Justice department launches new investigations of GWB era torture policy.

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Druidx

Just like a bird squawking

Bush Bush Bush
Cabal Cabal Cabal

Good doggy. You've learned the words. Now, let's see if you understand them. If you don't agree with what I post, see if you can disprove any of it.

Or you can continue to spew the same vapid, mindless bullshit and confirm that you don't know your ass from that hole in the ground you keep digging for yourself. :laugh:

Holy shit mind warp. I thought you talking about yourself for a minute. My bad.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

True, but the only difference between murder and killing is intent. The end result is exactly the same. Exactly. But even there it is fuzzy. For example, someone rapes and kills my wife. A court finds him guilty and sentances him to death. Now, if *I* were to kill him, myself and the state both have the same intent-to punish him for his crimes. The difference is that somehow Im not allowed. Same with waterboarding. Sure, there are many people who probably waterboarded with the intent not of gaining information, but because they are evil and wanted nothing more than to hurt; however, those people are seriously the exception. Mostly, those who waterboarded did so with the intent of gaining information, and did so in a controlled environment. Its all in the intent. The action is the same, the intent is different. Same difference between murder and killing.

I can point to you the letter of the law where intent makes a difference in whether something is murder or not, can you point to the letter of US law where the purpose of 'gaining information' makes something not torture?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: chucky2
You're in a firefight in a city, exchanging fire with an unknown number of bad guys (they're shooting around corners, not offering any real profile. You push up and round the corner, there's a man standing there, sweating, dirty face, hands freshly dirty, maybe smells like cordite, there's an AK-47 laying close to the corner, he's 10 feet away.

You take him into custody.

Now, he's a what? Innocent? Combatant? What?

I'm not saying we should waterboard him on the way back to jail (he's likely a peon, not worth the bad press of waterboarding), however, exactly how do you expect someone like that to be treated?

You want a trial for him to determine his innocence? So he says he was frightened, ran out of his house/some other excuse. How are you going to prove at this trial you want him to have that that's not true? He then gets away to spray some bullets at us another day....super...but, he got his trial. Him as his buddies can laugh about it as the load up mags to kill some more of US with...

Now, realize, that's going to be one of the more clear cut cases our military and intelligence will have to deal with. What about the others? What do you want, video evidence of people committing harmful acts before we touch them? And if they cover their face (as is common there)? What then?

You are wanting something that exists in only an ideal world...this is the real world...

Chuck

So you're getting shot at, and you find a guy with a gun at his feet. You arrest him, and put him in jail pending a trial.

He can't be tortured, he can't be waterboarded, he can't be killed while in jail. He gets a lawyer, and is tried according to our laws. The trick? I'm not talking about a terrorist, I'm talking aobut random criminals in the US.

This is the real world....the police do it all the time. They manage to arrest people and they actually have a trial (gasp!) to prove innocence or guilt.

I pull a gun and shoot you in front of a 100 witnesses, the police still have to arrest me and I get a fair trial and can't be tortured. Go figure, huh? Image that.

I guess the difference between a war, and being in combat in a warzone, and criminals in the US just comlpletely eludes you.

I guess so. These people have been in prison for months/years, and have been getting tortured. They aren't in combat, they have already been captured/detained for months.

This isn't happening on the battlefield, it's happening in prison. Unless you want to claim that somehow they are still fighting while being tortured.

We are talking about torture. A systemic plan to torture a large group of people, after the fact, in secure areas. No battlefield involved.

Do you see a difference?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
True, but the only difference between murder and killing is intent. The end result is exactly the same. Exactly. But even there it is fuzzy. For example, someone rapes and kills my wife. A court finds him guilty and sentances him to death. Now, if *I* were to kill him, myself and the state both have the same intent-to punish him for his crimes. The difference is that somehow Im not allowed. Same with waterboarding. Sure, there are many people who probably waterboarded with the intent not of gaining information, but because they are evil and wanted nothing more than to hurt; however, those people are seriously the exception. Mostly, those who waterboarded did so with the intent of gaining information, and did so in a controlled environment. Its all in the intent. The action is the same, the intent is different. Same difference between murder and killing.

Precisely. The point I'm trying to make is that, in essence, what the "TORTURE!" crowd is doing is the equivalent of claiming that all killing is murder. While they are willing to recognize the difference between killing and murder, where the distinctions are often very minor, they absolutely refuse to accept that there might be a difference between interrogation methods and torture. They would rather decree that "All waterboarding is torture." because that simplifies the argument in their eyes.

It's just not that simple though.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: blackangst1
True, but the only difference between murder and killing is intent. The end result is exactly the same. Exactly. But even there it is fuzzy. For example, someone rapes and kills my wife. A court finds him guilty and sentances him to death. Now, if *I* were to kill him, myself and the state both have the same intent-to punish him for his crimes. The difference is that somehow Im not allowed. Same with waterboarding. Sure, there are many people who probably waterboarded with the intent not of gaining information, but because they are evil and wanted nothing more than to hurt; however, those people are seriously the exception. Mostly, those who waterboarded did so with the intent of gaining information, and did so in a controlled environment. Its all in the intent. The action is the same, the intent is different. Same difference between murder and killing.

Precisely. The point I'm trying to make is that, in essence, what the "TORTURE!" crowd is doing is the equivalent of claiming that all killing is murder. While they are willing to recognize the difference between killing and murder, where the distinctions are often very minor, they absolutely refuse to accept that there might be a difference between interrogation methods and torture. They would rather decree that "All waterboarding is torture." because that simplifies the argument in their eyes.

It's just not that simple though.

US law makes a distinction between the circumstances of various forms of killing. 1st degree murder is not manslaughter is not felony murder. US law does not make an exception for torturing people to get information.

While I disagree with the moral argument such as that, it is most certainly a reasonable one to make. As a legal argument however, it simply doesn't hold water. (har)

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
True, but the only difference between murder and killing is intent. The end result is exactly the same. Exactly. But even there it is fuzzy. For example, someone rapes and kills my wife. A court finds him guilty and sentances him to death. Now, if *I* were to kill him, myself and the state both have the same intent-to punish him for his crimes. The difference is that somehow Im not allowed. Same with waterboarding. Sure, there are probably a few who waterboarded with the intent not of gaining information, but because they are evil and wanted nothing more than to hurt; however, those people are seriously the exception. Mostly, those who waterboarded did so with the intent of gaining information, and did so in a controlled environment. Its all in the intent. The action is the same, the intent is different. Same difference between murder and killing.

I don't agree.

If someone attacks me at home, I have every right to defend myself, including killing the intruder. I have killed someone, but I have not murdered someone, and I didn't do it to "punish" him, I did it to protect myself.

Or if someone is playing with a gun, and it accidentally goes off, and kills a friend. We hear that in the news every once in a while, and there is no intent to kill, nor any punishment intended of the victim.

Likewise, it doesn't really matter if waterboarding is just for inflicting pain/suffering or to gain "intel". The act itself is illegal, so intent is irrelevant.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

What I "get" is that you are actually of the foolish impression that if you deem something so, it therefore must be. You also, apparently, are the decider on what's relevant or not.

That isn't his decision. It's also not yours, especially since you're so utterly wrong. The "decider on what's relevant" would be the Geneva and United Nations Conventions Against Torture and U.S. statutes:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340

§ 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter?

• (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; and
  (3) ?United States? means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Chirping loudly and dismissing inconvenient considerations with a wave of the hand does not make for facts. That seems a difficult concept for you to grasp though.

Still pimping the same outrageous lies and bullshit you've been spewing repeatedly in thread after thread, for example, this one, and you're still just as detached from reality and bereft of ethics, morals and conscience. :roll:

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Wrong. All murder is illegal. All killing isn't.

All forms of torture are illegal. All intterogations aren't.

How nice one form of torture is compared to another is totally irrelevant. Both are illegal, and to try and argue that one illegal act is OK, because there are other worse things is just ridiculous. Get it now? It's not hard to understand.

What I "get" is that you are actually of the foolish impression that if you deem something so, it therefore must be. You also, apparently, are the decider on what's relevant or not.

Chirping loudly and dismissing inconvenient considerations with a wave of the hand does not make for facts. That seems a difficult concept for you to grasp though.

Again, proof?

There are plenty of examples of the US convicting it's own people for waterboarding.

So prove waterbaording is legal. Put up or shut up. Present some cases where a US court found that waterboarding is legal. Show a case where a defendent that waterbaorded someone was found innocent.

We will all be here waiting.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: blackangst1
True, but the only difference between murder and killing is intent. The end result is exactly the same. Exactly. But even there it is fuzzy. For example, someone rapes and kills my wife. A court finds him guilty and sentances him to death. Now, if *I* were to kill him, myself and the state both have the same intent-to punish him for his crimes. The difference is that somehow Im not allowed. Same with waterboarding. Sure, there are many people who probably waterboarded with the intent not of gaining information, but because they are evil and wanted nothing more than to hurt; however, those people are seriously the exception. Mostly, those who waterboarded did so with the intent of gaining information, and did so in a controlled environment. Its all in the intent. The action is the same, the intent is different. Same difference between murder and killing.

Precisely. The point I'm trying to make is that, in essence, what the "TORTURE!" crowd is doing is the equivalent of claiming that all killing is murder. While they are willing to recognize the difference between killing and murder, where the distinctions are often very minor, they absolutely refuse to accept that there might be a difference between interrogation methods and torture. They would rather decree that "All waterboarding is torture." because that simplifies the argument in their eyes.

It's just not that simple though.

US law makes a distinction between the circumstances of various forms of killing. 1st degree murder is not manslaughter is not felony murder. US law does not make an exception for torturing people to get information.

While I disagree with the moral argument such as that, it is most certainly a reasonable one to make. As a legal argument however, it simply doesn't hold water. (har)

US law defines what murder is. US law also defines what torture is. Just as certain requirements have to be met to determine whether or not an act of killing is murder (in whatever classification), certain requirements have to be met to qualify an act of interrogation as torture. Some claim our method fo waterboarding is torture, some do not. However, no official legal determination has been made so we are at an impasse.

Call all waterboarding "TORTURE" if you wish but you have no real legal basis for doing so in this particular case.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
...Specifically you are saying the manner in which we waterboard people (presumably in a less severe way), makes it not torture. What specifically about our method of waterboarding makes it no longer torture?

Good point. The term "murder" generally implies an unlawful act performed with intent. More correctly the term homocide should be used because there is lawful homocide and unlawful homocide. Iow, not all homocide is considered murder.q]
FWIW, the term you are using here is a derogatory term used by some police departments for gay-on-gay homicide.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Wrong. All murder is illegal. All killing isn't.

All forms of torture are illegal. All intterogations aren't.

How nice one form of torture is compared to another is totally irrelevant. Both are illegal, and to try and argue that one illegal act is OK, because there are other worse things is just ridiculous. Get it now? It's not hard to understand.

What I "get" is that you are actually of the foolish impression that if you deem something so, it therefore must be. You also, apparently, are the decider on what's relevant or not.

Chirping loudly and dismissing inconvenient considerations with a wave of the hand does not make for facts. That seems a difficult concept for you to grasp though.

Again, proof?

There are plenty of examples of the US convicting it's own people for waterboarding.

So prove waterbaording is legal. Put up or shut up. Present some cases where a US court found that waterboarding is legal. Show a case where a defendent that waterbaorded someone was found innocent.

We will all be here waiting.

You still don't get it, do you? The onus is on you to prove your insistent claim that waterboarding in this case was illegal. It's the people like you who insist it was, without a doubt, illegal that I have a quibble with. My position is that it might have been legal or it might have been illegal but we cannot state with certainty either way. I entertain both possibilities but some in here refuse to recognize that the methods the CIA used could be considered legal.

Since no official determination has been made that is the only way one can look at it. Anything else is purely speculation and assumptions at this point.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: blackangst1
True, but the only difference between murder and killing is intent. The end result is exactly the same. Exactly. But even there it is fuzzy. For example, someone rapes and kills my wife. A court finds him guilty and sentances him to death. Now, if *I* were to kill him, myself and the state both have the same intent-to punish him for his crimes. The difference is that somehow Im not allowed. Same with waterboarding. Sure, there are many people who probably waterboarded with the intent not of gaining information, but because they are evil and wanted nothing more than to hurt; however, those people are seriously the exception. Mostly, those who waterboarded did so with the intent of gaining information, and did so in a controlled environment. Its all in the intent. The action is the same, the intent is different. Same difference between murder and killing.

Precisely. The point I'm trying to make is that, in essence, what the "TORTURE!" crowd is doing is the equivalent of claiming that all killing is murder. While they are willing to recognize the difference between killing and murder, where the distinctions are often very minor, they absolutely refuse to accept that there might be a difference between interrogation methods and torture. They would rather decree that "All waterboarding is torture." because that simplifies the argument in their eyes.

It's just not that simple though.

US law makes a distinction between the circumstances of various forms of killing. 1st degree murder is not manslaughter is not felony murder. US law does not make an exception for torturing people to get information.

While I disagree with the moral argument such as that, it is most certainly a reasonable one to make. As a legal argument however, it simply doesn't hold water. (har)

US law defines what murder is. US law also defines what torture is. Just as certain requirements have to be met to determine whether or not an act of killing is murder (in whatever classification), certain requirements have to be met to qualify an act of interrogation as torture. Some claim our method fo waterboarding is torture, some do not. However, no official legal determination has been made so we are at an impasse.

Call all waterboarding "TORTURE" if you wish but you have no real legal basis for doing so in this particular case.

I really do. We're not talking about interrogation in general, we're talking about waterboarding. US law has previously defined interrogations using waterboarding that are EXTREMELY similar to the ones that were carried out as torture. While it is true that if you see someone come up and shoot a guy in the face in front of you, you can't call it murder because no legal determination has been made... that is an argument of semantics. Reasonable people would be completely comfortable defining it as such. Furthermore you have said that there are differences between the waterboarding we prosecuted and this one that make ours not torture, but you have not provided any specific safeguards that you believe achieve this goal.

I'm sorry, but the overwhelming opinion of legal experts and experts on torture is that this was torture. It doesn't mean that you have to accept their opinion, but both our positions are not equally valid on this.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
...Specifically you are saying the manner in which we waterboard people (presumably in a less severe way), makes it not torture. What specifically about our method of waterboarding makes it no longer torture?

Good point. The term "murder" generally implies an unlawful act performed with intent. More correctly the term homocide should be used because there is lawful homocide and unlawful homocide. Iow, not all homocide is considered murder.q]
FWIW, the term you are using here is a derogatory term used by some police departments for gay-on-gay homicide.

No such intent. I don't use a spell checker and wasn't aware of the police using it that way in the first place.

Thanks for the heads up though. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I really do. We're not talking about interrogation in general, we're talking about waterboarding. US law has previously defined interrogations using waterboarding that are EXTREMELY similar to the ones that were carried out as torture. While it is true that if you see someone come up and shoot a guy in the face in front of you, you can't call it murder because no legal determination has been made... that is an argument of semantics. Reasonable people would be completely comfortable defining it as such. Furthermore you have said that there are differences between the waterboarding we prosecuted and this one that make ours not torture, but you have not provided any specific safeguards that you believe achieve this goal.

I'm sorry, but the overwhelming opinion of legal experts and experts on torture is that this was torture. It doesn't mean that you have to accept their opinion, but both our positions are not equally valid on this.

If we were making apples-to-apples comparison to past waterboarding methods I would agree with you. However, not all waterboarding is the same. As with so many actions committing a crime and remaining within legal bounds is often a thin line. In this case I have no doubt that the CIA skated close to that line. I question whether they crossed it though.

That will be up to a court to decide, IF they ever decide to look at the issue further in the first place.

 

[Druidx]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Or you can continue to spew the same vapid, mindless bullshit and confirm that you don't know your ass from that hole in the ground you keep digging for yourself. :laugh:

Right back at ya

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You still don't get it, do you? The onus is on you to prove your insistent claim that waterboarding in this case was illegal. It's the people like you who insist it was, without a doubt, illegal that I have a quibble with. My position is that it might have been legal or it might have been illegal but we cannot state with certainty either way. I entertain both possibilities but some in here refuse to recognize that the methods the CIA used could be considered legal.

Since no official determination has been made that is the only way one can look at it. Anything else is purely speculation and assumptions at this point.

So you have no proof. Got it. Typical.

Here is some evidence supporting my view, since you have nothing. So please, tell us about the grave miscarriages of justice, since according to you, all these people were wrongly convicted since what they did was legal.

US Civilians:

In 1983 Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confessions. The complaint said they "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning". The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.

US Military:

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

During the Spanish-American War, a U.S. soldier, Major Edwin Glenn, was suspended from command for one month and fined $50 for using "the water cure." In his review, the Army judge advocate said the charges constituted "resort to torture with a view to extort a confession." He recommended disapproval because "the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture."

Done to US military:

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

So unless some new law was passed that didn't make the news authorizing waterboarding, I'd say it has been and still is illegal. Bush (or Obama for that matter) can't on his own change US laws.

If you really want to torture, get congress to explicitly pass a law saying that we will torture and waterboard anyone we want.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I really do. We're not talking about interrogation in general, we're talking about waterboarding. US law has previously defined interrogations using waterboarding that are EXTREMELY similar to the ones that were carried out as torture. While it is true that if you see someone come up and shoot a guy in the face in front of you, you can't call it murder because no legal determination has been made... that is an argument of semantics. Reasonable people would be completely comfortable defining it as such. Furthermore you have said that there are differences between the waterboarding we prosecuted and this one that make ours not torture, but you have not provided any specific safeguards that you believe achieve this goal.

I'm sorry, but the overwhelming opinion of legal experts and experts on torture is that this was torture. It doesn't mean that you have to accept their opinion, but both our positions are not equally valid on this.

If we were making apples-to-apples comparison to past waterboarding methods I would agree with you. However, not all waterboarding is the same. As with so many actions committing a crime and remaining within legal bounds is often a thin line. In this case I have no doubt that the CIA skated close to that line. I question whether they crossed it though.

That will be up to a court to decide, IF they ever decide to look at the issue further in the first place.

BS. Like everyone said above, all murder is illegal, all killing is *not*. All waterboarding is illegal. All interrogation is *not*.

And have you selectively ignored my post about the many prisoners that *died* during this? Is that murder? How can that not be a crime as well?

Do you not care about that either?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I really do. We're not talking about interrogation in general, we're talking about waterboarding. US law has previously defined interrogations using waterboarding that are EXTREMELY similar to the ones that were carried out as torture. While it is true that if you see someone come up and shoot a guy in the face in front of you, you can't call it murder because no legal determination has been made... that is an argument of semantics. Reasonable people would be completely comfortable defining it as such. Furthermore you have said that there are differences between the waterboarding we prosecuted and this one that make ours not torture, but you have not provided any specific safeguards that you believe achieve this goal.

I'm sorry, but the overwhelming opinion of legal experts and experts on torture is that this was torture. It doesn't mean that you have to accept their opinion, but both our positions are not equally valid on this.

If we were making apples-to-apples comparison to past waterboarding methods I would agree with you. However, not all waterboarding is the same. As with so many actions committing a crime and remaining within legal bounds is often a thin line. In this case I have no doubt that the CIA skated close to that line. I question whether they crossed it though.

That will be up to a court to decide, IF they ever decide to look at the issue further in the first place.

BS. Like everyone said above, all murder is illegal, all killing is *not*. All waterboarding is illegal. All interrogation is *not*.

And have you selectively ignored my post about the many prisoners that *died* during this? Is that murder? How can that not be a crime as well?

Do you not care about that either?

A court decides what is murder and what is killing on a case-by-case basis, not you, nor a herd of wailing internet cats. A court will have to decide whether the interrogation methods used by the CIA were illegal or not.

Your comment about murder is a non-sequitor because nobody died from waterboarding in this particular case. Trying to throw a non-applicable emotional argument into the mix doesn't make a case for you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You still don't get it, do you? The onus is on you to prove your insistent claim that waterboarding in this case was illegal. It's the people like you who insist it was, without a doubt, illegal that I have a quibble with. My position is that it might have been legal or it might have been illegal but we cannot state with certainty either way. I entertain both possibilities but some in here refuse to recognize that the methods the CIA used could be considered legal.

Since no official determination has been made that is the only way one can look at it. Anything else is purely speculation and assumptions at this point.

So you have no proof. Got it. Typical.

Here is some evidence supporting my view, since you have nothing. So please, tell us about the grave miscarriages of justice, since according to you, all these people were wrongly convicted since what they did was legal.

US Civilians:

In 1983 Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confessions. The complaint said they "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning". The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.

US Military:

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

During the Spanish-American War, a U.S. soldier, Major Edwin Glenn, was suspended from command for one month and fined $50 for using "the water cure." In his review, the Army judge advocate said the charges constituted "resort to torture with a view to extort a confession." He recommended disapproval because "the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture."

Done to US military:

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

So unless some new law was passed that didn't make the news authorizing waterboarding, I'd say it has been and still is illegal. Bush (or Obama for that matter) can't on his own change US laws.

If you really want to torture, get congress to explicitly pass a law saying that we will torture and waterboard anyone we want.

There you go again, pretending that all waterboarding is the same. 'It's waterboarding, therefore it must be illegal.'

Sorry, but that's an incorrect conclusion. Until a court looks at this you cannot make that statement with certainty, you can only speculate.

 

[Pens1566]

You're right, they died from being beaten with a flashlight ...

 

[Lemon law]

Gotta wonder at the TLC position on this thread, on one hand he says, "Sorry, but that's an incorrect conclusion. Until a court looks at this you cannot make that statement with certainty, you can only speculate."

And the body of TLC's other posts is to deny that these investigations into illegal torture policies will ever see the inside of a court of law where such determinations can be made.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Gotta wonder at the TLC position on this thread, on one hand he says, "Sorry, but that's an incorrect conclusion. Until a court looks at this you cannot make that statement with certainty, you can only speculate."

And the body of TLC's other posts is to deny that these investigations into illegal torture policies will ever see the inside of a court of law where such determinations can be made.

Imo, I highly doubt that the question of illegality, or legality, of the CIA interrogation policies will ever see the inside of a courtroom. The Obama admin doesn't appear inclined to delve into that question, nor do those in Congress that have already looked into the issue.

btw, take note of your biased spin by calling them "illegal torture policies." Yet I bet in other situations you'd be one of the first to scream about innocent before proven guilty. Funny how some of the most liberal people in this forum are also the quickest to bang their jurist hammer down loudly when they see fit.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Gotta wonder at the TLC position on this thread, on one hand he says, "Sorry, but that's an incorrect conclusion. Until a court looks at this you cannot make that statement with certainty, you can only speculate."

And the body of TLC's other posts is to deny that these investigations into illegal torture policies will ever see the inside of a court of law where such determinations can be made.

Imo, I highly doubt that the question of illegality, or legality, of the CIA interrogation policies will ever see the inside of a courtroom. The Obama admin doesn't appear inclined to delve into that question, nor do those in Congress that have already looked into the issue.

btw, take note of your biased spin by calling them "illegal torture policies." Yet I bet in other situations you'd be one of the first to scream about innocent before proven guilty. Funny how some of the most liberal people in this forum are also the quickest to bang their jurist hammer down loudly when they see fit.

Pretty much this.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: chucky2
You're in a firefight in a city, exchanging fire with an unknown number of bad guys (they're shooting around corners, not offering any real profile. You push up and round the corner, there's a man standing there, sweating, dirty face, hands freshly dirty, maybe smells like cordite, there's an AK-47 laying close to the corner, he's 10 feet away.

You take him into custody.

Now, he's a what? Innocent? Combatant? What?

I'm not saying we should waterboard him on the way back to jail (he's likely a peon, not worth the bad press of waterboarding), however, exactly how do you expect someone like that to be treated?

You want a trial for him to determine his innocence? So he says he was frightened, ran out of his house/some other excuse. How are you going to prove at this trial you want him to have that that's not true? He then gets away to spray some bullets at us another day....super...but, he got his trial. Him as his buddies can laugh about it as the load up mags to kill some more of US with...

Now, realize, that's going to be one of the more clear cut cases our military and intelligence will have to deal with. What about the others? What do you want, video evidence of people committing harmful acts before we touch them? And if they cover their face (as is common there)? What then?

You are wanting something that exists in only an ideal world...this is the real world...

Chuck

So you're getting shot at, and you find a guy with a gun at his feet. You arrest him, and put him in jail pending a trial.

He can't be tortured, he can't be waterboarded, he can't be killed while in jail. He gets a lawyer, and is tried according to our laws. The trick? I'm not talking about a terrorist, I'm talking aobut random criminals in the US.

This is the real world....the police do it all the time. They manage to arrest people and they actually have a trial (gasp!) to prove innocence or guilt.

I pull a gun and shoot you in front of a 100 witnesses, the police still have to arrest me and I get a fair trial and can't be tortured. Go figure, huh? Image that.

I guess the difference between a war, and being in combat in a warzone, and criminals in the US just comlpletely eludes you.

I guess so. These people have been in prison for months/years, and have been getting tortured. They aren't in combat, they have already been captured/detained for months.

This isn't happening on the battlefield, it's happening in prison. Unless you want to claim that somehow they are still fighting while being tortured.

We are talking about torture. A systemic plan to torture a large group of people, after the fact, in secure areas. No battlefield involved.

Do you see a difference?

And they just wound up there, just poof, magically in prison as a terror suspect? Or were they just rollin' through t he wrong neighborhood and got racially profiled.."But officer, that not MY AK!"

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I really do. We're not talking about interrogation in general, we're talking about waterboarding. US law has previously defined interrogations using waterboarding that are EXTREMELY similar to the ones that were carried out as torture. While it is true that if you see someone come up and shoot a guy in the face in front of you, you can't call it murder because no legal determination has been made... that is an argument of semantics. Reasonable people would be completely comfortable defining it as such. Furthermore you have said that there are differences between the waterboarding we prosecuted and this one that make ours not torture, but you have not provided any specific safeguards that you believe achieve this goal.

I'm sorry, but the overwhelming opinion of legal experts and experts on torture is that this was torture. It doesn't mean that you have to accept their opinion, but both our positions are not equally valid on this.

If we were making apples-to-apples comparison to past waterboarding methods I would agree with you. However, not all waterboarding is the same. As with so many actions committing a crime and remaining within legal bounds is often a thin line. In this case I have no doubt that the CIA skated close to that line. I question whether they crossed it though.

That will be up to a court to decide, IF they ever decide to look at the issue further in the first place.

Not to belabor the point, but I have to ask once again what the CIA did to make this not torture. You mentioned physical safeguards, but waterboarding is primarily psychological torture. As us law prohibits both equally, and you believe the CIAs methods were plausibly legal, what causes you to believe this?