Justice department launches new investigations of GWB era torture policy.

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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?

I'm not going to go Harvey on you and reprint the US laws regarding torture. We've all seen it a hundred times.

It contains definitions of what constitutes torture and specifically states how "severe mental pain or suffering" is defined using the words "prolonged mental harm." Part of the CIA policy regarding waterboarding was observation of the captive to ensure that no prolonged mental harm was resulting from the process. Therefore, it can be argued that the methods used by the CIA did not constitute torture as defined under US law.

 

[Lemon law]

As chicken man says "I'm not going to go Harvey on you and reprint the US laws regarding torture. We've all seen it a hundred times."

Get it through your thick redacted ridiculous brain, if the USA does not prosecute these violations of international law, the international community will.

And like the "good German defense", your bleatings will be laughed out of court in 5 milliseconds.

 

[fskimospy]

That still does nothing to explain a difference in technique that would alter waterboarding from illegal to legal. Give me a difference in how they performed it... Something... Anything. The 'prolonged mental harm' is by all accounts impossible to separate from the act itself. Having a doctor stare at it does zero to change that. Attempting to argue so simply makes an apology for hideous torture.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
That still does nothing to explain a difference in technique that would alter waterboarding from illegal to legal. Give me a difference in how they performed it... Something... Anything. The 'prolonged mental harm' is by all accounts impossible to separate from the act itself. Having a doctor stare at it does zero to change that. Attempting to argue so simply makes an apology for hideous torture.

Yeah, the DoJ looked into the law and provided guidelines/changes they felt made the new/modified technique legal. I do not know if these changes have been completely disclosed. What I have seen/read so far include:

- limited duration
- limited volume of water
- medical supervision

IDK if that's the total extent of the new parameters, or if there are more rules.

I suppose if someone gets hold of the DoJ memos and see what they recommended/mandated we'd know more. IDK if they've been publically released.

Fern

 

[Druidx]

I like how this turned to water-boarding even though it's not the subject of the story. Done to 3 people. they know exactly how and when. It should be pretty damn easy for someone to bring charges if they really wanted to. The Left talked this issue up all the time because it gave them a great soundbyte but they never acted on their fake outrage. Exactly like they did when they denounced Bush for his "War of lies", then consistently voted to continue funding it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As chicken man says "I'm not going to go Harvey on you and reprint the US laws regarding torture. We've all seen it a hundred times."

Get it through your thick redacted ridiculous brain, if the USA does not prosecute these violations of international law, the international community will.

And like the "good German defense", your bleatings will be laughed out of court in 5 milliseconds.

Uh huh, International Law and the international community.

Speaking of bleatings being laughed at...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
That still does nothing to explain a difference in technique that would alter waterboarding from illegal to legal. Give me a difference in how they performed it... Something... Anything. The 'prolonged mental harm' is by all accounts impossible to separate from the act itself. Having a doctor stare at it does zero to change that. Attempting to argue so simply makes an apology for hideous torture.

Have you ever bothered to read the restrictions the CIA placed on their waterboarding method?

If not, you should. Then you might begin to understand where I'm coming from.

edit: I'd find it odd if you haven't read it already since you always try to come off as knowing everything about nearly anything.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
That still does nothing to explain a difference in technique that would alter waterboarding from illegal to legal. Give me a difference in how they performed it... Something... Anything. The 'prolonged mental harm' is by all accounts impossible to separate from the act itself. Having a doctor stare at it does zero to change that. Attempting to argue so simply makes an apology for hideous torture.

Yeah, the DoJ looked into the law and provided guidelines/changes they felt made the new/modified technique legal. I do not know if these changes have been completely disclosed. What I have seen/read so far include:

- limited duration
- limited volume of water
- medical supervision

IDK if that's the total extent of the new parameters, or if there are more rules.

I suppose if someone gets hold of the DoJ memos and see what they recommended/mandated we'd know more. IDK if they've been publically released.

Fern

How do you square that with the head of the OLC stating: Let me be clear, though: There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law. in February of last year?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ahhh... so you're going to be like this.

You expect me to embrace your dishonest misrepresentation of what I said? Silly lefties who've been here for a time should know better than that.

I'm not interested in playing the semantics game with you on point 1. You're right that you didn't say that the Democrats were equally culpable for the illegal wiretapping, but the fact that the Democrats later passed a law to make something similar legal doesn't do anything to make the actions of the Bush administration any less criminal.

As usual you don't know what the hell you're taking about. The FISA laws were updated to insure the "illegal wiretapping" was unmistakenly legal. Obviously congress felt it was legally justified to the point of even offering amnesty to the private sector participants. The bottom line is the legality of the wiretaps was never contested by any body with the power to apply the law. Just because you claim it was "illegal" doesn't make it so. I wonder how many pot smoking "Bush is a criminal" screaming lefties consider themselves to be criminals. Are you one of those hypocrites? Just wondering.

He specifically stated that Libby's repeated lies and obstruction of justice prevented his office from determining if a crime took place........

That's not what you originally claimed. Let me quote you again:

The special prosecutor specifically said that widespread perjury rendered them incapable of prosecuting anyone for disclosing her status. Everyone lied so much they couldn't get to the heart of it.

So which is it, was "everyone lying" or just Libby? You said Fitzgerald "specifically" said that "widespread perjury" and "everyone lied so much". Now I'm confused as your argument seems to have changed. But what do I know. How about I let Fitzgerald speak for himself during his press conference closing the matter (its been 4 years, its over):

QUESTION: For all the sand thrown in your eyes, it sounds like you do know the identity of the leaker. There's a reference to a senior official at the White House, Official A, who had a discussion with Robert Novak about Joe Wilson's wife.

QUESTION: Can you explain why that official was not charged?

FITZGERALD: I'll explain this: I know that people want to know whatever it is that we know, and they're probably sitting at home with the TV thinking, "I'm want to jump through the TV, grab him by his collar and tell him to tell us everything they figured out over the last two years."

We just can't do that. It's not because we enjoy holding back information from you; that's the law.

And one of the things we do with a grand jury is we gather information. And the explicit requirement is if we're not going to charge someone with a crime; if we decide that a person did not commit a crime, we cannot prove a crime, doesn't merit prosecution, we do not stand up and say, "We gathered all this information on the commitment that we're going to follow the rules of grand jury secrecy, which say we don't talk about people not charged with a crime, and then at the end say, well, it's a little inconvenient not to give answers out, so I'll give it out anyway."

So, in summary, the "official leaker" either did not commit a crime, they could not prove a crime, or the act did not merit prosecution. We all know the "criminal leaker" was Armitage, he confessed. How hard could it be to "prove a crime" when the criminal confessed? Oh, probably because Fitzgerald determined that his act did not merit prosecution. You go ahead and keep lying, maybe you'll find a few easily gullible to convert. You'll be in good company.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
That still does nothing to explain a difference in technique that would alter waterboarding from illegal to legal. Give me a difference in how they performed it... Something... Anything. The 'prolonged mental harm' is by all accounts impossible to separate from the act itself. Having a doctor stare at it does zero to change that. Attempting to argue so simply makes an apology for hideous torture.

Have you ever bothered to read the restrictions the CIA placed on their waterboarding method?

If not, you should. Then you might begin to understand where I'm coming from.

edit: I'd find it odd if you haven't read it already since you always try to come off as knowing everything about nearly anything.

Glad to see you edited in a personal attack.

I most certainly have read just about everything I can get my hands on about waterboarding and the CIA's use of it. Absolutely nothing I have read offers even the slightest defense against it. The psychological suffering is not incidental, it is the direct result of the action. That's the whole point of it, to induce suffering to make the person talk.

I find it strange that out of one side of torture defenders' mouths they talk about how effective these methods are, and then out of the other side claim they really don't cause that much suffering.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey
Bullshit snipped

Shall I cut and paste all the Democrat's comments about Iraq and Saddam from

BEFORE

BUSH

WAS

EVEN

IN

OFFICE? FFS man how do you get up in the morning.

Explain if you will how there was soooo much support for military action in Iraq when Bush was Gov of Texas. Go ahead Harvey. A cut and paste is fine. Tell us how Bush influenced them all before he was even a candadate.

Go ahead.

We're waiting.

Harvey? I even asked pretty nicely.

How are they relavant? Did they urge Clinton to start a war?

Shows your ignorance. Absolutely they did.

Was one started?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Corn

As usual you don't know what the hell you're taking about. The FISA laws were updated to insure the "illegal wiretapping" was unmistakenly legal. Obviously congress felt it was legally justified to the point of even offering amnesty to the private sector participants. The bottom line is the legality of the wiretaps was never contested by any body with the power to apply the law. Just because you claim it was "illegal" doesn't make it so. I wonder how many pot smoking "Bush is a criminal" screaming lefties consider themselves to be criminals. Are you one of those hypocrites? Just wondering.

He specifically stated that Libby's repeated lies and obstruction of justice prevented his office from determining if a crime took place........

That's not what you originally claimed. Let me quote you again:

The special prosecutor specifically said that widespread perjury rendered them incapable of prosecuting anyone for disclosing her status. Everyone lied so much they couldn't get to the heart of it.

So which is it, was "everyone lying" or just Libby? Now I'm confused as your argument seems to have changed. But what do I know. How about I let Fitzgerald speak for himself during his press conference closing the matter (its been 4 years, its over):

So, in summary, the "official leaker" either did not commit a crime, they could not prove a crime, or the act did not merit prosecution. We all know the "criminal leaker" was Armitage, he confessed. How hard could it be to "prove a crime" when the criminal confessed? Oh, probably because Fitzgerald determined that his act did not merit prosecution. You go ahead and keep lying, maybe you'll find a few easily gullible to convert. You'll be in good company.

Are you serious? Did you actually read the entirety of Fitzgerald's statements? He said that they were unable to amass the information needed to make the determination on criminal charges, and they were unable to do so due to perjury. That's why Scooter Libby was prosecuted. These are his own words, and there is far more to a leak than simply if it happened or not, as the circumstances are vitally important. You can call Fitzgerald a liar all you want, you can try and distort his statements, but he's the one in the position to make the judgement, he made it... and you don't like it because you are an ultra-partisan.

As for your wiretapping ideas, all I can do is laugh. Bush's actions were SO legal that Congress had to pass a new law making them legal-er, and then offer protection from prosecution to the people who participated in these actions. Do you know how stupid you sound when you say things like that? The only thing stupider is when you said 'if you smoke pot you're a hypocrite for being angry at the President for enacting a widespread illegal spying campaign on American citizens.'

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
That still does nothing to explain a difference in technique that would alter waterboarding from illegal to legal. Give me a difference in how they performed it... Something... Anything. The 'prolonged mental harm' is by all accounts impossible to separate from the act itself. Having a doctor stare at it does zero to change that. Attempting to argue so simply makes an apology for hideous torture.

Have you ever bothered to read the restrictions the CIA placed on their waterboarding method?

If not, you should. Then you might begin to understand where I'm coming from.

edit: I'd find it odd if you haven't read it already since you always try to come off as knowing everything about nearly anything.

Glad to see you edited in a personal attack.

I most certainly have read just about everything I can get my hands on about waterboarding and the CIA's use of it. Absolutely nothing I have read offers even the slightest defense against it. The psychological suffering is not incidental, it is the direct result of the action. That's the whole point of it, to induce suffering to make the person talk.

I find it strange that out of one side of torture defenders' mouths they talk about how effective these methods are, and then out of the other side claim they really don't cause that much suffering.

You're bastardizing or simply ignoring the law on the issue. The definition of torture does not say that there only must be "psychological suffering." It must cause "prolonged mental harm." Those are two different things.

And if you've read just about anything you can get your hands on about the CIA's use of waterboarding then why are you playing dumb about how the CIA tailored their methods?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You're bastardizing or simply ignoring the law on the issue. The definition of torture does not say that there only must be "psychological suffering." It must cause "prolonged mental harm." Those are two different things.

And if you've read just about anything you can get your hands on about the CIA's use of waterboarding then why are you playing dumb about how the CIA tailored their methods?

I'm doing no such thing. The suffering is described as 'prolonged mental harm', I used the first half of the description, you used the second half... and then you accuse me of bastardizing the law? Stop being ridiculous.

I'm also not playing dumb about how the CIA tailored their methods, what I'm saying is that the CIA's tailoring of their methods was utterly worthless and served only as a token excuse to comply with already discredited legal opinions. The 'prolonged mental harm' is part of the torture itself, it is not incidental. It cannot be separated from the act, so attempts to mitigate that while still performing the act are simply impossible.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You're bastardizing or simply ignoring the law on the issue. The definition of torture does not say that there only must be "psychological suffering." It must cause "prolonged mental harm." Those are two different things.

And if you've read just about anything you can get your hands on about the CIA's use of waterboarding then why are you playing dumb about how the CIA tailored their methods?

I'm doing no such thing. The suffering is described as 'prolonged mental harm', I used the first half of the description, you used the second half... and then you accuse me of bastardizing the law? Stop being ridiculous.

I'm also not playing dumb about how the CIA tailored their methods, what I'm saying is that the CIA's tailoring of their methods was utterly worthless and served only as a token excuse to comply with already discredited legal opinions. The 'prolonged mental harm' is part of the torture itself, it is not incidental. It cannot be separated from the act, so attempts to mitigate that while still performing the act are simply impossible.

No. Prolonged mental harm is a qualifier used to further define the term "severe mental pain and suffering." Then it goes on to designate the causes that apply.

(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

So the entire definition of torture hinges on the legal interpretation of what constitutes "prolonged mental harm." Surely, since you read everything you can get your hands on over the issue, you already know that there still remains a debate to this day as to what constitutes prolonged mental harm.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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.
.
.
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.

You've been posting that same sick bullshit month after month in thread after thread after thread. and you're as full of shit, now, as you always have been.

I'll remind you, yet again, torture is a violation of U.S. and international laws and waterboarding has been declared to be torture. In other wars, people were executed for waterboarding prisoners. There's a reason it is labeled as a Crime Against Humanity.

In deference to your obvious short and long term memory loss, I'll repost the following, which I've posted several times, before...

In 2002, Donald Rumsfeld's attorney, William Haynes, requested info from S.E.R.E., the U.S. Airforce's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape program regarding administration's intended use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

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.

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.

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."

Here's the complete report from S.E.R.E. to Haynes.

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.

There you have the express statement from S.E.R.E., THE authority on the subject, that labels the "enhanced interrogation" techniques defined and specified in Haynes' request, including waterboarding, as TORTURE. It is immoral, it is unethical, it is illegal under U.S. and international law, and it isn't the least bit effective for the purpose of gaining useful, accurate information.

In continuing to pimp the same tired bullshit, you dishonor every human value our nation has held sacred for over 230 years. You dishonor our nation, our history and our people. You demean the value of every American life sacrificed in the name of defending our nation against the very evil you would have us become.

You are one with evil embodied in the horrific crimes committed by your EX-Traitor In Cheif and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, tortureres and war criminals.

You are pathetic, and you are dangerous. :|

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey
You've been posting that same sick bullshit month after month in thread after thread after thread. and you're as full of shit, now, as you always have been.

Didn't bother reading past that part. The same old trash talking from your broken record refrain told me it'd just be more of your regurgitated garbage.

 

[rchiu]

Heh, I know this has been beaten to death but I am gonna join the party anyway just for fun.

It sucks for the justice department to go against their own countryman and those trying to defend the country. It sucks when admin change policy and the those people doing the dirty work don't know what they do is or is not legal. One admin say is legal and if you don't do it, you are fired, and the next admin come in and say you go to jail for doing your job.

All these torture business is grey area. You wanna make sure you don't do all these dirty business, don't start a fvcking war.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

You've been posting that same sick bullshit month after month in thread after thread after thread. and you're as full of shit, now, as you always have been.

Didn't bother reading past that part. The same old trash talking from your broken record refrain told me it'd just be more of your regurgitated garbage.

That "same old trash" is the same refutation of the same old lies you've been pimping for month after month in post after post. Facts don't change. Obviously, neither do you. :roll:

You're pathetic, and you're hopeless. I didn't post it for you. I posted it to remind everyone else that you're still the same lying and denying ethically challenged moral dwarf you've been all along.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You're bastardizing or simply ignoring the law on the issue. The definition of torture does not say that there only must be "psychological suffering." It must cause "prolonged mental harm." Those are two different things.

And if you've read just about anything you can get your hands on about the CIA's use of waterboarding then why are you playing dumb about how the CIA tailored their methods?

I'm doing no such thing. The suffering is described as 'prolonged mental harm', I used the first half of the description, you used the second half... and then you accuse me of bastardizing the law? Stop being ridiculous.

I'm also not playing dumb about how the CIA tailored their methods, what I'm saying is that the CIA's tailoring of their methods was utterly worthless and served only as a token excuse to comply with already discredited legal opinions. The 'prolonged mental harm' is part of the torture itself, it is not incidental. It cannot be separated from the act, so attempts to mitigate that while still performing the act are simply impossible.

No. Prolonged mental harm is a qualifier used to further define the term "severe mental pain and suffering." Then it goes on to designate the causes that apply.

(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

So the entire definition of torture hinges on the legal interpretation of what constitutes "prolonged mental harm." Surely, since you read everything you can get your hands on over the issue, you already know that there still remains a debate to this day as to what constitutes prolonged mental harm.

There isn't a debate about this at all when it comes to waterboarding. Every single person who has undergone it that I am aware of along with every organization that deals with torture labels the process torture, and they do so without qualification. Having a few people attempt to make a politically motivated argument does not make for a 'debate'.

If you are privy to statements by nonpartisan organizations that state that waterboarding could not be torture under certain circumstances, please feel free to link them. We'll all be patiently waiting. Otherwise, the 'debate' is over.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

You've been posting that same sick bullshit month after month in thread after thread after thread. and you're as full of shit, now, as you always have been.

Didn't bother reading past that part. The same old trash talking from your broken record refrain told me it'd just be more of your regurgitated garbage.

That "same old trash" is the same refutation of the same old lies you've been pimping for month after month in post after post. Facts don't change. Obviously, neither do you. :roll:

You're pathetic, and you're hopeless. I didn't post it for you. I posted it to remind everyone else that you're still the same lying and denying ethically challenged moral dwarf you've been all along.

Yeah. Wow. Your copy & paste skills really make you the man, Harvey.

lol.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There isn't a debate about this at all when it comes to waterboarding. Every single person who has undergone it that I am aware of along with every organization that deals with torture labels the process torture, and they do so without qualification. Having a few people attempt to make a politically motivated argument does not make for a 'debate'.

If you are privy to statements by nonpartisan organizations that state that waterboarding could not be torture under certain circumstances, please feel free to link them. We'll all be patiently waiting. Otherwise, the 'debate' is over.

All the people in the world loudly proclaiming it to be doesn't make it so until there's a legal determination. So you're right, the debate is over.

All I'm making is a legal argument. I don't care about yours, or Harvey's, moral arguments or personal opinions, which don't amount to a hill of beans.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There isn't a debate about this at all when it comes to waterboarding. Every single person who has undergone it that I am aware of along with every organization that deals with torture labels the process torture, and they do so without qualification. Having a few people attempt to make a politically motivated argument does not make for a 'debate'.

If you are privy to statements by nonpartisan organizations that state that waterboarding could not be torture under certain circumstances, please feel free to link them. We'll all be patiently waiting. Otherwise, the 'debate' is over.

All the people in the world loudly proclaiming it to be doesn't make it so until there's a legal determination. So you're right, the debate is over.

All I'm making is a legal argument. I don't care about yours, or Harvey's, moral arguments or personal opinions, which don't amount to a hill of beans.

No, you are trying to make an argument over what is torture by using a qualitative judgment on what constitutes 'severe mental suffering' and 'prolonged mental harm'. The Red Cross and other similar organizations have made this qualitative judgment and come to the answer that waterboarding does. Their expert opinions on what constitutes such suffering aren't important, because the CIA had a doctor in the room. (!?!?)

As you have been doing from the beginning of this argument oh so many months ago, you are attempting to argue in a way that makes rational human discourse impossible. Literally every organization that is an expert in the field says one way, but since a long ago repudiated memo whose authors are a former attorney general who resigned in disgrace after likely making false statements to Congress and a lawyer who has been referred to the bar association for professional sanctions over his conduct in the matter.

This is not a debate for any rational person, it's just absolute silliness. If you actually tried to apply your standards for determining something to be torture to your everyday life, you would be incapable of functioning.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

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

Again, you have no proof. Got it.

Can you stop repeating your BS, and just give up since you have no evidence what so ever?

How someone can't comprehend that waterboarding is illegal, which means all waterboarding is illegal is truly beyond me. That's like saying some murder is legal, which is nonsense.

Again, show something, anything that shows that any US court has ever determined that any waterboarding is legal.

Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
No, you are trying to make an argument over what is torture by using a qualitative judgment on what constitutes 'severe mental suffering' and 'prolonged mental harm'. The Red Cross and other similar organizations have made this qualitative judgment and come to the answer that waterboarding does. Their expert opinions on what constitutes such suffering aren't important, because the CIA had a doctor in the room. (!?!?)

As you have been doing from the beginning of this argument oh so many months ago, you are attempting to argue in a way that makes rational human discourse impossible. Literally every organization that is an expert in the field says one way, but since a long ago repudiated memo whose authors are a former attorney general who resigned in disgrace after likely making false statements to Congress and a lawyer who has been referred to the bar association for professional sanctions over his conduct in the matter.

This is not a debate for any rational person, it's just absolute silliness. If you actually tried to apply your standards for determining something to be torture to your everyday life, you would be incapable of functioning.

Human rights organizations don't determine the legality or illegality of an action. A court of law does that. I don't care about their opinion on the subject anymore than you would care about a Fox News story or a National Review editorial on the subject.

If and until this is ever brought into a court of law, all your huffing and puffing that cites experts, argumentum ad populum, and whatever opinion just happens to agree with your own beliefs is meaningless and is proof of nothing except in your own mind.