Cheney enters 'torture' memos row

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey
snipped Harvey's torturous rant

Like I said already:

Instead they'll conflate, dissemble, and equivocate to make their point, ignoring all differences and nuances in the process. iow, they employ a gross level of intellectual dishonesty to make their case.

A gross level of intellectual dishonesty describes your rants on this subject perfectly, Harvey.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

A gross level of intellectual dishonesty describes your rants on this subject perfectly, Harvey.

What's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:[/quote]

What to do with a cold blooded, toxic, dangerous beast that TastesLikeChicken? :laugh:

---

Good little Bushwhacko sycophant (means ass licker). Rush will be so proud of you. Since you're still in lying and denying mode, you win yet another round of macro.

I'm calling you an AMORAL LIAR. I posted replies to you with legal references, and you STILL deny them.

In this thread, on 4/22/2009 at 1:07 PM pdt, I posted this reply to you:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Despite all the numerous threads on the subject not a single person in here who has been screaming "WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE" at the top of their lungs has done that yet. Not a one.

Attorney General, Eric Holder is one legal authority who disagrees with your assessment.

Waterboarding Is Torture, Holder Tells Senators
Justice Dept. Nominee Rejects Policies Of Bush Era but Stresses Bipartisanship

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2009
.
.
In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder declared that the interrogation practice known as waterboarding amounts to torture, departing from the interpretation of his Bush administration predecessors.
.
.
(continues)

Deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage is another.

Ex-Bush official says waterboarding is torture

By PAMELA HESS ? 6 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) ? A former No. 2 State Department official in the Bush administration says he hopes he would have had the courage to resign if he had known the CIA was subjecting terrorism suspects to waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, told Al Jazeera English television in an interview airing Wednesday that waterboarding is torture. However, he said he does not believe CIA officials who engaged in waterboarding and other forms of harsh interrogation should be prosecuted.
.
.
(continues)[/b]

On 4-22-09, on Rachel Maddow's show, Philip Zelikow, an attorney and a former under secretary of state to Condoleezza Wright, said that, in 2005, he wrote a memo disputing "THE memos" by John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, the attorneys who wrote the opinions supporting torture, and their boss, Alberto Gonzales. Full segment.

He further says his superiors tried to destroy every copy of his contrary memo. From the transcript:

MADDOW: Rather than just disagreeing with you or saying that they thought that you were wrong and the Office of Legal Counsel memos that you were rebutting were correct, why do you think they tried to destroy every copy of the memo that they knew existed? And how did you find out that they did try to destroy copies of the memo?

ZELIKOW: Well, I found out because I was told. I mean, we're trying to collect these and destroy them, and you have a copy, don't you? But I -- the -- I know copies that were retained in my building, and as I mentioned, Secretary Rice understood what I was doing on her behalf. I was her agent in these matters. And the -- so I think copies still exist.

Are you out of lies, yet, TLC? :roll:

And in this thread, on 4/23/2009 at 1:13 PM I posted this reply to you:

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)

Do you have any credible references to counter the FACT that the United States of America has considered waterboarding as torture for at least the last hundred years?

What qualifies you to dispute the legal opinion of Eric Holder the Attorney General of the United States of America?

What qualifies you to dispute the legal opinion of Richard Armitage, the former Deputy secretary of state the United States of America?

What qualifies you to dispute the experiential opinion of John McCain, a former POW and torture survivor that waterboarding is torture?

What qualifies you to be considered a human being? :shocked:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey
snipped Harvey's torturous rant

Like I said already:

Instead they'll conflate, dissemble, and equivocate to make their point, ignoring all differences and nuances in the process. iow, they employ a gross level of intellectual dishonesty to make their case.

A gross level of intellectual dishonesty describes your rants on this subject perfectly, Harvey.

Edit: Hehe. You've been timewarped.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you were better educated before opening your mouth...

You're a never ending source of condescending excrement.

Post all the knee-jerk responses you want in your little P&N thread tantrum. Watching you flail and spasm away in this thread has been a pleasure all in iteself. Really. It's been highly entertaining.

Anyone else laugh out loud at this? Is there anyone in P&N who posts more condescending excrement than TastesLikeChicken? Is there anyone who flails and spasms more than TLC? I nominate his post for Pot, Meet Kettle of the Year Award.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you were better educated before opening your mouth...

You're a never ending source of condescending excrement.

Post all the knee-jerk responses you want in your little P&N thread tantrum. Watching you flail and spasm away in this thread has been a pleasure all in iteself. Really. It's been highly entertaining.

Anyone else laugh out loud at this? Is there anyone in P&N who posts more condescending excrement than TastesLikeChicken? Is there anyone who flails and spasms more than TLC? I nominate his post for Pot, Meet Kettle of the Year Award.

No doubt every other knee-jerk, Bush-is-the-devil, reactionary, partisan kool-aid swilling twit feels the same way you do in here. Go right ahead and feel that way. Unlike some in here, I feel that everyone is welcome to their own opinion.

 

[Lemon law]

Anyone who bothered to read the TLC link has to note a few things.

The link is--http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom...C3%A1namo-torture-suit

1. This is merely a district court decision, in no way binding to other judicial districts, or to international law.

2. It more applies to simply habeus rights, under which other rights would automatically follow.

3. Such district court ruling are often appealed to the Supreme Court. By the time it is, I would expect a new balance of the SC to come down stronger on any use of torture issues that are already spelled out in a plethora of other laws.

4. Part of the Cheney legacy during the past eight years were to emasculate our courts with various tactic including citing national security. Now that Cheney is gone, I expect our courts to again find better ways to define the problem. Maybe GWB&co could try to claim he would be the victim of an expostfacto law, but its an awful weak defense when it was clear that torture was illegal before he attempted to rewrite the law with no legal authority to write laws.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No doubt every other knee-jerk, Bush-is-the-devil, reactionary, partisan kool-aid swilling twit feels the same way you do in here. Go right ahead and feel that way. Unlike some in here, I feel that everyone is welcome to their own opinion.

Quoting my earlier replies to you...

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If GWB and Co are ever dragged into court over this and found guilty then I will gladly admit being in error. If they are not, or are found innocent, will you?

ABSOLUTELY!!! LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Great. You're on. First straight answer I've ever seen you make in here, Harvey.

Why didn't you quit when you got all to belatedly got to the right answer?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you were better educated before opening your mouth...

You're a never ending source of condescending excrement.

Post all the knee-jerk responses you want in your little P&N thread tantrum. Watching you flail and spasm away in this thread has been a pleasure all in iteself. Really. It's been highly entertaining.

Anyone else laugh out loud at this? Is there anyone in P&N who posts more condescending excrement than TastesLikeChicken? Is there anyone who flails and spasms more than TLC? I nominate his post for Pot, Meet Kettle of the Year Award.

No doubt every other knee-jerk, Bush-is-the-devil, reactionary, partisan kool-aid swilling twit feels the same way you do in here. Go right ahead and feel that way. Unlike some in here, I feel that everyone is welcome to their own opinion.

Adding more childish name calling in a drive to secure your victory? I am glad to help but I think you have it locked up already.

 

[heyheybooboo]

You Write The Caption

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The "OMG, IT'S TORTURE" crowd just doesn't seem to get it. The argument is not FOR torture. THE argument is actually a number of arguments:

1) We need to retain interrogation capabilities. What seems to be happening is that thre are people who want to completely handcuff the US in that department. To make their argument they slap the label of "TORTURE" on the interrogation techniques they find personally distasteful, then become shrill and accusatory and demand we stop the TORTURE. Of course, they haven't actually shown that the techniques we use qualify as TORTURE under our laws. Instead they'll conflate, diseemble, and equivocate to make their point, ignoring all differences and nuances in the process. iow, they employ a gross level of intellectual dishonesty to make their case.

2) Citing the Constitution is meaningless in regard to the detainees. It was recently ruled, with the court agreeing with the Obama administration, that Constitutional rights do not apply to detainess in Gitmo, with the exception of habeus corpus.

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom...C3%A1namo-torture-suit

3) Nobody in here is a proponent of torture. I'm certainly not. I do support using harsh interrogation techniques when they are necessary and used with discretion though, and at the time they were deemed necessary. The problem is those that absolutely refuse to recognize that there's a fine line between valid, harsh interrogation techniques and actual torture. Many don't want to recognize that line, which is legally defined in the country, because all their hyperbolic utterances on the subject over the last years would be moot and for not, and some people just have way too big of an ego and too much hot air already invested to admit they may have been wrong on the subject. So they continue to twist the issue in all kinds of directions.

EVERYBODY will agree there's a line (even a "fine line") between torture and non-torture. But that's not remotely the issue. Nor is anyone being accused of being a "proponent of torture." You're raising non-issues as a diversionary tactic.

All that matters is that under both U.S. and international law, waterboarding CLEARLY meets the definition of torture - it's nowhere close to the "fine line". Waterboarding is therefore CLEARLY illegal.

If the U.S. wants to legalize some forms of torture under strictly defined conditions, then the U.S. must change its laws. Even then, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would probably also be required, an amendment that doesn't stand a chance in hell of passing.

Absent changes to U.S. law and the Constitution, the use of torture cannot be justified by claims that it can or has saved lives. It is irrelevant if those claims are true. Those in authority who have directed the use of waterboarding (= torture) have broken the law and must be prosecuted.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Anyone who bothered to read the TLC link has to note a few things.

The link is--http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom...C3%A1namo-torture-suit

1. This is merely a district court decision, in no way binding to other judicial districts, or to international law.

2. It more applies to simply habeus rights, under which other rights would automatically follow.

3. Such district court ruling are often appealed to the Supreme Court. By the time it is, I would expect a new balance of the SC to come down stronger on any use of torture issues that are already spelled out in a plethora of other laws.

4. Part of the Cheney legacy during the past eight years were to emasculate our courts with various tactic including citing national security. Now that Cheney is gone, I expect our courts to again find better ways to define the problem. Maybe GWB&co could try to claim he would be the victim of an expostfacto law, but its an awful weak defense when it was clear that torture was illegal before he attempted to rewrite the law with no legal authority to write laws.

1) International laws on torture are not binding on our laws regarding torture either. Nor is this merely a district court ruling that is no way binding to other judicial districts. See 3.

2) No, it limits it to habeus rights, with no other rights following. Read it again.

In its decision today, the Court rejected the detainees? argument that the Boumediene decision compelled the recognition of fundamental constitutional rights for detainees. Instead, the Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court?s Boumediene decision applied only to the right of habeas corpus, and that no additional constitutional rights could be extended to detainees unless the Supreme Court specifically authorized and approved such rights.

3) It's Court of Appeals ruling. Directly from the link:

Last summer, the Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to reconsider its previous decision in Rasul v. Rumsfeld, in light of the High Court?s decision in Boumediene v. Bush, which recognized the constitutional right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. The plaintiffs urged the Court of Appeals to follow the clear logic of the Boumediene decision and to recognize both the constitutional rights of the detainees to humane and just treatment and the fact that, under any definition of the word, they are ?persons? entitled to religious freedom and dignity as required by law.

4) Pure speculation based on your overindulgence in the BDS kool-aid.

You keep trying to pretend that International law somehow has an impact on this case, LL. Hang it up. It doesn't apply. I suppose you'll keep pretending though because it's really the only pretense of illegality you guys can manage to muster in all this.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The "OMG, IT'S TORTURE" crowd just doesn't seem to get it. The argument is not FOR torture. THE argument is actually a number of arguments:

1) We need to retain interrogation capabilities. What seems to be happening is that thre are people who want to completely handcuff the US in that department. To make their argument they slap the label of "TORTURE" on the interrogation techniques they find personally distasteful, then become shrill and accusatory and demand we stop the TORTURE. Of course, they haven't actually shown that the techniques we use qualify as TORTURE under our laws. Instead they'll conflate, diseemble, and equivocate to make their point, ignoring all differences and nuances in the process. iow, they employ a gross level of intellectual dishonesty to make their case.

2) Citing the Constitution is meaningless in regard to the detainees. It was recently ruled, with the court agreeing with the Obama administration, that Constitutional rights do not apply to detainess in Gitmo, with the exception of habeus corpus.

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom...C3%A1namo-torture-suit

3) Nobody in here is a proponent of torture. I'm certainly not. I do support using harsh interrogation techniques when they are necessary and used with discretion though, and at the time they were deemed necessary. The problem is those that absolutely refuse to recognize that there's a fine line between valid, harsh interrogation techniques and actual torture. Many don't want to recognize that line, which is legally defined in the country, because all their hyperbolic utterances on the subject over the last years would be moot and for not, and some people just have way too big of an ego and too much hot air already invested to admit they may have been wrong on the subject. So they continue to twist the issue in all kinds of directions.

EVERYBODY will agree there's a line (even a "fine line") between torture and non-torture. But that's not remotely the issue. Nor is anyone being accused of being a "proponent of torture." You're raising non-issues as a diversionary tactic.

All that matters is that under both U.S. and international law, waterboarding CLEARLY meets the definition of torture - it's nowhere close to the "fine line". Waterboarding is therefore CLEARLY illegal.

If the U.S. wants to legalize some forms of torture under strictly defined conditions, then the U.S. must change its laws. Even then, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would probably also be required, an amendment that doesn't stand a chance in hell of passing.

Absent changes to U.S. law and the Constitution, the use of torture cannot be justified by claims that it can or has saved lives. It is irrelevant if those claims are true. Those in authority who have directed the use of waterboarding (= torture) have broken the law and must be prosecuted.

Waterboarding as defined in the memos does not "clearly" meet the definition of torture, no matter how insistent you try to be about it. Is the standard method of waterboarding that everyone thinks of torture? Absolutely. But failing to recognize that we placed severe limits and restrictions on how it was performed, in order to remain within legal boundries, does you and everyone else a disservice, and it's an example of the intellectual dishonesty I spoke of before. If you simply lump our method into waterboarding as it has always been brutally accomplished, without any safegaurds or care at all for the victim, I can only assume you want to lump it together and ignore the difference on purpose. Then I have to ask myself why you're doing that and I can only come up with one answer.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you were better educated before opening your mouth...

You're a never ending source of condescending excrement.

Post all the knee-jerk responses you want in your little P&N thread tantrum. Watching you flail and spasm away in this thread has been a pleasure all in iteself. Really. It's been highly entertaining.

Anyone else laugh out loud at this? Is there anyone in P&N who posts more condescending excrement than TastesLikeChicken? Is there anyone who flails and spasms more than TLC? I nominate his post for Pot, Meet Kettle of the Year Award.

No doubt every other knee-jerk, Bush-is-the-devil, reactionary, partisan kool-aid swilling twit feels the same way you do in here. Go right ahead and feel that way. Unlike some in here, I feel that everyone is welcome to their own opinion.

Adding more childish name calling in a drive to secure your victory? I am glad to help but I think you have it locked up already.

You felt the need to join the fray and knock heads, pal. Don't like my response? Don't jump in next time merely the pat the butt of your ideological buddies in here.

 

[Lemon law]

We shall see TLC, we shall see. I think many of the torture rats will wind up in jail, and as you admitted, then you will agree with us. Its going to probably take longer than some of the optimistic wish, but time is on our side as the heat will get turned up. What we now know is just the tip of an iceberg, its gonna get a lot hotter soon for GWB&co.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You're a never ending source of condescending excrement.

Post all the knee-jerk responses you want in your little P&N thread tantrum. Watching you flail and spasm away in this thread has been a pleasure all in iteself. Really. It's been highly entertaining.

Anyone else laugh out loud at this? Is there anyone in P&N who posts more condescending excrement than TastesLikeChicken? Is there anyone who flails and spasms more than TLC? I nominate his post for Pot, Meet Kettle of the Year Award.

No doubt every other knee-jerk, Bush-is-the-devil, reactionary, partisan kool-aid swilling twit feels the same way you do in here. Go right ahead and feel that way. Unlike some in here, I feel that everyone is welcome to their own opinion.

Adding more childish name calling in a drive to secure your victory? I am glad to help but I think you have it locked up already.

You felt the need to join the fray and knock heads, pal. Don't like my response? Don't jump in next time merely the pat the butt of your ideological buddies in here.

You are so delusional. I don't like your response? I don't care about your response. It is what I expected, entertainment like the rest of your condescending excrement. You are like watching a small boy who can't have a candy bar before dinner. When adults explain why you are wrong, you just yell and stomp your feet louder. Name calling goes with your tantrum.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: shira

EVERYBODY will agree there's a line (even a "fine line") between torture and non-torture. But that's not remotely the issue. Nor is anyone being accused of being a "proponent of torture." You're raising non-issues as a diversionary tactic.

All that matters is that under both U.S. and international law, waterboarding CLEARLY meets the definition of torture - it's nowhere close to the "fine line". Waterboarding is therefore CLEARLY illegal.

If the U.S. wants to legalize some forms of torture under strictly defined conditions, then the U.S. must change its laws. Even then, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would probably also be required, an amendment that doesn't stand a chance in hell of passing.

Absent changes to U.S. law and the Constitution, the use of torture cannot be justified by claims that it can or has saved lives. It is irrelevant if those claims are true. Those in authority who have directed the use of waterboarding (= torture) have broken the law and must be prosecuted.

There's no point to this. It doesn't matter how many organizations and experts say waterboarding is torture, TLC is a prisoner of his own circular logic.

Is waterboarding torture? No says TLC, because we have safeguards put in place to keep it from being torture. (yes I know, this is hilarious to me too, but stay with me here.)

The CIA sought a legal opinion from the OLC on the issue as to whether or not interrogation practices they were performing were legal (ie: not torture) with safeguards in place.

The OLC naturally needed to find out if these safeguards were sufficient to render the techniques not torture. So who do they ask? The CIA.

So in response to the CIA's question as to if their interrogation in its current form is torture, the OLC answered the CIA's question by... asking the CIA if it was torture. Guess what they answered.

Oops.

That is what TLC is basing his argument on. Now you should understand why this thread has gone on for so many pages, with so many people pounding on this idiot. It's why a fifty year old man is reduced to shrieking and screaming about how everyone around him is consumed by hate and partisanship because they just can't see how right he is.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You're a never ending source of condescending excrement.

Post all the knee-jerk responses you want in your little P&N thread tantrum. Watching you flail and spasm away in this thread has been a pleasure all in iteself. Really. It's been highly entertaining.

Anyone else laugh out loud at this? Is there anyone in P&N who posts more condescending excrement than TastesLikeChicken? Is there anyone who flails and spasms more than TLC? I nominate his post for Pot, Meet Kettle of the Year Award.

No doubt every other knee-jerk, Bush-is-the-devil, reactionary, partisan kool-aid swilling twit feels the same way you do in here. Go right ahead and feel that way. Unlike some in here, I feel that everyone is welcome to their own opinion.

Adding more childish name calling in a drive to secure your victory? I am glad to help but I think you have it locked up already.

You felt the need to join the fray and knock heads, pal. Don't like my response? Don't jump in next time merely the pat the butt of your ideological buddies in here.

You are so delusional. I don't like your response? I don't care about your response. It is what I expected, entertainment like the rest of your condescending excrement. You are like watching a small boy who can't have a candy bar before dinner. When adults explain why you are wrong, you just yell and stomp your feet louder. Name calling goes with your tantrum.

Thanks for your condescending words as well. I'll wrap them up and put them in that big ol' pile along with the rest of the pointy-headed, look-down-your-nose utterances from the unhinged loony-tunes in here.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Waterboarding as defined in the memos does not "clearly" meet the definition of torture, no matter how insistent you try to be about it.

The thing most tortured is your obscene, twisted "logic" (a term that only loosely applies). Since you're still in lying and denying mode, here's another macro from my posts in this thread.

The Bush administration was told in 2002, that torture does not work to obtain reliable intelligence information.

They were warned that "the unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel."

They called it "TORTURE!" :shocked:

Story in the Washington Post.

Note: The link in the article goes to a pdf of the actual report.

Document: Military Agency Referred to 'Torture,' Questioned Its Effectiveness

By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 24, 2009; 5:22 PM

The military agency that helped to devise harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.
.
.
In conclusion, the document said, "the application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably the potential to result in unreliable information." The word "extreme" is underlined.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

The source for this report, the information is from the U.S. Airforce's S.E.R.E. - (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) program.

This is a small specialized career field in the US Air Force comprised of approximately 325 enlisted personnel. Air Force SERE Specialists train aircrew members and high risk of capture personnel from all branches of the military. The students are trained in skills which allow them to survive in all climatic conditions as well as how to survive while being held captive.

Per their name, the purpose of S.E.R.E. is to train our troops who may be captured to survive possible torture by, and to resist giving any helpful information to, our enemies. Their mission is specifically NOT to describe or define methods to be used by our own intelligence agencies to interrogate possible enemies captured by U.S. forces.

Cliffs for brain dead Bushwhacko apologists, including TLC, Fear No Evil and ProfJohn:

S.E.R.E is the specific military group tasked to understand and teach our troops to resist torture.

S.E.R.E is NOT tasked to develop means and methods of torturing those we capture.

Rumsfeld's attorney, William Haynes, requests info from S.E.R.E regarding administration's intended use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

S.E.R.E's report to Haynes explicitly:

1. labels "enhanced interrogation" techniques TORTURE.
   
2. says "enhanced interrogation" techniques DO NOT WORK.
   
3. says "enhanced interrogation" techniques could have "potential impact on the safety of U.S. personnel captured by current and future adversaries."

The complete report from S.E.R.E. to Haynes. Note the classification stamp, moved to the bottom of the report.

OPERATIONAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE USE of PHYSICAL/PSYCHOLIGCAL [sic] COERCION [sic] IN INTERROGATION
An Overview

(U) INTRODUCTION: Throughout history, interrogation has frequently involved the application of various physical anellor psychological means of inducing duress. The objective of this application was to elicit information, compel the prisoner to produce propaganda, submit to political conversion, and or as a vehicle for intimidation. Throughout most of recorded history, the rights of prisoners were limited at best. The concept of international law that governs the treatment of prisoners is a modem phenomenon that remains the topic of continuing debate. This discussion is not intended to address the myriad legal, ethical, or moral implications of torture; rather, this document will seeks to describe the key operational considerations relative to the use of physical and psychological pressures.

(U) PRIMARY OBJECTIVE of INTERROGATION: The primary objective of interrogation within the context of intelligence is the collecting of timely, accurate, and reliable information. The question that should immediately come to mind is whether the application of physical and/or psychological duress will enhance the interrogator's ability to achieve this objective. The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible-in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. Conceptually, proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption. (NOTE: The application of physical and or psychological duress will likely result in physical compliance. Additionally, prisoners may answer and/or comply as a result of threats of torture. However, the reliability and accuracy information must be questioned.)

(U) OPERATIONAL CONCERNS:

(U) As noted previously, upwards of 90 percent of interrogations have been successful through the exclusive use of a direct approach, where a degree of rapport is established with the prisoner. Once any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the formerly cooperative relationship can not be reestablished. In addition, the prisoner's level of resolve to resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or brutal treatment.

(U) For skilled interrogators, the observation of subtle nonverbal behaviors provides an invaluable assessment of the prisoner's psychological and emotional state. This offers important insights into how the prisoner can be most effectively leveraged into compliance. Further, it often enables the interrogator to form a reasonably accurate assessment of the prisoner's veracity in answering pertinent questions. The prisoner's physical response to the pain inflicted by an interrogator would obliterate such nuance and deprive the interrogator of these key tools.

(U) The key operational deficits related to the use of torture is its impact on the reliability and accuracy of the information provided. If an interrogator produces information that resulted from the application of physical and psychological duress, the reliability and accuracy of this information is in doubt. In other words, a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop.

1. (U) In numerous cases, interrogation has been used as a tool of mass intimidation by oppressive regimes. Often, the interrogators operate from the assumption (often incorrect) that a prisoner possesses information of interest. When the prisoner is not forthcoming, physical and psychological pressures are increased. Eventually, the prisoner will provide answers that they feel the interrogator is seeking. In this instance, the information is neither reliable nor accurate (note: A critical element of the interrogation process is to assess the prisoner's knowledgeability. A reasoned assessment of what the prisoner should know, based on experience, training, position, and access should drive the questioning process.)

(U) Another important aspect of the debate over the use of torture is the consideration of its potential impact on the safety of U.S. personnel captured by current and future adversaries. The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel. While this would have little impact on those regimes or organizations that already employ torture as a standard means of operating, it could serve as the critical impetus for those that are currently weighing the potential gains and risks associated with the torture of U.S. persons to accept torture as an acceptable option.

(U) CONCLUSION: The application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable information. This is not to say that the manipulation of the subject's environment in an effort to dislocate their expectations and induce emotional responses is not effective. On the contrary, systematic manipulation of the subject's environment is likely to result in a subject that can be exploited for intelligence information and other national strategic concerns.

HQ JPRA·CC/25 Jut 02JOSN 654-2509
CLASSIFIED BY: MULTIPLE SOURCES
REASON: EO 12958 (A, C)
DECLASSIFY: Xi or X4

Key sentences and phrases:

• The question that should immediately come to mind is whether the application of physical and/or psychological duress will enhance the interrogator's ability to achieve this objective.
  
• The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.
  
• The application of physical and or psychological duress will likely result in physical compliance. Additionally, prisoners may answer and/or comply as a result of threats of torture. However, the reliability and accuracy information must be questioned.
  
• Once any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the formerly cooperative relationship can not be reestablished. In addition, the prisoner's level of resolve to resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or brutal treatment.
  
• For skilled interrogators, the observation of subtle nonverbal behaviors provides an invaluable assessment of the prisoner's psychological and emotional state. This offers important insights into how the prisoner can be most effectively leveraged into compliance. Further, it often enables the interrogator to form a reasonably accurate assessment of the prisoner's veracity in answering pertinent questions. The prisoner's physical response to the pain inflicted by an interrogator would obliteratesuch nuance and deprive the interrogator of these key tools.
  
• ... a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop.
  
• The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel.

You continue to demand evidence that "torture" per se is illegal under U.S. law and that waterboarding constitues torture. Yet, you continue to deny the authority and expertise of Attorney General Holder, former under secretary of state, William Armitage, and former POW and torture survivor, Sen. John McCain stating exactly what you continue to deny.

Now, you have the express statement from S.E.R.E., THE authority on the subject, THE authority that told your EX-Traitor In Chief that labeled the "enhanced interrogation" techniques defined and specified in Haynes' request, including waterboarding, as TORTURE.

And yet you still continue to deny that waterboarding is TORTURE. :thumbsdown: :|

What's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:

What to do with a cold blooded, toxic, dangerous beast that TastesLikeChicken? :laugh:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The "OMG, IT'S TORTURE" crowd just doesn't seem to get it. The argument is not FOR torture. THE argument is actually a number of arguments:

1) We need to retain interrogation capabilities. What seems to be happening is that thre are people who want to completely handcuff the US in that department. To make their argument they slap the label of "TORTURE" on the interrogation techniques they find personally distasteful, then become shrill and accusatory and demand we stop the TORTURE. Of course, they haven't actually shown that the techniques we use qualify as TORTURE under our laws. Instead they'll conflate, diseemble, and equivocate to make their point, ignoring all differences and nuances in the process. iow, they employ a gross level of intellectual dishonesty to make their case.

2) Citing the Constitution is meaningless in regard to the detainees. It was recently ruled, with the court agreeing with the Obama administration, that Constitutional rights do not apply to detainess in Gitmo, with the exception of habeus corpus.

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom...C3%A1namo-torture-suit

3) Nobody in here is a proponent of torture. I'm certainly not. I do support using harsh interrogation techniques when they are necessary and used with discretion though, and at the time they were deemed necessary. The problem is those that absolutely refuse to recognize that there's a fine line between valid, harsh interrogation techniques and actual torture. Many don't want to recognize that line, which is legally defined in the country, because all their hyperbolic utterances on the subject over the last years would be moot and for not, and some people just have way too big of an ego and too much hot air already invested to admit they may have been wrong on the subject. So they continue to twist the issue in all kinds of directions.

EVERYBODY will agree there's a line (even a "fine line") between torture and non-torture. But that's not remotely the issue. Nor is anyone being accused of being a "proponent of torture." You're raising non-issues as a diversionary tactic.

All that matters is that under both U.S. and international law, waterboarding CLEARLY meets the definition of torture - it's nowhere close to the "fine line". Waterboarding is therefore CLEARLY illegal.

If the U.S. wants to legalize some forms of torture under strictly defined conditions, then the U.S. must change its laws. Even then, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would probably also be required, an amendment that doesn't stand a chance in hell of passing.

Absent changes to U.S. law and the Constitution, the use of torture cannot be justified by claims that it can or has saved lives. It is irrelevant if those claims are true. Those in authority who have directed the use of waterboarding (= torture) have broken the law and must be prosecuted.

Waterboarding as defined in the memos does not "clearly" meet the definition of torture, no matter how insistent you try to be about it. Is the standard method of waterboarding that everyone thinks of torture? Absolutely. But failing to recognize that we placed severe limits and restrictions on how it was performed, in order to remain within legal boundries, does you and everyone else a disservice, and it's an example of the intellectual dishonesty I spoke of before. If you simply lump our method into waterboarding as it has always been brutally accomplished, without any safegaurds or care at all for the victim, I can only assume you want to lump it together and ignore the difference on purpose. Then I have to ask myself why you're doing that and I can only come up with one answer.

"Defining" terms in memos does not change U.S. law. Under U.S. law, if a person experiences "severe mental pain or suffering" he's being tortured. Safeguards are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with the person's experience.

Think about the absurdity of your reasoning: Somehow, for the interrogation technique to be effective, the ordeal experienced by the detainee must be severe enough that he's compelled to talk. Yet because of the "safeguards," the ordeal is NOT torture because the detainee does NOT experience "severe mental pain or suffering."

You can't have it both ways. In fact, the "safeguards" you speak of are to prevent the prisoner from dying or experiencing brain damage from lack of oxygen. Those may well be actual "physical" safeguards, but they in no way prevent "severe mental pain and suffering." If they did, why on earth would the prisoner spill the beans?

You will claim, of course, that the prisoner KNOWS that the U.S. isn't going to kill him. So that prevents "severe mental pain and suffering." But that's nonsense. First, no one has reduced waterboarding to an exact science. Do you really think it's one-size-fits-all? Is 34 seconds without oxygen right for every prisoner? Is it right on the fifth waterboarding of the day as well as the first? Leave the prisoner without oxygen a second or two too long, and brain damage will occur. No one knows the just where the exact limits are. No prisoner can be sure that his captors aren't going to make mistakes. Do you REALLY think the "safeguards" are perfect?

And even if somehow a prisoner KNEW for sure that he wasn't going to die or be damaged by the ordeal, that doesn't get waterboarding off the hook: Because in those moments when the prisoner cannot breathe, the irrational, instinctive mind takes over. The prisoner struggles to survive, to BREATHE, to LIVE. There's no cool, rational thought at those moments. It's all animal terror. That's "severe mental pain and suffering." That's TORTURE.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir
You are so delusional. I don't like your response? I don't care about your response. It is what I expected, entertainment like the rest of your condescending excrement. You are like watching a small boy who can't have a candy bar before dinner. When adults explain why you are wrong, you just yell and stomp your feet louder. Name calling goes with your tantrum.

Thanks for your condescending words as well. I'll wrap them up and put them in that big ol' pile along with the rest of the pointy-headed, look-down-your-nose utterances from the unhinged loony-tunes in here.

You are welcome. I am happy to help you secure your Pot, Meet Kettle Post of the Year Award. It also gives you a diversion to ignore people still pwning you about torture. You are welcome for that too. I would try to change the subject too if I were backed into your corner.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Yo mama swims out to meet troop ships at sea ...

Suffers interdiction and extraordinary rendition by the CIA, loss of habeas corpus, imprisonment at an Egyptian black site, tortured, forced to listen to James Blunt nonstop and was sexually humiliated.

... And loved every minute of it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: shira
"Defining" terms in memos does not change U.S. law. Under U.S. law, if a person experiences "severe mental pain or suffering" he's being tortured. Safeguards are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with the person's experience.

And if a person doesn't suffer "severe" mental pain or suffering, for which the specifics of that is also defined, then it's not considered torture under our laws. Just pain and suffering is not enough. It must be "severe." The method was designed so the definition of "severe" does not come into play.

The safeguards are also very relevant because a lasting injury can be considered "severe."

Think about the absurdity of your reasoning: Somehow, for the interrogation technique to be effective, the ordeal experienced by the detainee must be severe enough that he's compelled to talk. Yet because of the "safeguards," the ordeal is NOT torture because the detainee does NOT experience "severe mental pain or suffering."

That's not my thinking at all. That's you making an assumption about my thinking. My thinking is the the interrogation must give the impression of being harsh enough to work on their fears and prompt them to talk.

You can't have it both ways. In fact, the "safeguards" you speak of are to prevent the prisoner from dying or experiencing brain damage from lack of oxygen. Those may well be actual "physical" safeguards, but they in no way prevent "severe mental pain and suffering." If they did, why on earth would the prisoner spill the beans?

If you believe that's all the safeguards are you might want to check out the long list of restrictions involved.

You seem to be under the impression that being frightened or scared must involve some sort of severe physical or mental pain. I don't believe that to be the case. I don't believe our laws back you up on that either.

You will claim, of course, that the prisoner KNOWS that the U.S. isn't going to kill him. So that prevents "severe mental pain and suffering." But that's nonsense. First, no one has reduced waterboarding to an exact science. Do you really think it's one-size-fits-all? Is 34 seconds without oxygen right for every prisoner? Is it right on the fifth waterboarding of the day as well as the first? Leave the prisoner without oxygen a second or two too long, and brain damage will occur. No one knows the just where the exact limits are. No prisoner can be sure that his captors aren't going to make mistakes. Do you REALLY think the "safeguards" are perfect?

Failing to kill the prisoner is a non sequitur. Nobody is suggesting such a thing. Not only that, but the limits, minimums, and averages of human capability to survive without oxygen are well known. These guys aren't physical basket cases. That's why they are given thorough physicals before any interrogation even begins.

And even if somehow a prisoner KNEW for sure that he wasn't going to die or be damaged by the ordeal, that doesn't get waterboarding off the hook: Because in those moments when the prisoner cannot breathe, the irrational, instinctive mind takes over. The prisoner struggles to survive, to BREATHE, to LIVE. There's no cool, rational thought at those moments. It's all animal terror. That's "severe mental pain and suffering." That's TORTURE.

No, it's not torture. It's being scared. Instilling fear during an interrogation without involving any severe mental or physical pain is NOT torture no matter how many in here wring their hands about it and insist it is.

And now the real truth comes out. You seem to be upset because seem militant jihadi jerkoff actually might momentarially feel a minute portion of the terror. Well, karma's a bitch. Just ask PC Surgeon.

Edit: btw, thanks for actually discussing the specifics of the issue without going off on emotional rants and all the other idiocy some have tried foisting off in here. At least one person in here can actually discuss the issue with me without flipping their lid. Take note, gentlemen.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir
You are so delusional. I don't like your response? I don't care about your response. It is what I expected, entertainment like the rest of your condescending excrement. You are like watching a small boy who can't have a candy bar before dinner. When adults explain why you are wrong, you just yell and stomp your feet louder. Name calling goes with your tantrum.

Thanks for your condescending words as well. I'll wrap them up and put them in that big ol' pile along with the rest of the pointy-headed, look-down-your-nose utterances from the unhinged loony-tunes in here.

You are welcome. I am happy to help you secure your Pot, Meet Kettle Post of the Year Award. It also gives you a diversion to ignore people still pwning you about torture. You are welcome for that too. I would try to change the subject too if I were backed into your corner.

You ARE trying to change the subject, dumbass, not me.

Heh, talk about "pwning. You just pwned yourself.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There's no point to this. It doesn't matter how many organizations and experts say waterboarding is torture, TLC is a prisoner of his own circular logic.

I don't care how many abortions rights activists scream that abortion is MURDER either. It doesn't make it true. The fact of this comes down to proving that our specific method of waterboarding is torture, not a bunch of screaming meemies shouting in unison that "WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE." I'm positive you know this as well but you're too afraid to walk away from your talking points because you'd have no real defense if you actually discussed the specifics of our methods and tried to show where it runs afoul of the law.

At least Shira has the nads to do that. You should learn something from him.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No, it's not torture. It's being scared. Instilling fear during an interrogation without involving any severe mental or physical pain is NOT torture no matter how many in here wring their hands about it and insist it is.

My, my, my. What a fine little Bushwhacko sycophant (means ass licker). Rush will be so proud of you. Since you're still in lying and denying mode, you win yet another round of macro. Take particular note of paragraph 2 in the definition of torture under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. It happens to be the law you say doesn't exist.

I'm STILL calling you an AMORAL LIAR. I posted replies to you with legal references, and you STILL deny them.

In this thread, on 4/22/2009 at 1:07 PM pdt, I posted this reply to you:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Despite all the numerous threads on the subject not a single person in here who has been screaming "WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE" at the top of their lungs has done that yet. Not a one.

Attorney General, Eric Holder is one legal authority who disagrees with your assessment.

Waterboarding Is Torture, Holder Tells Senators
Justice Dept. Nominee Rejects Policies Of Bush Era but Stresses Bipartisanship

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2009
.
.
In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder declared that the interrogation practice known as waterboarding amounts to torture, departing from the interpretation of his Bush administration predecessors.
.
.
(continues)

Deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage is another.

Ex-Bush official says waterboarding is torture

By PAMELA HESS ? 6 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) ? A former No. 2 State Department official in the Bush administration says he hopes he would have had the courage to resign if he had known the CIA was subjecting terrorism suspects to waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, told Al Jazeera English television in an interview airing Wednesday that waterboarding is torture. However, he said he does not believe CIA officials who engaged in waterboarding and other forms of harsh interrogation should be prosecuted.
.
.
(continues)[/b]

On 4-22-09, on Rachel Maddow's show, Philip Zelikow, an attorney and a former under secretary of state to Condoleezza Wright, said that, in 2005, he wrote a memo disputing "THE memos" by John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, the attorneys who wrote the opinions supporting torture, and their boss, Alberto Gonzales. Full segment.

He further says his superiors tried to destroy every copy of his contrary memo. From the transcript:

MADDOW: Rather than just disagreeing with you or saying that they thought that you were wrong and the Office of Legal Counsel memos that you were rebutting were correct, why do you think they tried to destroy every copy of the memo that they knew existed? And how did you find out that they did try to destroy copies of the memo?

ZELIKOW: Well, I found out because I was told. I mean, we're trying to collect these and destroy them, and you have a copy, don't you? But I -- the -- I know copies that were retained in my building, and as I mentioned, Secretary Rice understood what I was doing on her behalf. I was her agent in these matters. And the -- so I think copies still exist.

Are you out of lies, yet, TLC? :roll:

And in this thread, on 4/23/2009 at 1:13 PM I posted this reply to you:

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)

Do you have any credible references to counter the FACT that the United States of America has considered waterboarding as torture for at least the last hundred years?

What qualifies you to dispute the legal opinion of Eric Holder the Attorney General of the United States of America?

What qualifies you to dispute the legal opinion of Richard Armitage, the former Deputy secretary of state the United States of America?

What qualifies you to dispute the experiential opinion of John McCain, a former POW and torture survivor that waterboarding is torture?

What qualifies you to be considered a human being? :shocked:

And remember, I promised you I would continue to repost versions of this macro as long as they correctly addressed your continuing lies and denials. It's all cut and paste so it's easy, and you can count on me to do it.