The Republicans heretofore have said that "specialized interrogation procedures" are necessary up to the "pain equivalent to organ failure and death"; and

4) The former Republican administration implied they only ""waterboarded"" (tortured) 3 suspects.



They said they destroyed 2 videotapes (obstruction of justice) in 2005. The current tally is the destruction (obstruction of justice) of 92 videotapes.



I don't give a shit what you claim.

Yeah, just ignore the methods being effective. Doesn't fit your talking points.

Have you been taking P&N posting lessons from Harvey?

Clearly .... you have nothing.

Can't argue the facts? Misdirect. Obfuscate. Attack.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Torture is good.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Torture is good.

:disgust: Remember that next time one of our brave men/women are subjected to it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Torture is good.

And wine isn't a drug, yes yes, we get it, you live in OppositeLand.

 

[Lemon law]

Actually, this thread and other similar threads on this broad torture subject are little changed from what has been posted for many years on Anand Tech.

The main new difference lies mainly in the amount of new things we have learned, as we learn what has been long speculated is now, in fact, confirmed as hard and verified facts. And I expect the coming weeks and months will bring out far many more unpleasant facts, especially if congress opens up various investigations.

And my guess is that we may soon learn if there will start to be, first in a trickle, but later as a flood, a set of domestic and foreign criminal indictments as the next logical step. And as various mid-level people get indicted, their best bet may be to implicate those higher up on the food chain. Overall, Dick Cheney may be playing a more dangerous game than he thinks, as his credibility continues to erode.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Have you been taking P&N posting lessons from Harvey?

You're not going to convince anyone you're right and they're wrong by showering them with compliments. :laugh:

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Torture is good.

Never mind that you're too chickenshit to volunteer as a crash test dummy to prove it. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's beginning to look like Pelosi may have known about us using this 'interrogation technique' for years and never raised any objections. The plot thickens.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
It's beginning to look like Pelosi may have known about us using this 'interrogation technique' for years and never raised any objections. The plot thickens.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are correct about a host of Democratic and Republican politicians who should have known better and done more to stop the torture.

And while they may share a moral guilt greater than the American public who also sat silent
while torture occurred, they do not share the legal vulnerabilities of people like Cheney and his ilk who conspired to conduct torture while not disclosing its full extent to the Public or Congress.

And while I am sure Cheney & his ilk will raise the defense that it unfair to just single us out for Prosecution, its a defense that probably will not fly as quite a few rats may luck out even as a larger justice prevails. In the end, its the folks who get indicted that have the legal liability. Cheney can save that defense for the appeals.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The grave danger I spoke about previously is making our interrogation methods known to the world. The memo discusses exactly how they have to performed and that removes any fear and all bite from them, effectively eradicating any potential coersion. That's what's going to come back and bite us in the ass. Our enemies know exactly what we do now. Cheney releasing the memos at this point on the suceses of those methods doesn't change a thing, so trying to paint me as some hypocrite for bitching about the original memos being released just doesn't fly because you haven't comprehended why I was complaining in the first place.

In addition, this has already been cherry-picked to favor one political side of the aisle. It's alittle too late to claim it's not fair if we even out the story and tell both sides. That doesn't fly either.

In regard to your claim that torture may be effective, that could be so. That's not my claim though. My claim is that our interrogation methods, which nobody has actually shown to qualify legally as torture under our laws, were effective. All the hullabaloo with conflating how the Chinese, Russians, Nazis or anyone else applied their techniques (just like Jonks did in his post above) is a lame attempt at equivocation and is ultimately pure FUD.

How, in your mind, does someone knowing about a specific method of torture make it less effective? If I owe money to the mob, and I know that they will rip out my fingernails with pliers if they catch me, it's not going to make me more likely to get caught. It's certainly not going to make me think, "meh, I already know what to expect, so this will be a cakewalk." Torture is torture. Knowing about it in advance isn't going to make ripping someone's fingernails off with pliers any less painful. Knowing about waterboarding in advance isn't going to make it a comfortable experience.

Jessus jumping H on a pogo stick. Erm, we aren't ripping out fingernails. We aren't inserting bamboo shoots under them either. We aren't attaching jumper cables to testicles and pumping up the juice or anything resembling that.

The hyperbole on this subject is outrageous. You guys are trying to make it sound like we're placing the detainess in iron maidens and Igor is stretching them out on the rack. It's no wonder that none of you can have any sort of level-headed discussion about this when you blow the methods we used completely out of proportion and try to wrongly equate them with all sorts of atrocities.

When you overstate your case like that, you lose any credibility on the issue. You are trying to turn into a bunch of screaming twits yelling 'OMG, TORTURE TORTURE TORTURE.' I can only think that the reason people are doing that is to attempt to drown out anyone who wants to reasonably discuss the aspects of this because you guys know that, essentially, you don't have any reasonable counter argument.

Don't even bother Atomic, he either disregarded your point, or it went right over his head like an erant bucket of water over a detainee's head. It's silly to think that a terrorist bent on myrtardom for his cause, is goint to feel "comfort" because our torture methods are known. He won't answer the ends/means questions. If waterboarding isnt torture...You waterboard someone almost 200 times in a month time-period and do not get the information you want, do you bring in his family and waterboard them in the hope he will crack and get your desired results. After all it isnt torture, right?. where is the line drawn for interrogation, then? Which methods are acceptable and which aren't?. How are they defined. By government bureaucrats such as Rumsfeld & Cheney?

America, both sides of it, know well that what they did was torture. It was not only waterboarding, detainees have died from these techniques. The Justice Department tried to provide a legal cover which we also know does not hold water. It was just meant as a fig leaf to cover their asses. No one believes it has any merit, legal or otherwise. We all know America tortured. It is just that some do not want to admit it so they will go around and around muddying the water, saying waterboarding is not torture, when in fact it has always been regarded as torture by America and by the other civilized nations. These are the same type people who called Abu Ghraib a "frat house party" without taking into account how it damaged America in cost, credibility, goodwill and time in the Iraq war.

United States has a history of treating water boarding as torture and a war crime, for example, the prosecution of Yukio Asano after WWII. It was torture them, but its not now?

This is just another way he is arguing that both the norms do not exist and even if they did, are unsuccessful. Its is a metaphysical question. but he just dismisses all of them with his naked assertions. This shuts down conversation.

He believes that norms, and by extension, normative propositions are just matters of opinion and have no binding force. He is completely wrong. Norms inform the very law and legal process that he so fetishizes. The fact that a particular law might not exist in such a way around the relevant norm does not mean that the norm itself does not govern. It is also perfectly easy to derive a legal opinion from a reading of the law that undermines the very norm it is itself derived from.

Whether or not norms are "facts" is beside the point. They govern behavior in the absence of law and in its interstices. The law, in its slow, blunt, and lumbering way tries to keep up with norms. It often fails, as law itself is a living thing and its creation is a political process.

He brings this same tedious line of reasoning to every argument. He tries to reduce every consideration to the level of a legal opinion, devoid of context, devoid of the norms from which norms are derived, and devoid of the actual responsibility people have for propagating opinions and institutions. This is certainly consistent with his world view.

One can chase fine distinctions in the law and become quite lost in the details, especially when different statutes or precedents do not completely agree with each other or apply to the matter at hand. I presume this is the "common sense" factor. We are not talking about bureaucratic niceties, we are talking about taking a man's head and slamming it forcefully into a wall. Not giving due consideration to the act itself and how it intersects with our norms and our laws in other contexts is exactly what causes this sort of banal, bureaucratic denial.

Government officials don't have the legal authority to torture prisoners. They don't have the authority to slam prisoner's heads into walls, they don't have the authority to sting them with insects, they don't have the authority to leave them chained to walls in piles of their own filth for weeks, they don't have the authority to subject them to hypothermia, they don't have the authority to starve them, they don't have the authority to sodomize them.

It's not that terrorists don't deserve to be tortured. It's that government bureaucrats don't deserve the authority to torture. You want to give a government bureaucrat the authority to torture you whenever he feels like it?. You know what we call a government that has the unaccountable power to torture? Tyranny. Some might enjoy living under a government that can torture anyone it likes. The rest of us prefer freedom, thank you.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

These interrogation methods, that you insist on calling "torture" (when you STILL haven't shown qualifies as such under US law) have been publicly defined, with the primary theme of applying these methods being that no harm comes to the individual being interrogated. These methods aren't torture. They are smoke and mirrors designed to appear to be torture, if they didn't know what was coming. Now they know exactly what to expect. If a detainee knows that no harm will come to him why does he care if he's getting interrogated? He's got nothing to worry about anything. He's in no danger. The fear/coersion factor, which is an important part of interrogation has been eradicated completely. The methods become ineffective by removing that factor. These guys are hardened militants, not some pantywaists. Even if we don't actually do any harm there still needs to be the impression that we are. Well that's all taken away now thanks to the memos being released.

How hard is it to comprehend that and maybe even figure it out for yourself with just a modicum of consideration?

btw, and I've stated this already, not all things are equal. The Japanese method of waterboarding was to do it until the person passed out. They would then rouse the person and begin all over again. How does that compare to waterboarding as defined in the memos? It doesn't. But you still attempt to equivocate and conflate the two. 'It WATERBOARDING.' Just don't pay any attention to details or nuance. Don't look under that curtain so you can all scream in partisan unison.

Sheesh. Buncha oblivious trolls.

 

[fskimospy]

Guys, why are you still bothering with TLC? At this point he's crouching in the corner clinging to discredited memos, wild speculation, and the determination to repeat the same tired and discredited things over and over and over again. It doesn't matter, he will literally never give in. All he's going to do is wear everyone else down until they give up with him in frustration because they are simply too tired to keep going.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

I can't believe you think you can explain it.

These interrogation methods, that you insist on calling "torture" (when you STILL haven't shown qualifies as such under US law) have been publicly defined, with the primary theme of applying these methods being that no harm comes to the individual being interrogated. These methods aren't torture. They are smoke and mirrors designed to appear to be torture, if they didn't know what was coming. Now they know exactly what to expect. If a detainee knows that no harm will come to him why does he care if he's getting interrogated? He's got nothing to worry about anything. He's in no danger. The fear/coersion factor, which is an important part of interrogation has been eradicated completely. The methods become ineffective by removing that factor.

You fail at law.

You fail at history.

You fail at civility.

You fail as an American.

You fail as a human being. :thumbsdown: :|

Torture includes not only the physical acts of harm. It includes the THREAT of physical harm, and it is explicitly illegal under both U.S. codes and the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, giving them the full weight and force of law in the U.S.

Torture and the United States
.
.
Legislation and treaties regarding torture

Torture is illegal and punishable within US territorial bounds. The potential for prosecution of abuse occurring on foreign soil, outside of usual US territorial jurisdiction, is difficult.

Domestic Legislation

Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:

1. "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
   
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

.
.
"Stress and duress"

In 2003 and 2004 there was substantial controversy over the "stress and duress" methods that were used in the U.S.'s War on Terrorism, that had been sanctioned by the U.S. Executive branch of government at Cabinet level. Similar methods in 1978 were ruled by ECHR to be inhuman and degrading treatment, but not torture, when used by the U.K. in the early 1970s in Northern Ireland. CIA agents have anonymously confirmed to the Washington Post in a December 26, 2002 report that the CIA routinely uses so-called "stress and duress" interrogation techniques, which are claimed by human rights organisations to be acts of torture, in the US-led War on Terrorism. These sources state that CIA and military personnel beat up uncooperative suspects, confine them in cramped quarters, duct tape them to stretchers, and use other restraints which maintain the subject in an awkward and painful position for long periods of time. The phrase 'torture light' has been reported in the media and has been taken to mean acts that would not be legally defined as torture. Techniques similar to "stress and duress" were used by the UK in the early 1970s and were ruled to be "inhuman and degrading treatment" but not torture by the European Court of Human Rights. While this is in no way binding on the United States, it is seen as indicative of the state of international law on what constitutes torture.

Some techniques within the "stress and duress" category, such as water boarding, have long been considered as torture, by both the United States government and human rights groups. In its annual ?Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,? the U.S. State Department has described the following practices as torture:

• stripping and blindfolding of prisoners (Egypt)
• subjecting prisoners to prolonged sun exposure in high temperatures and tying of hands and feet for extended periods (Eritrea)
• sleep deprivation and "suspension for long periods in contorted positions" (Iran)
• sleep deprivation and solitary confinement (Jordan)
• prolonged standing and isolation (Turkey)

.
.
(more)

 

[moparacer]

How many years will the libbies have a hard on for Bush and Cheney?

Seen a report awhile ago where Nancy Pelosi had briefings on it years ago....

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...s-loop-interrogations/

Why didn't she object to it then?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: moparacer

How many years will the libbies have a hard on for Bush and Cheney?

Until they're tried, convicted and rotting in the prison cells they deseve for their crimes.

 

[Pens1566]

He's blowing smoke. If the info really existed, he'd have found a way to leak it already. Someone else already pointed out the classic "move the goalposts" response as well.

1. We don't torture
2. Waterboarding isn't torture
3. We got useful info from it
4. Profit

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

I can't believe you think you can explain it.

These interrogation methods, that you insist on calling "torture" (when you STILL haven't shown qualifies as such under US law) have been publicly defined, with the primary theme of applying these methods being that no harm comes to the individual being interrogated. These methods aren't torture. They are smoke and mirrors designed to appear to be torture, if they didn't know what was coming. Now they know exactly what to expect. If a detainee knows that no harm will come to him why does he care if he's getting interrogated? He's got nothing to worry about anything. He's in no danger. The fear/coersion factor, which is an important part of interrogation has been eradicated completely. The methods become ineffective by removing that factor.

You fail at law.

You fail at history.

You fail at civility.

You fail as an American.

You fail as a human being. :thumbsdown: :|

Torture includes not only the physical acts of harm. It includes the THREAT of physical harm, and it is explicitly illegal under both U.S. codes and the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, giving them the full weight and force of law in the U.S.

Torture and the United States
.
.
Legislation and treaties regarding torture

Torture is illegal and punishable within US territorial bounds. The potential for prosecution of abuse occurring on foreign soil, outside of usual US territorial jurisdiction, is difficult.

Domestic Legislation

Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:

1. "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
   
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

.
.
"Stress and duress"

In 2003 and 2004 there was substantial controversy over the "stress and duress" methods that were used in the U.S.'s War on Terrorism, that had been sanctioned by the U.S. Executive branch of government at Cabinet level. Similar methods in 1978 were ruled by ECHR to be inhuman and degrading treatment, but not torture, when used by the U.K. in the early 1970s in Northern Ireland. CIA agents have anonymously confirmed to the Washington Post in a December 26, 2002 report that the CIA routinely uses so-called "stress and duress" interrogation techniques, which are claimed by human rights organisations to be acts of torture, in the US-led War on Terrorism. These sources state that CIA and military personnel beat up uncooperative suspects, confine them in cramped quarters, duct tape them to stretchers, and use other restraints which maintain the subject in an awkward and painful position for long periods of time. The phrase 'torture light' has been reported in the media and has been taken to mean acts that would not be legally defined as torture. Techniques similar to "stress and duress" were used by the UK in the early 1970s and were ruled to be "inhuman and degrading treatment" but not torture by the European Court of Human Rights. While this is in no way binding on the United States, it is seen as indicative of the state of international law on what constitutes torture.

Some techniques within the "stress and duress" category, such as water boarding, have long been considered as torture, by both the United States government and human rights groups. In its annual ?Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,? the U.S. State Department has described the following practices as torture:

• stripping and blindfolding of prisoners (Egypt)
• subjecting prisoners to prolonged sun exposure in high temperatures and tying of hands and feet for extended periods (Eritrea)
• sleep deprivation and "suspension for long periods in contorted positions" (Iran)
• sleep deprivation and solitary confinement (Jordan)
• prolonged standing and isolation (Turkey)

.
.
(more)

Thats the death knell for anyone arguing that waterboarding isn't torture. TLC's brain is absolutely warped.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

I can't believe you think you can explain it.

These interrogation methods, that you insist on calling "torture" (when you STILL haven't shown qualifies as such under US law) have been publicly defined, with the primary theme of applying these methods being that no harm comes to the individual being interrogated. These methods aren't torture. They are smoke and mirrors designed to appear to be torture, if they didn't know what was coming. Now they know exactly what to expect. If a detainee knows that no harm will come to him why does he care if he's getting interrogated? He's got nothing to worry about anything. He's in no danger. The fear/coersion factor, which is an important part of interrogation has been eradicated completely. The methods become ineffective by removing that factor.

You fail at law.

You fail at history.

You fail at civility.

You fail as an American.

You fail as a human being. :thumbsdown: :|

Torture includes not only the physical acts of harm. It includes the THREAT of physical harm, and it is explicitly illegal under both U.S. codes and the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, giving them the full weight and force of law in the U.S.

Torture and the United States
.
.
Legislation and treaties regarding torture

Torture is illegal and punishable within US territorial bounds. The potential for prosecution of abuse occurring on foreign soil, outside of usual US territorial jurisdiction, is difficult.

Domestic Legislation

Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:

1. "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
   
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

.
.
"Stress and duress"

In 2003 and 2004 there was substantial controversy over the "stress and duress" methods that were used in the U.S.'s War on Terrorism, that had been sanctioned by the U.S. Executive branch of government at Cabinet level. Similar methods in 1978 were ruled by ECHR to be inhuman and degrading treatment, but not torture, when used by the U.K. in the early 1970s in Northern Ireland. CIA agents have anonymously confirmed to the Washington Post in a December 26, 2002 report that the CIA routinely uses so-called "stress and duress" interrogation techniques, which are claimed by human rights organisations to be acts of torture, in the US-led War on Terrorism. These sources state that CIA and military personnel beat up uncooperative suspects, confine them in cramped quarters, duct tape them to stretchers, and use other restraints which maintain the subject in an awkward and painful position for long periods of time. The phrase 'torture light' has been reported in the media and has been taken to mean acts that would not be legally defined as torture. Techniques similar to "stress and duress" were used by the UK in the early 1970s and were ruled to be "inhuman and degrading treatment" but not torture by the European Court of Human Rights. While this is in no way binding on the United States, it is seen as indicative of the state of international law on what constitutes torture.

Some techniques within the "stress and duress" category, such as water boarding, have long been considered as torture, by both the United States government and human rights groups. In its annual ?Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,? the U.S. State Department has described the following practices as torture:

• stripping and blindfolding of prisoners (Egypt)
• subjecting prisoners to prolonged sun exposure in high temperatures and tying of hands and feet for extended periods (Eritrea)
• sleep deprivation and "suspension for long periods in contorted positions" (Iran)
• sleep deprivation and solitary confinement (Jordan)
• prolonged standing and isolation (Turkey)

.
.
(more)

:roll:

Yes. Torture is legal. I'm not disputing that. The problem is that the above tripe, while a nice attempt at obfuscation, doesn't show that the methods we used for interrogation ran afoul of US law. (Do I need to capitalize law as well so you can comprehend what I'm saying?) Wave around all the International bullshit you want. We all know it's not binding in any meaningful way and it's othing more than desperately reaching because NONE of you can show me or even begin to provide the specific legal justifications behind your claims. Instead all I get is a bunch of huffery and puffery. Well huffing and puffing doesn't make for a legal foundation, except maybe in Harvey-land.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
He's blowing smoke. If the info really existed, he'd have found a way to leak it already. Someone else already pointed out the classic "move the goalposts" response as well.

1. We don't torture
2. Waterboarding isn't torture
3. We got useful info from it
4. Profit

Correct.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Thtas the death knell for anyone arguing that waterboarding isn't torture. TLC's brain is absolutely warped.

Puff puff give. Don't be a bogart.

International law doesn't mean squat in this case. US law does. Once again, nobody has specifically shown where our interrogation methods legally ran afoul of US law. Not Harvey, not eskimospy, and definitely not you. Feel free to keep patting Harvey's butt though. Or was that your nose?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Yes. Torture is legal. I'm not disputing that.

NO! Torture is NOT legal! The fact that you dispute that to say it is confirms what I said:

You fail at law.

You fail at history.

You fail at civility.

You fail as an American.

You fail as a human being. :thumbsdown: :|

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

International law doesn't mean squat in this case. US law does. Once again, nobody has specifically shown where our interrogation methods legally ran afoul of US law. Not Harvey, not eskimospy, and definitely not you. Feel free to keep patting Harvey's butt though. Or was that your nose?

And you're also a reading challenged liar! I cited U.S. code and legal opinions, as well as the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, giving them the full weight and force of law in the U.S.

What TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

:roll:

Yes. Torture is legal. I'm not disputing that.

Freudian slip?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Thtas the death knell for anyone arguing that waterboarding isn't torture. TLC's brain is absolutely warped.

Puff puff give. Don't be a bogart.

International law doesn't mean squat in this case. US law does. Once again, nobody has specifically shown where our interrogation methods legally ran afoul of US law. Not Harvey, not eskimospy, and definitely not you. Feel free to keep patting Harvey's butt though. Or was that your nose?

You are devoid of any sense of the word compassion. You justify torture because its not in US law. How ignorant are you? It doesn't take laws to understand basic human treatment dipshit.

You can kiss my ass with your tongue out.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Thtas the death knell for anyone arguing that waterboarding isn't torture. TLC's brain is absolutely warped.

Puff puff give. Don't be a bogart.

International law doesn't mean squat in this case. US law does. Once again, nobody has specifically shown where our interrogation methods legally ran afoul of US law. Not Harvey, not eskimospy, and definitely not you. Feel free to keep patting Harvey's butt though. Or was that your nose?

You are devoid of any sense of the word compassion. You justify torture because its not in US law. How ignorant are you? It doesn't take laws to understand basic human treatment dipshit.

You can kiss my ass with your tongue out.

I justify interrogation techniques that can be used to provide valuable intel from our enemies. If it makes me a schumck because I'm not concerned if some militant asshole that wants to kill every one of us feels a little stress or discomfort, so be it. My compassion is toward my fellow American citizens, not some jihadi jerkoff. If you don't like that fact, too fucking bad. Go cry to your detainee buddies about it, pal.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Yes. Torture is legal. I'm not disputing that.

NO! Torture is NOT legal! The fact that you dispute that to say it is confirms what I said:

You fail at law.

You fail at history.

You fail at civility.

You fail as an American.

You fail as a human being. :thumbsdown: :|

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

International law doesn't mean squat in this case. US law does. Once again, nobody has specifically shown where our interrogation methods legally ran afoul of US law. Not Harvey, not eskimospy, and definitely not you. Feel free to keep patting Harvey's butt though. Or was that your nose?

And you're also a reading challenged liar! I cited U.S. code and legal opinions, as well as the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, giving them the full weight and force of law in the U.S.

What TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:

I meant illegal. Surely you can figure that out, moron?

Sheesh you'll use any pathetic excuse to jump all over me and spew bolded words and emoticons. Shows what a pathetic twit you are.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: moparacer

How many years will the libbies have a hard on for Bush and Cheney?

Until they're tried, convicted and rotting in the prison cells they deseve for their crimes.

I think its torture to make them sit in prison cells.