Churchill? Seriously, he invoked Winston...

[Yonivore]

"tortured my grandpappy" Churchill as the paragon of morality in dealing with our enemies?


Barack Obama marks first 100 days in office with praise for Winston Churchill (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5247464/Barack-Obama-marks-first-100-days-in-office-with-praise-for-Winston-Churchill.html)
Barack Obama has praised Winston Churchill's refusal to torture German spies during World War II as an example of why the United States was right to abandon waterboarding and other methods of torture.


The president said he recently read an article where he learned for the first time that the British wartime prime minister had stoutly refused to use violent interrogation of hundreds of detainees even as "London was being bombed to smithereens".

"Churchill said 'we don't torture' when the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat," he said at a White House press conference to mark his 100th day in office.

"And the reason was Churchill understood if you start taking short cuts over time that what's corrodes what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country." The president's observations on Churchill marked the first time he has offered such praise of any major figure. He was even suspected of hostility to the wartime leader, after he returned a bust of Churchill gifted to George W Bush's Oval Office by Tony Blair.
Anyone remember why it was speculated he returned the bust?


Barack Obama's grandfather 'tortured by British' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3543882/Barack-Obamas-grandfather-tortured-by-British.html)
Barack Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned and tortured by the British during the violent struggle for Kenyan independence, the Kenyan family of the US President-elect has claimed.


Mr Obama’s paternal grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama was part of the Kenyan independence movement when he was arrested in 1949 and jailed for two years.

His family allege he was tortured by his British guards to extract information about the insurgency.

“The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed,” said Sarah Onyango, Hussein Onyango’s third wife, told the Times.

Mrs Onyango, who Mr Obama calls Granny Sarah, described how “white soldiers” carried out “disciplinary action”.

“He said they would sometimes squeeze his testicles with parallel metallic rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together with his head facing down,” she told the paper.

The alleged violence was said to have left Mr Onyango permanently scarred, and deeply anti-British.
Anyone have a guess as to who was Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1949?

This guy just makes shit up to suit the moment.

[ChumpDumper]

Anyone remember why it was speculated he returned the bust?
This guy just makes shit up to suit the moment.

[Yonivore]

Okay, Chumpy, are you claiming Obama's family has not accused the British, under Prime Minister Winston Churchill, of torturing his grandfather and, further, President Obama is either unaware or unmoved by that accusation?

And, just why was the bust returned to Britain?

Finally, his personal connection aside, how 'bout the countless accusations of the British starving and abusing German prisoners of war in camps in Germany after the occupation?

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, Chumpy, are you claiming Obama's family has not accused the British, under Prime Minister Winston Churchill, of torturing his grandfather and, further, President Obama is either unaware or unmoved by that accusation?

And, just why was the bust returned to Britain?

Finally, his personal connection aside, how 'bout the countless accusations of the British starving and abusing German prisoners of war in camps in Germany after the occupation?I'm claiming you made this shit up or ripped it off someone else who made it up.

Either way, it's just more noise.

[Yonivore]

I'm claiming you made this shit up or ripped it off someone else who made it up.

Either way, it's just more noise.
There are hyperlinks to both of the articles from the UK Telegraph in my original post.

[ChumpDumper]

speculatedSo it's shit someone else made up.

[jack sommerset]

The British didn't need to torture they had us to do it. God bless the US of A! My great grandfather helped save their ass back in WWII. And yes Obama is a dirty filthy politician and will say anything his prompter will tell him. Its good the Democrats are fighting over the keyboard. Shows this wanker for what he is.

[ChumpDumper]

The British didn't need to torture they had us to do it. God bless the US of A!How did the US torture prisoners back then? Can I have a link to the documented cases?
Its good the Democrats are fighting over the keyboard. Shows this wanker for what he is.It's good that Republicans are obsessed with meaningless things like this. Shows you wankers for what you are.

[jack sommerset]

How did the US torture prisoners back then? Can I have a link to the documented cases?It's good that Republicans are obsessed with meaningless things like this. Shows you wankers for what you are.

I'm not a republican and go to ur local library.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not a republican.Of course you aren't....

[jack sommerset]

Of course you aren't....

I was Hillary man myself but you believe whatever you want amigo. Douche is now telling me what my party is....:lol

[Yonivore]

So it's shit someone else made up.
So, why did he return the bust?

[Blake]

And, just why was the bust returned to Britain?


because he was hoping for an Ipod?

[ChumpDumper]

I was Hillary man myself :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

So, why did he return the bust?Why does it matter to you so much?

Is this really the burning question over which you are obsessing?

You're pathetic.

[Yonivore]

The postwar photographs that British authorities tried to keep hidden (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/apr/03/uk.freedomofinformation)

[Yonivore]

Why does it matter to you so much?

Is this really the burning question over which you are obsessing?

You're pathetic.
No, my burning question is why is he holding up Winston Churchill has a paragon of virtue and morality on the subject of torture when his family, not 5 months ago, claim Obama's grandfather was subjected to torture by Winston Churchill's Britain.

That's the burning question. You're just getting distracted by the shiny object again.

[ChumpDumper]

The postwar photographs that British authorities tried to keep hidden (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/apr/03/uk.freedomofinformation)It wasn't a bust of Clement Attlee.

[clambake]

That's the burning question.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

No, my burning question is why is he holding up Winston Churchill has a paragon of virtue and morality on the subject of torture when his family, not 5 months ago, claim Obama's grandfather was subjected to torture by Winston Churchill's Britain.

That's the burning question. You're just getting distracted by the shiny object again.Your affirmation that it's a "burning" question to you says it all.

You are obsessed with meaningless minutiae.

[Yonivore]

Your affirmation that it's a "burning" question to you says it all.

You are obsessed with meaningless minutiae.
Saying he's going to approach the subject of torture (apparently, the number one issue with liberals these days) as did Winston Churchill, who his family has accused of torturing his own grandfather, is minutiae?

Okay.

[ChumpDumper]

Saying he's going to approach the subject of torture (apparently, the number one issue with liberals these days) as did Winston Churchill, who his family has accused of torturing his own grandfather, is minutiae?

Okay.So you are saying Obama accused Churchill of torturing his grandfather?

Yes or no.

[Yonivore]

So you are saying Obama accused Churchill of torturing his grandfather?

Yes or no.
Did I say that?

Are you suggesting he's not aware of his family's accusation? Are you further suggesting there's no enmity for the British coming from the Obama camp?

[ChumpDumper]

Did I say that?In fact, you did.


"tortured my grandpappy" Churchill as the paragon of morality in dealing with our enemies?

So is it yes or no?

[ChumpDumper]

Furthermore, are you accusing Churchill of ordering the torture of the prisoners held in Bad Nenndorf?

Yes or no.

[Yonivore]

Furthermore, are you accusing Churchill of ordering the torture of the prisoners held in Bad Nenndorf?

Yes or no.
Are you saying Obama was unaware of his family's accusations? I think I started this dialog.

Yes or no?

[ChumpDumper]

Are you saying Obama was unaware of his family's accusations? I think I started this dialog.

Yes or no?No.

So you are saying Obama accused Churchill of torturing his grandfather?

Yes or no.

Furthermore, are you accusing Churchill of ordering the torture of the prisoners held in Bad Nenndorf?

Yes or no.

[Yonivore]

No.
So, why would he hold him up as an example without at least addressing the issue? That seems odd.


So you are saying Obama accused Churchill of torturing his grandfather?

Yes or no.
Apparently, I did. I should have put, "tortured my grandpappy [according to my grandmother]" Churchill.

My apologies to President Obama for the poor choice of wording.


Furthermore, are you accusing Churchill of ordering the torture of the prisoners held in Bad Nenndorf?
Don't know enough about the circumstances. Other people are, though and it seems odd our President would hold up Churchill who, as it happens, has a problem similar to that or President Bush.


Yes or no.
So, that's a no...I suppose.

[ChumpDumper]

So, why would he hold him up as an example without at least addressing the issue? That seems odd.Not at all. His thoughts are not necessarily the same as that of other members of his family. One would have to be an idiot to make that assumption.


Don't know enough about the circumstances. Other people are, thoughWhich ones?

I'll need a link to those claims.

[Yonivore]

Not at all. His thoughts are not necessarily the same as that of other members of his family. One would have to be an idiot to make that assumption.
His grandmother's accusation wasn't an opinion over which to differ. It was a statement of fact with which he either agrees or doesn't and, in which case, I would think has a bearing qualifying his support of Churchill.

Are you saying I should just assume he's calling his grandmother a liar because of his statement?


Which ones?

I'll need a link to those claims.
I thought I provided one...I'm pretty sure I did. Scroll down. Hell, google it.

[ChumpDumper]

His grandmother's accusation wasn't an opinion over which to differ. It was a statement of fact with which he either agrees or doesn't and, in which case, I would think has a bearing qualifying his support of Churchill.

Are you saying I should just assume he's calling his grandmother a liar because of his statement?Nah, you didn't provide anything saying his family considered Churchill personally responsible. You just jumped to whatever conclusion might make Obama look bad because that is your goal here.



I thought I provided one...I'm pretty sure I did. Scroll down. Hell, google it.There is nothing in the article about Churchill's involvement. In fact, Churchill was out of office less than a month after the Bad Nenndorf center opened and about a year and a half before any evidence of mistreatment came to light.

Kinda stupid of you.

[ChumpDumper]

Churchill was also out of office the entire duration of Hussein Onyango Obama's imprisonment.

Really stupid of you.

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni, I even gave you a chance to save some face had you been smart enough to pick up on it.
It wasn't a bust of Clement Attlee.Attlee was the PM of Britain from July 1945 to October 1951.

Not Churchill.

[Yonivore]

Churchill was also out of office the entire duration of Hussein Onyango Obama's imprisonment.

Really stupid of you.
The Mau Mau uprising lasted from 1952 to 1960. Churchill was Prime Minister from 1951 to 1955 (the second term). Obama's grandfather was reportedly arrested as early as 1949 and held for two years. There could have been an overlap but, even if not, there are plenty of stories of the British torturing Mau Mau insurgents over the years of the uprising and during their imprisonment by the British -- while Churchill was in office.

You're stupid.

[Yonivore]

I'm sorry I got down in the weeds with you on this; really, I am. It's always fruitless.

I should have done some more research and gone with the perfectly relevant argument of how the Mau Mau insurgents were treated by the British during Churchill's second term.

The allure of the Obama connection was just too much for me -- even though it's possible he was imprisoned for at least a short period of Churchill's term, the fact remains, many of his compatriots were and they claim similar treatment.

[ChumpDumper]

There could have been an overlap

:lmao

Sorry I had to expose your ignorance once more, yoni.

Maybe you should put me on ignore again to avoid such a public humiliation.

If not, give me those links with people accusing Churchill of ordering torture in the two instances you brought up.

[Yonivore]

:lmao

Sorry I had to expose your ignorance once more, yoni.

Maybe you should put me on ignore again to avoid such a public humiliation.

If not, give me those links with people accusing Churchill of ordering torture in the two instances you brought up.
Maybe you should read my next post.

[ChumpDumper]

So you didn't have any before -- but now you are feverishly googling to find some claim.

You will no doubt insist that everyone including Obama should have known of these claims in the first place although you yourself had no knowledge of these claims whatsoever.

Ok.

[Yonivore]

So you didn't have any before -- but now you are feverishly googling to find some claim.

Ok.
Nothing feverish about it. There's no clear date of arrest on Obama's grandfather and the Mau Mau Revolt didn't begin until 1952 so, I'm not sure when he was in custody. What is know is that the revolt started the second year of Churchill's second term as Prime Minister and lasted until he was out of office -- and there were atrocities claimed by the Mau Mau insurgents.

Seems Churchill's record on torture is much, much worse than the imagined crimes of George Bush.

Hmmm...maybe Obama is being intentional.

[ChumpDumper]

Nothing feverish about it. There's no clear date of arrest on Obama's grandfather and the Mau Mau Revolt didn't begin until 1952 so, I'm not sure when he was in custody.
Mr Obama’s paternal grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama was part of the Kenyan independence movement when he was arrested in 1949 and jailed for two years.

[Yonivore]

I can't speak to the accuracy of the dates quoted in the original post. In fact, further reading convinces me the Mau Mau uprising didn't start until 1952.

Sue me.

You're really going to parse this in an attempt to cover the claimed atrocities of the British during this period?

[ChumpDumper]

I can't speak to the accuracy of the dates quoted in the original post.:lmao But you cited them to prove whatever point you thought you had -- now you want to question them?


In fact, further reading convinces me the Mau Mau uprising didn't start until 1952.Are you so dense that you cannot comprehend of any independence movement in Kenya before 1952?


Sue me.Nah. You can't have much money if you are this dumb.

[Yonivore]

:lmao But you cited them to prove whatever point you thought you had -- now you want to question them?

Are you so dense that you cannot comprehend of any independence movement in Kenya before 1952?
And continue through Churchill's term. Are you that dense.


Nah. You can't have much money if you are this dumb.
Okay then.

[Yonivore]

Then, there are these claims...

The secrets of the London Cage (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/secondworldwar.world)

...that also seriously undermine Obama's invocation of Churchill last night.

[ChumpDumper]

Then, there are these claims...

The secrets of the London Cage (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/secondworldwar.world)

...that also seriously undermine Obama's invocation of Churchill last night.1) The name Churchill name appears in the article a grand total of zero times.

2) Yoni is really eager to accept the word of a convicted Nazi war criminal as gospel. That makes a lot of sense.

This just gets funnier as Yoni digs himself in deeper.

Keep googling Yoni!

[implacable44]

Furthermore, are you accusing Churchill of ordering the torture of the prisoners held in Bad Nenndorf?

Yes or no.

why dont you ask the question proposed to you first you dung douche .. why did he retun the bust ?

[ChumpDumper]

Dunno.

Next.

[implacable44]

I don't see DungDouches thoughts on why the bust was returned...

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know why he returned it.

I also don't think it's as important as you obviously do.

[ChumpDumper]

You know what?

I just saw a picture of the bust and I think I know why he returned it.

It's hideous.

Churchill looks like a burn victim or a leper.

http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/6021063748/inlineimg/Y/Winston%20Churchill.jpg

[implacable44]

next time he invoked Churchill -- hopefully he will use this one :

I(we) contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I would just like to say--damn.

Chump just owned a bitch.

[Ignignokt]

did churchill torture or not? CD?

[Ignignokt]

I would just like to say--damn.

Chump just owned a bitch.

self proclamation forum.

[ChumpDumper]

did churchill torture or not? CD?I haven't found any evidence that he ordered any torture.

[Ignignokt]

I haven't found any evidence that he ordered any torture.

have you found any evidence bush personally ordered waterboarding?

[Yonivore]

I haven't found any evidence that he ordered any torture.
You haven't found any evidence President Bush ordered torture either but, that hasn't stopped you of making the accusation.

There is plenty of evidence of atrocities committed by the British in WWII and the Mau Mau Revolt...much more than exists for the eight years George Bush was in office.

Hypocrite...why not apply the same standards?

[ChumpDumper]

You haven't found any evidence President Bush ordered torture either but, that hasn't stopped you of making the accusation.Sure I have. Bush just tried to lie about what constitutes torture.

It didn't work.

[Yonivore]

Sure I have. Bush just tried to lie about what constitutes torture.

It didn't work.
Really? When did that happen and what hasn't worked?

[ChumpDumper]

Really? When did that happen and what hasn't worked?"We don't torture."

Everyone with a brain saw through it.

[Yonivore]

"We don't torture."

Everyone with a brain saw through it.
It's still not definitive the enhanced interrogation techniques are torture.

Show me a statute that defines Waterboarding, or any of the other enhanced interrogation techniques, as torture.

[ChumpDumper]

It's still not definitive the enhanced interrogation techniques are torture.

Show me a statute that defines Waterboarding, or any of the other enhanced interrogation techniques, as torture.What did I just say about case law, dumbass?

Americans, military and civilian, have been tried and convicted for waterboarding.

[Yonivore]

What did I just say about case law, dumbass?

Americans, military and civilian, have been tried and convicted for waterboarding.
Let's see the cases...and look closely. I'm pretty sure we'll find at least two things (possibly three) that distinguish them from the current circumstances;

1) They weren't charged with "waterboarding," but some criminal act during which some form of waterboarding was used;

2) The waterboarding technique use -- and rightfully described as torture -- was vastly different that the waterboarding technique employed by CIA Interrogators on KSM and the two others; and

3) The totality of the torture, involved in the cases you hold up, involved substantially more than just waterboarding and probably resulted in the permanent injury or death of one or more victims.

So, bring 'em out...let's see how they compare.

[clambake]

i think you summed up, nicely, what goes on during waterboarding.

[ChumpDumper]

Let's see the cases...and look closely. I'm pretty sure we'll find at least two things (possibly three) that distinguish them from the current circumstances;

1) They weren't charged with "waterboarding," but some criminal act during which some form of waterboarding was used;

2) The waterboarding technique use -- and rightfully described as torture -- was vastly different that the waterboarding technique employed by CIA Interrogators on KSM and the two others; and

3) The totality of the torture, involved in the cases you hold up, involved substantially more than just waterboarding and probably resulted in the permanent injury or death of one or more victims.

So, bring 'em out...let's see how they compare.Gee, waterboarding isn't a specific charge?

Duh.

It's torture.

It was pretty easily defined.

I know your heroes tried to change the definition of torture -- the problem is they never ever bothered to mention any of these cases to actually compare their idea of torture to those put forth in those cases.

What you propose to do is pretty basic.

Why did your legal heroes not do it at all?

[Yonivore]

Gee, waterboarding isn't a specific charge?

Duh.

It's torture.

It was pretty easily defined.

I know your heroes tried to change the definition of torture -- the problem is they never ever bothered to mention any of these cases to actually compare their idea of torture to those put forth in those cases.

What you propose to do is pretty basic.

Why did your legal heroes not do it at all?
Why don't you just say you can't cite the cases. Or, that you're too lazy, or whatever...

Seriously, let's compare the treatment received by Khalid Sheihk Mohammed and those victims over whom their captors were tried for "waterboarding."

[MiamiHeat]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v154/verosebaystore/exsx.jpg

http://financialshopva.com/images/winston_full.jpg

[MiamiHeat]

Gee, waterboarding isn't a specific charge?

Duh.

It's torture.

It was pretty easily defined.

I know your heroes tried to change the definition of torture -- the problem is they never ever bothered to mention any of these cases to actually compare their idea of torture to those put forth in those cases.

What you propose to do is pretty basic.

Why did your legal heroes not do it at all?

You have never been waterboarded, so your supposed authority over this issue is non-existant.

You cannot say that waterboarding is torture since you have no experience with it.

[ChumpDumper]

I found all the cases.

Pretty easily.

Why could your legal heroes not?

Why could they not include them in their memos so they could differentiate what they were doing from actions that were successfully prosecuted in the past?

[ChumpDumper]

You have never been waterboarded, so your supposed authority over this issue is non-existant.

You don't know anything about the issue at hand since you have no experience.I never made any claim about whether I could easily handle being waterboarded.

[MiamiHeat]

You said waterboarding is torture.

You can't know that if you have zero experience.

[ChumpDumper]

You said waterboarding is torture.

You can't know that if you have zero experience.The US legal system works on precedent.

[Yonivore]

The US legal system works on precedent.
So, let's review the precedent.

[ChumpDumper]

So, let's review the precedent.Why didn't actual lawyers Bybee and Yoo?

Please answer that.

[Yonivore]

Why didn't actual lawyers Bybee and Yoo?

Please answer that.
I have no idea, but, I'd like to review them in here...

Cite 'em Spunky. Let's compare.

[ChumpDumper]

I have no ideaAnd this does not concern you in the least?

The most basic legal research was not performed by attorneys at the highest levels of government concerning the very real issue of torture and you think that's just great?

You are so eager to do this now -- why would you not want it done then?

[Yonivore]

And this does not concern you in the least?
Nope, that over 600 memos exist that exhaustively treat the question tells me the administration did due diligence in arriving at the program they employeed. Without access to all the memos, there's no way to know exactly what was considered.


The most basic legal research was not performed by attorneys at the highest levels of government concerning the very real issue of torture and you think that's just great?
You don't know that. I believe they exhausted every legal argument before arriving at their conclusions.

Let's see the cites Perry Mason. You claim there is case law...throw it out here.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope, that over 600 memos exist that exhaustively treat the question tells me the administration did due diligence in arriving at the program they employeed. Without access to all the memos, there's no way to know exactly what was considered.So now your claim is "they're still translating the documents."

That worked for you so well before.

[Yonivore]

So now your claim is "they're still translating the documents."

That worked for you so well before.
Nope, I believe Vice President Cheney has asked Obama to release them...it's Obama that's holding up this train.

Why don't you join me and Mr. Cheney in demanding President Obama to release the remaining 596 memos regarding the CIA enhanced interrogation program.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's what an actual lawyer who bothered to look things up says about the past waterboarding cases.

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

By Evan Wallach
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page B01

As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding."

That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

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."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.

The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:

Q: Was it painful?

A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.

Q: Like you were drowning?

A: Drowning -- you could hardly breathe.

Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:

They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.

And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.
ad_icon

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "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 four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.

Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law

of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

[ChumpDumper]

Nope, I believe Vice President Cheney has asked Obama to release them...it's Obama that's holding up this train.

Why don't you join me and Mr. Cheney in demanding President Obama to release the remaining 596 memos regarding the CIA enhanced interrogation program.So now you want to jeopardize national security.

You really do hate America!

[Yonivore]

So now you want to jeopardize national security.
Too late for that thanks to our President.


You really do hate America!
In your world, apparently.

[ChumpDumper]

Too late for that thanks to our President.What specific part of the released memos endangered national security?

[Yonivore]

What specific part of the released memos endangered national security?
The descriptions of exactly how far we will go. And, it's not just the memos, it's the entire discussion over our enhanced interrogation techniques. What possibly could further release of the rest of the memos reveal that hasn't already?

[Yonivore]

The descriptions of exactly how far we will go. And, it's not just the memos, it's the entire discussion over our enhanced interrogation techniques. What possibly could further release of the rest of the memos reveal that hasn't already?
Oh, wait! Let me answer that...

Further release will reveal a) the enhanced techniques were perfectly legal and b) they resulted in valuable and actionable intelligence that prevented more Americans from become victims of al Qaeda.

[Yonivore]

You know, Chumpy, if you haven't already - find that video I posted of Vice President Cheney's daughter (a former State Department appointee) explaining what further revelation will tell us.

It's very instructional...

What it will show is exactly how much work went into determining the techniques limits before they would be considered a crime.

It's funny to watch Norah O'Donnell (an absolute hottie, BTW) try to turn those words around on Ms. Cheney and be taken to school...

Face it, President Obama is cherry-picking the memos, releasing those that, without the support of the others, appear damning but -- to what end? What did the release of those memos accomplish.

[Yonivore]

The central question for lawyers was a narrow one; locate, under the statutory definition, the thin line between harsh treatment of a high-ranking Al Qaeda terrorist that is not torture and harsh treatment that is. I believed at the time, and continue to believe today, that the conclusions were legally correct.

The legal question was and is difficult and the stakes for the country were significant no matter what our opinion. In that context, we gave our best, honest advice, based on our good-faith analysis of the law.
And, there you have it.

[ChumpDumper]

You know, Chumpy, if you haven't already - find that video I posted of Vice President Cheney's daughter (a former State Department appointee) explaining what further revelation will tell us.

It's very instructional...It is.

She lied less than ten seconds into it, so I didn't need to hear any more.

[ChumpDumper]

And, there you have it.:lol

Yeah, there you have it -- he completely and intentionally ignored case law and tried to twist the most recent statute without acknowledging the legal history that formed the underpinning of that most recent statute.

On the face of it, a gullible idiot would fall for that kind of a statement.

You are just that kind of person.

He is counting on your ignorance and bias.

You did not disappoint him.

[Yonivore]

It is.

She lied less than ten seconds into it, so I didn't need to hear any more.
What was the "lie" that closed your mind?

[Yonivore]

:lol

Yeah, there you have it -- he completely and intentionally ignored case law and tried to twist the most recent statute without acknowledging the legal history that formed the underpinning of that most recent statute.

On the face of it, a gullible idiot would fall for that kind of a statement.

You are just that kind of person.

He is counting on your ignorance and bias.

You did not disappoint him.
You've read all the documents leading to the decision? How do you know what was considered or what was ignored?

And, for the fifth or sixth time...cite a case.

[ChumpDumper]

What was the "lie" that closed your mind?The torture was authorized well before the legal excuse was produced by the legal team.

[ChumpDumper]

You've read all the documents leading to the decision? How do you know what was considered or what was ignored?

And, for the fifth or sixth time...cite a case.Are you kidding?

You can't even find a case from the articles I've posted.

You're an idiot.

A colossal idiot.

Can you even breathe on your own, or do you need powerlineblog to tell you when?

[Yonivore]

Are you kidding?

You can find a case from the articles I've posted.

You're an idiot.

A colossal idiot.

Can you even breathe on your own, or do you need powerlineblog to tell you when?
So, you can't cite a case? Cool.

[ChumpDumper]

So, you can't cite a case? Cool.United States of America v. Parker, et.al. is the most recent.

The Reagan administration prosecuted and convicted Americans for waterboarding.

[Yonivore]

United States of America v. Parker is the most recent.

The Reagan administration prosecuted and convicted Americans for waterboarding.
Well, the legend, according to the first few google returns (from liberal bloggers) is a few Texas Sheriff's deputies were tried for "waterboarding" in U. S. vs. Parker but, I can't find much detail on the case except from what google reveals in liberal blogs. I'll keep reading but, keep in mind, coersion, of any kind, in a criminal case is illegal.

I did find another blogger who may be an attorney, couldn't tell, he ran it alll through Lexis/Nexus (whatever that is) and found 14 U.S. vs. Parker -- none of which were in 1983. Then, he looked for San Jacinto County Sheriff's Office, another 17 unrelated hits...and then, he looked for Floyd Allen Baker (I'm assuming this is a name involved in the case) and only turned up 2 unrelated cases out of Iowa.

Can you be more detailed or point me to some court documentation related to United States vs. Parker? That'd be great, thanks.

Also, I'm not sure of any "waterboarding" statutes on the books in Texas. They were probably tried by the feds (if the case is real) for violating the prisoner's constitutional rights by coersing him to confess -- not for waterboarding. The waterboarding was just the means of coersion.

In any case, I don't think your United States vs. Parker is relevant to alien enemy combatants from whom actionable intelligence is being extracted.

Did you have any other cases? And, in the meantime, I'll read up on what your liberal bloggers say about U.S. vs. Parker. Thanks for the tip.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, the legend.Shut the fuck up.

Had this not happened, one of your blog gods would have already said so.


Also, I'm not sure of any "waterboarding" statutes on the books in Texas. They were probably tried by the feds (if the case is real) for violating the prisoner's constitutional rights by coersing him to confess -- not for waterboarding. The waterboarding was just the means of coersion.It characterized waterboarding as torture 12 times.


In any case, I don't think your United States vs. Parker is relevant to alien enemy combatants from whom actionable intelligence is being extracted.Hamdan v. Rumsfeld basically rapes you on that one.


Did you have any other cases? And, in the meantime, I'll read up on what your liberal bloggers say about U.S. vs. Parker. Thanks for the tip.Thanks for admitting you never read anything anyone has posted or linked here.

While you are trying unsuccessfully to argue what is or isn't relevant, please find the source for John Yoo's definition of torture's being:

“equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

If you actually look for it, let us all know his source and explain its relevance.

But we all know you won't -- or if you do you will lie about not being able to find it. It will be that embarrassing to you.

[Cry Havoc]

I guess I need to paste this here too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

Section 1 covers the beginning of captivity (Articles 17–20). It dictates what information a prisoner must give and interrogation methods that the detaining power may not use "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion". It dictates what private property a prisoner of war may keep and that the prisoner of war must be evacuated from the combat zone as soon as possible.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, the Houston Chronicle only has online archives back to 1985, but here's an excerpt from a story regarding the related civil suit brought by the victims:

Parker was convicted in 1983 of violating prisoners' civil rights through water torture and given a 10-year sentence. In 1984, he pleaded guilty to conspiring to deprive motorists of their civil rights for running the highway trap and was given a concurrent five-year sentence.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1988_592005

Now, do you need links to the book based on the case?

Maybe the tv movie?

http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/01/07/10107/7057440.2.jpg

Anything else you need to quit pretending it never happened?

[Ignignokt]

I guess I need to paste this here too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

Section 1 covers the beginning of captivity (Articles 17–20). It dictates what information a prisoner must give and interrogation methods that the detaining power may not use "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion". It dictates what private property a prisoner of war may keep and that the prisoner of war must be evacuated from the combat zone as soon as possible.

when alqueda signs the geneva convention, let me know.

[Ignignokt]

Shut the fuck up.

Had this not happened, one of your blog gods would have already said so.

It characterized waterboarding as torture 12 times.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld basically rapes you on that one.

Thanks for admitting you never read anything anyone has posted or linked here.

While you are trying unsuccessfully to argue what is or isn't relevant, please find the source for John Yoo's definition of torture's being:

“equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

If you actually look for it, let us all know his source and explain its relevance.

But we all know you won't -- or if you do you will lie about not being able to find it. It will be that embarrassing to you.


so where's the official documents of this case, because the houston chronicle and a b film will not convict anyone.

[ChumpDumper]

so where's the official documents of this case, because the houston chronicle and a b film will not convict anyone.United States v. Parker et al, CR-H-83-66 (S.D. Tex., 1983)
United States v. Lee, 744 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1984)

Knock yourself out.

[Cry Havoc]

when alqueda signs the geneva convention, let me know.

Ah, okay, so because they don't play by our rules, we're not obligated to play by them, either.

That's the solution to terrorism? To be as low as the people you're calling out for atrocities?

[ChumpDumper]

Count one against Parker, et al, accused them of conspiring to

...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.

Sounds familiar enough.

They were convicted on that count.

[ChumpDumper]

And if there was some kind of argument that "unlawful combatants" somehow don't count, one need only look to the court martial of Major Edwin Glenn during the Philippine insurgency after the Spanish-American War. Glenn tried to argue that the insurgents' unconventional tactics and lack of uniforms and government affiliation justified his use of waterboarding to get information and confessions from them. The Army Judge Advocate ruled against him, writing that his actions amounted to "torture with a view to extort a confession.” He also wrote that “...the United States can not afford to sanction the addition of torture to the several forms of force which may be legitimately employed in war...”

Glenn's punishment was light, but waterboarding was clearly declared torture and illegal.

Something similar happened in the Vietnam War when a soldier was photographed in the act and the illegality of waterboarding was reaffirmed.

Add to those the convictions of Japanese war criminals by American tribunals for, among other things, waterboarding. One really has to wonder why Yoo and Bybee didn't address and, to my knowledge, haven't since addressed the myriad precedents set by these cases.

[Cane]

Yonivore, get a life! This is some stupid bullshit that doesn't mean jack shit or deserve anyone's time to be wasted on.

[Yonivore]

Congress approved of the techniques and, when briefed, asked if there was more the CIA could do to force the terrorists to spill their guts...

The DOJ exhaustively researched the topic and gave the President and the CIA their best understanding of the law at that time.

Hamdi is later and, therefore, as irrelevant as U. S. vs. Parker in the case of alien enemy combatants.

Now, back to the original topic of Obama invoking Churchill...Apparently, he's pulling a Yonivore on this one and pretty much relying on a blogger for his historical background on the assertion Churchill ever said, "We do not torture."

From Powerlineblog.com

Obama veers into the Daily Ditch (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023471.php)


Even if you are an intelligent man, reading Andrew Sullivan can make you stupid. It happened to President Obama this week. At his 100-day press conference (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/29/obama_100_days_press_conference_transcript_96261.h tml), President Obama invoked Churchill rejecting the use of torture for interrogation in the days of the Blitz during World War II. Obama instructed the assembled multitude:


I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, 'We don't torture,' when the entire British--all of the British people--were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat....the reason was that Churchill understood -- you start taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.
Now if you've ever read much Churchill or any competent history of World War II, you would have a pretty good idea that one thing Churchill never said in the course of long-life is: "We don't torture." As it happens, Churchill scholar Richard Langworth has now attested (http://richardlangworth.com/2009/04/obama-misquotes-churchill/) to the absence of the words from Churchill's vast corpus.

Churchill was not a liberal sentimentalist on the subject of means and ends in war. Is there anything he would not have done to advance Britain's survival and victory in World War II? Not bloody likely. "If Hitler invaded Hell," Churchill remarked (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,839160-5,00.html) with respect to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, "I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

When the Allies first deliberated over the fate of the highest ranking members of the Nazis and German military who were ultimately tried at Nuremberg after the war, Churchill supported their summary execution. He didn't think to send over Hartley Shawcross to represent Hermann Goering or give Goering his day in court. He preferred the "shortcut" (to use Obama's word) between Goering and the gallows.

What on earth would lead an intelligent man like Barack Obama to stand before the world and pronounce that Churchill ever said: "We don't torture"? Now we know. Obama's "knowledge" on this point derived from the recent "Churchill vs. Cheney (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/churchill-vs-cheney.html)" post by Andrew Sullivan on his Daily Dish blog calling for the prosecution of Dick Cheney. (I have long held that Sullivan's blog would more aptly be called the Daily Ditch.)

Why call for Cheney's prosecution? Sullivan seems as foggy on the authority of the vice president as he is on British history. Nevertheless, despite the exposure of the fraudulence of his post, Sullivan reposted it after Obama's press conference. A correction would have been more appropriate.

Sullivan is such a crude and hysterical polemicist on matters related to the Bush administration that he has long since become unreadable. His tirades regarding the Bush administration's responsibility for "torture" are a torture unto themselves.

In his post, Sullivan asserts: "Churchill nonetheless knew that embracing torture was the equivalent of surrender to the barbarism he was fighting..." As Langworth notes, Sullivan's "Churchill nonetheless knew" appears suddenly and with no evidence to back it up. Sullivan makes no other reference to Churchill, or to how he divined Churchill's views on torture. The thought of Cheney in the dock appears to have inspired Sullivan's fancy.

Sullivan derives Churchill's purported disdain of torture from a 2006 London Times column (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article729216.ece) by Ben Macintyre on the interrogation of captured German spies in London during the war at the interrogation center codenamed Camp 020. Yesterday Macintyre crowed (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6201378.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093) over his contribution to Obama's learning.

Even Macintyre's original column belies Sullivan's use of it. Sullivan and Macintyre hail the interrogation techniques of Colonel Robin "Tin Eye" Stephens, the commander of the wartime spy prison and interrogation center codenamed Camp 020. According to Macintyre, Stephens eschewed "torture" in favor of psychological duress:


Stephens had ways of making anyone talk. In a top secret report, recently declassified by MI5 and now in the Public Records Office, he listed the tactics needed to break down a suspect: "A breaker is born and not made . . . pressure is attained by personality, tone, and rapidity of questions, a driving attack in the nature of a blast which will scare a man out of his wits."

The terrifying commandant of Camp 020 refined psychological intimidation to an art form. Suspects often left the interrogation cells legless with fear after an all-night grilling. An inspired amateur psychologist, Stephens used every trick, lie and bullying tactic to get what he needed; he deployed threats, drugs, drink and deceit. But he never once resorted to violence. "Figuratively," he said, "a spy in war should be at the point of a bayonet." But only ever figuratively. As one colleague wrote: "The Commandant obtained results without recourse to assault and battery. It was the very basis of Camp 020 procedure that nobody raised a hand against a prisoner."
Drugs and drink go well beyond purely psychological duress, and Stephens's "terrifying intimidation" exceeds the "name, rank and serial number" limitations prescribed for prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Neither in his original nor in his follow-up column does Macintyre quote Churchill for the proposition that "we don't torture" or cite some rule of conduct supporting the statement. Macintyre purports to derive some high standard of conduct from the story of Col. Stephens's interrogation of German spies, but the true story supports quite the contrary point of view.

How do I know? I know it from Ben Macintyre's most recent book. Macintyre's most recent book is Agent Zigzag (http://www.amazon.com/Agent-Zigzag-Story-Espionage-Betrayal/dp/0307353419/ref=ed_oe_p), the story of British double agent Eddie Chapman. Macintyre's book is essentially a chapter in the larger story of the famous British Double Cross system developed during the war to befuddle the Germans.

Sullivan and Macintyre praise the interrogation methods of Col. Stephens. (Sullivan follows Macintyre spelling the name Stephens in his two London Times columns; in the book Macintyre spells it Stevens.) Sullivan omits to mention that Stephens's interrogations were only the entry point for the Double Cross system.

The interrogation techniques used by Stephens were instrumental to the Double Cross system of which they were a part. The interrogations were part of a system intended to turn German spies into British double agents. The British did not treat the German spies as prisoners of war and the object of the interrogations was not simply to produce actionable intelligence.

J.C. Masterman was the presiding genius of the Double Cross system. In his book, Macintyre also credits Thomas Argyll ("Tar") Robertson, explaining that "Masterman and Robertson formed the linchpins of the double-cross operation." Masterman coordinated the operation with the military brass and Robertson ran it. If the captured spies interrogated by Stephens were found suitable double agents, they were then handed over to Tar Robertson and his case officers for the operation.

On the other hand, if the captured German spies refused to collaborate, they were either imprisoned or executed. Macintyre quotes Masterman, who was unsentimental on this score: "Some had to perish, both to satisy the country that the security of the country was being maintained and to convince the Germans that the others were working properly and not under conrol."

Like Sullivan, Obama somehow left that out in his invocation of Churchill as a model for the United States at war. Properly understood, Churchill provides a great model. Sullivan, however, is an obstacle to understanding, as vividly demonstrated this week by President Obama following him.

JOHN adds: It's no surprise that liberal media figures like Sullivan and Jon Stewart (see post below) are ill-informed and not very intelligent. But what does it tell us that our own President's knowledge of history is so thin that he relies on them for information?

[Yonivore]

Y'all's hero, Jon Stewart brought a guy on to debate the enhanced interrogation techniques. Interesting discussion, I think...

Basically, they arrived at the impasse where it was an argument over where to draw the line between discomfort and torture. Jon foolishly asserted this line was drawn by the Geneva conventions which -- in fact -- allows no discomfort.

So, once he got Stewart to admit that was unreasonable, it becomes obvious that reasonable people can disagree on where the line is drawn.

here's the video (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/jon_stewart_truman_was_a_war_c_1.asp)

More interestingly, during the course of the debate, Stewart's position led him to conclude President Truman had been a war criminal for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. Now, I know some of you share this position but, if you'll indulge me, maybe this video could change your mind. If not, I'd be interested to know why not...

defense of Truman (http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/Jon_Stewart%2C_War_Criminals_%26_The_True_Story_of _the_Atomic_Bombs/1808/;jsessionid=abckNkTdX-KCWbaYDT_ds)

Of course, Stewart realized the idiocy of his assertion and later apologized to the dead president...

The apology (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/stewart_apologizes.asp)

I know many of you look up to this guy because you argue like him.

But, you know, It's interesting that Stewart has now apologized for his attack on Truman. He really did need to take the position he did in the debate with May, because there is no logically consistent way to argue that it was OK to incinerate over 100,000 innocent Japanese, but not OK to scare Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--while doing him him no, zero--physical harm. By apologizing for his slander of Truman, Stewart concedes the argument to May...without having done so during the actual argument.

Typical liberal tactic.

Much like what Obama's just done with Military tribunals...demonize them and then, suddenly, decide -- hmmm...ol' George was right.

[clambake]

lol langworth.

[Yonivore]

lol langworth.
Fine, you find where Churchill said it...other than on Sullivan's blog.

[clambake]

:lmao @ poor yoni.

[clambake]

:lmao langworth :downspin:

[Ignignokt]

Wow clambake? Langworth?

log off and let your father Chumpdumper handle the debate.

[ChumpDumper]

So what torture did Churchill order again?

[clambake]

Wow clambake? Langworth?
being from n. ireland, i'm well versed on this pretentious hack.

would you like to add your knowledge on langworth? lol


log off and let your father Chumpdumper handle the debate.
my fathers dead.

good comeback.

[PEP]

why dont you ask the question proposed to you first you dung douche .. why did he retun the bust ?
Come on, you know chumpy never answers questions, he likes to answer questions with more questions and more questions until he has made the original poster forget what the question was.

[Winehole23]

Because Obama returning the Churchill bust is really important.

As posed in the OP, the question was a set piece -- only the most recent in a long series -- meant to convey the hypocrisy of Obama.

In your opinion, is the question objectively answerable? Until Obama speaks to it, all we have is speculation.

[ChumpDumper]

I already said he returned it because it looks like a glazed turd.

RIF.