Obama Administration: intelligence community can assassinate American citizens with

[mogrovejo]

Only with permission from higher-ups though.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/04/permission-needed-to-kill-american-terrorists/


'Permission' needed to kill U.S. terrorists

The U.S. intelligence community policy on killing American citizens who have joined al Qaeda requires first obtaining high-level government approval, a senior official disclosed to Congress on Wednesday. Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said in each case a decision to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen must get special permission.



"We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community," he said. "If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."



He also said there are criteria that must be met to authorize the killing of a U.S. citizen that include "whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans. Those are the factors involved."



Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican and ranking member of the House intelligence committee, asked Mr. Blair about the policy of targeting American citizens at a hearing. It was the first time there was public discussion about one of the most sensitive U.S. counterterrorism policies.



More:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

[ElNono]

Hmm.. I wonder who created that policy...

But I digress. This administration is certainly guilty of following that path.

[ElNono]

Another couple questions: Are we going to feign outrage now? Isn't this what we were told is needed to keep America secure?

[mogrovejo]

Are we going to feign outrage now?

Who's feigning outrage?


Isn't this what we were told is needed to keep America secure?

Yeah, just more politely. No reason to not state it's wrong though.

[ElNono]

Yeah, just more politely. No reason to not state it's wrong though.

Some of us stated it was wrong back in 2006 when it was enacted... This is really old news. Where were you then?

[TeyshaBlue]

Some of us stated it was wrong back in 2006 when it was enacted... This is really old news. Where were you then?

Actually, this is the first time I've heard of this particular policy.:wtf

[ElNono]

Actually, this is the first time I've heard of this particular policy.:wtf

Once an American citizen is declared a enemy combatant (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856), everything is fair game. There's supposed to be a higher standard for American citizens, but it's still pretty arbitrary.

Obviously, a lot of this stuff was swept under the "Protect America" rug, and that's probably why you missed it.

[boutons_deux]

What's the big deal?
CIA doesn't obey any laws anyway.
They get away with murder.

[mogrovejo]

Some of us stated it was wrong back in 2006 when it was enacted... This is really old news. Where were you then?

In the same place I am today. What's the point of this? Focus on what is said, not on who says it, if you allow an advise.

I think it's obvious that a White House official admitting it so blatantly and candidly is news.

Btw, I liked Pete Hoekstra questions. He raises a very important question.

[TeyshaBlue]

Once an American citizen is declared a enemy combatant (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856), everything is fair game. There's supposed to be a higher standard for American citizens, but it's still pretty arbitrary.

Obviously, a lot of this stuff was swept under the "Protect America" rug, and that's probably why you missed it.

Oh hell, I remember the bill now. What I hadn't put together was the logical extension of the policy...ie enemy combatant is now a legit target.

[NFGIII]

I'm curious about something here. It seems that the assassination/killing of American citizen's who are engaged in acts of war against the USA is wrong. And if I'm not mistaken Al-Qaeda's goal is the destruction of the USA and most likely all first world countires and the establishment of a world ruled by Islamic fundamentalism. Would it stand to reason that these American citizens are commitiing treason? Or maybe I have misunderstood. I understand that this country is based on the rule of law and it would be preferable that an American citizen, under normal circumstances, be captured and then tried in a court of law. But it seems that normal circumstances don't prevail and other means are neccessary. I don't see the distinction between a non American Al-Qaeda member and an American Al-Qaeda one. Both are engaged in war agianst the USA and thereby military targets.

In the opinion of others is this a slippery slope leading to ... what?

Just trying to understand other points of view.

[ElNono]

What's the point of this?

Merely commenting on the rather old news contained in the article. I thought that's why you posted it?

[mogrovejo]

Merely commenting on the rather old news contained in the article. I thought that's why you posted it?

I posted it because I found Blair's testimony, which happened yesterday, rather extraordinary. The same reason Greenwald and others are writing about it, I suppose. .

[Winehole23]

Forgive our callousness, mogrovejo, once the USA became objectively pro-torture, a lot of other niceties went out the window, or soon will.

[boutons_deux]

There were never any niceties. Only myths about America The Beautiful, Blessed by God, First and Holiest Among Nations. :)

[Winehole23]

That's one way to save us the hassle of trying the case in court. Just kill the guy.

[Winehole23]

There were never any niceties. Only myths about America The Beautiful, Blessed by God, First and Holiest Among Nations. :)Don't habeas and privacy count?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

What's the big deal?
CIA doesn't obey any laws anyway.
They get away with murder.

:lol

Why do you hate this country so much? Those CIA guys - they're doing what they're doing to keep your whiny little bitch ass alive.

Get a clue.

[Winehole23]

That the terrorists are targeting boutons is wishful thinking, perhaps.

[EVAY]

:lol

Why do you hate this country so much? Those CIA guys - they're doing what they're doing to keep your whiny little bitch ass alive.

Get a clue.

Thank you, Aggie.

[mogrovejo]

I'm curious about something here. It seems that the assassination/killing of American citizen's who are engaged in acts of war against the USA is wrong. And if I'm not mistaken Al-Qaeda's goal is the destruction of the USA and most likely all first world countires and the establishment of a world ruled by Islamic fundamentalism. Would it stand to reason that these American citizens are commitiing treason? Or maybe I have misunderstood. I understand that this country is based on the rule of law and it would be preferable that an American citizen, under normal circumstances, be captured and then tried in a court of law. But it seems that normal circumstances don't prevail and other means are neccessary. I don't see the distinction between a non American Al-Qaeda member and an American Al-Qaeda one. Both are engaged in war agianst the USA and thereby military targets.

In the opinion of others is this a slippery slope leading to ... what?

Just trying to understand other points of view.

I think this argument made by Greenwald (link provided in the OP) is well constructed:


Would be perverse in the extreme, but wouldn't it be preferable to at least require the President to demonstrate to a court that probable cause exists to warrant the assassination of an American citizen before the President should be allowed to order it? That would basically mean that courts would issue "assassination warrants" or "murder warrants" -- a repugnant idea given that they're tantamount to imposing the death sentence without a trial -- but isn't that minimal safeguard preferable to allowing the President unchecked authority to do it on his own, the very power he has now claimed for himself? That minimal safeguard would be essential, IMO. The question Congressman Hoekstra raises may seem far-fetched, but that's exactly the kind of occurrence that justifies the existence of a check&balances system. Paraphrasing Madison, if men were angel things would be much simpler.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm curious about something here. It seems that the assassination/killing of American citizen's who are engaged in acts of war against the USA is wrong. And if I'm not mistaken Al-Qaeda's goal is the destruction of the USA and most likely all first world countires and the establishment of a world ruled by Islamic fundamentalism. Would it stand to reason that these American citizens are commitiing treason? Or maybe I have misunderstood. I understand that this country is based on the rule of law and it would be preferable that an American citizen, under normal circumstances, be captured and then tried in a court of law. But it seems that normal circumstances don't prevail and other means are neccessary. I don't see the distinction between a non American Al-Qaeda member and an American Al-Qaeda one. Both are engaged in war agianst the USA and thereby military targets.

In the opinion of others is this a slippery slope leading to ... what?

Just trying to understand other points of view.

There's nothing wrong with the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens, so long as the state claims they were terrerestssss.

[ElNono]

There's nothing wrong with the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens, so long as the state claims they were terrerestssss.

:lol Well put

[George Gervin's Afro]

Only with permission from higher-ups though.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/04/permission-needed-to-kill-american-terrorists/


'Permission' needed to kill U.S. terrorists

The U.S. intelligence community policy on killing American citizens who have joined al Qaeda requires first obtaining high-level government approval, a senior official disclosed to Congress on Wednesday. Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said in each case a decision to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen must get special permission.



"We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community," he said. "If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."



He also said there are criteria that must be met to authorize the killing of a U.S. citizen that include "whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans. Those are the factors involved."



Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican and ranking member of the House intelligence committee, asked Mr. Blair about the policy of targeting American citizens at a hearing. It was the first time there was public discussion about one of the most sensitive U.S. counterterrorism policies.



More:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

so what's the problem?f we have to take someone down..then we take them down

[spursncowboys]

Forgive our callousness, mogrovejo, once the USA became objectively pro-torture, a lot of other niceties went out the window, or soon will.
We are pro-torture? When did this happen?

[Marcus Bryant]

So how long will it be until the federal government reserves the right to eliminate American citizens who purportedly are "terrorists" within the territory of these United States?

[Winehole23]

We are pro-torture? When did this happen?2001 until 2004.

Shortly after that, we swore off it forever, but I think the American people would still be ok with it.

You'd probably argue for it, wouldn't you?

[Winehole23]

Even if it's not our policy now, it once was and a lot of people seem to like it.

[SouthernFried]

Department of Homeland Security Memo on Domestic "extremists"

Dated March 26, 2009

...are you one?

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-05/dhs-domestic-extremism-lexicon.pdf

[Winehole23]

...

[ChumpDumper]

Department of Homeland Security Memo on Domestic "extremists"

Dated March 26, 2009

...are you one?

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-05/dhs-domestic-extremism-lexicon.pdfWhat does this have to do with the thread topic?

[mogrovejo]

We are pro-torture? When did this happen?

Never.

However, torture has been tolerated amongst the American intelligence community for many years: KUBARK and the Phoenix Program come to mind.


Department of Homeland Security Memo on Domestic "extremists"

Dated March 26, 2009

...are you one?

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-05/dhs-domestic-extremism-lexicon.pdf

That's funny. Good catch.

[mogrovejo]

So how long will it be until the federal government reserves the right to eliminate American citizens who purportedly are "terrorists" within the territory of these United States?
http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/waco-massacre.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously?

Those idiots killed themselves.

[Winehole23]

Never. You're dreaming. Wake up.

[Winehole23]

Department of Homeland Security Memo on Domestic "extremists"

Dated March 26, 2009

...are you one?The extremist card. Beer-battered and deep fried.

[Winehole23]

I aint hidin. Yet.

[Winehole23]

So how long will it be until the federal government reserves the right to eliminate American citizens who purportedly are "terrorists" within the territory of these United States?I think its all Presidentially determined. POTUS makes the hit list.

[mogrovejo]

Question: what do you call a person who believes that anything remotely important when it comes to the relationship between the US Government and torture changed during W. Bush tenure in office?

It's probably someone who learned history by reading Andrew Sullivan, the NYT or watching MSNBC - but is there a single word that can describe that type of person properly?

[Winehole23]

Having grunts do the dirty work is a significant difference, and so was the official blessing abusive conditions of detention received.

[Winehole23]

The emergence of a multi-tiered system of justice in America basically foreshadows the return of outlawry (http://books.google.com/books?id=SwlAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=outlawry+legal+history&source=bl&ots=RmJD3vlsOv&sig=w9KjKJpJ2sN-KxU9tKgKb0PRZeE&hl=en&ei=rFtsS5WNFM6WtgfJkNiPBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=outlawry%20legal%20history&f=false). Certain people, including US citizens, can be placed beyond the protection of the law on the say so of the president.

[Winehole23]

Good thing there are no foreseeable problems with that.

[Winehole23]

http://www.myfamilysilver.com/img/crests/large/SM-1363.jpg

[Winehole23]

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/%7Ejmbhome/rdewcoatrmsyel.gif

[Winehole23]

Caput gerat lupinum.

[Winehole23]

Let him bear the wolf's head.

[mogrovejo]

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/83/1e/c915224128a0f8e896ab8010.L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

US Army and torture - decades before George W. Bush.

[Winehole23]

Cool. Are you a big fan of that?

[ElNono]

Cool. Are you a big fan of that?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/clausewitz666/YouBetcha.jpg

[TeyshaBlue]

*thexy!*

[Winehole23]

*thexy!*Yeth.

[mogrovejo]

Another good one for the know-nothings who believe that anything remotely important when it comes to the relationship between the US Government and torture changed during W. Bush tenure in office:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BWP5G84BL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

[Winehole23]

Another good one for the know-nothings who believe that anything remotely important when it comes to the relationship between the US Government and torture changed during W. Bush tenure in office:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BWP5G84BL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpgThe scale of the operation sets it apart, wouldn't you say? It has become an all-American institution in a way other covert ops never did.

[ElNono]

I could bring this one up too:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511ar%2B4CMwL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

That doesn't mean it was a publicly accepted policy.
The same thing applies with torture up until Cheney/Bush.

[mogrovejo]

I could bring this one up too:

That doesn't mean it was a publicly accepted policy.
The same thing applies with torture up until Cheney/Bush.

The use of torture was widely known and accepted in the US till the early 20th century - for example, by the police forces using "third degree" techniques.

For example, check:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/upa_cis/group.asp?g=256


They just wouldn't call it torture - just like they didn't under Bush, just like they don't under Obama. Third degree, coercive counterintelligence interrogation of resistant sources, stress and duress, everything but actions equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death, etc. etc. No change.

History will be way kinder to Bush than his fanatic opponents of today would like, I think - not because he was good, but merely because he wasn't exceptionally bad relatively to his peers (at least when it comes to torture).

[ChumpDumper]

So Americans like torture and want to do it more in the future.

[ElNono]

The use of torture was widely known and accepted in the US till the early 20th century - for example, by the police forces using "third degree" techniques.

For example, check:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/upa_cis/group.asp?g=256


They just wouldn't call it torture - just like they didn't under Bush, just like they don't under Obama. Third degree, coercive counterintelligence interrogation of resistant sources, stress and duress, everything but actions equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death, etc. etc. No change.

History will be way kinder to Bush than his fanatic opponents of today would like, I think - not because he was good, but merely because he wasn't exceptionally bad relatively to his peers (at least when it comes to torture).

You're pretty disingenuous. That predates the US signing and agreeing to respect both the Geneva convention and the universal declaration of human rights.

Your argument is analogous to the US suddenly prohibiting women from voting "because once upon a time we didn't allow it either and nobody was bitching back then"...

[mogrovejo]

You're pretty disingenuous. That predates the US signing and agreeing to respect both the Geneva convention and the universal declaration of human rights.

Your argument is analogous to the US suddenly prohibiting women from voting "because once upon a time we didn't allow it either and nobody was bitching back then"...

I don't thin the Geneva Convention is relevant for the torture America civilians. As for programs like Phoenix and KUBARK they happened after the signature of the Geneva Convention.

In any case, my point is that there's nothing that distinguishes the previous Administration in regards to torture relatively to the previous ones. All of them promoted it while calling it something different than torture.

[ElNono]

I don't thin the Geneva Convention is relevant for the torture America civilians. As for programs like Phoenix and KUBARK they happened after the signature of the Geneva Convention.

Again, they were classified programs, and entirely reprehensible. That you're ok with them do not make them ok by any stretch of the imagination. They're definitely a black eye for the CIA.


In any case, my point is that there's nothing that distinguishes the previous Administration in regards to torture relatively to the previous ones. All of them promoted it while calling it something different than torture.

Sure there is. The previous administration tried to set up a legal framework to publicly justify torture. Please show me another previous administration that attempted to do just that.

[mogrovejo]

Again, they were classified programs, and entirely reprehensible. That you're ok with them do not make them ok by any stretch of the imagination. They're definitely a black eye for the CIA.

Uh? Who told you I'm okay with them? Please, retract from your statement.



Sure there is. The previous administration tried to set up a legal framework to publicly justify torture. Please show me another previous administration that attempted to do just that.

The previous administration tried to set up a legal framework to justify something that, in their view, was not torture - by defining torture in a particular way: torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" and didn't include water-boarding, for example.

The same way that when the Kennedy Administration officials elaborated the guidelines for "counterintelligence interrogation of resistant sources" they left electric shocks out of the definition of torture.

[Winehole23]

Please, retract from your statement. Retract is not a phrasal verb. It carries no set preposition in train. You might have hypercorrected here.

[Winehole23]

perhaps analogy from <<detract from>>.

[Winehole23]

mogro calls for a retraction.

[Winehole23]

He won't give one, but he'll sure ask for one.

[Winehole23]

hee hee hee

[ElNono]

Uh? Who told you I'm okay with them? Please, retract from your statement.

I'll retract the comment when you condemn the practice.


The previous administration tried to set up a legal framework to justify something that, in their view, was not torture - by defining torture in a particular way: torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" and didn't include water-boarding, for example.

The same way that when the Kennedy Administration officials elaborated the guidelines for "counterintelligence interrogation of resistant sources" they left electric shocks out of the definition of torture.

They don't get to define what torture is, and THAT is exactly the problem. By any measurable standard, it's been already defined in the Geneva convention they signed and promised to uphold. Furthermore, I have absolutely zero doubt that if an enemy were to do the same things to an American, it would be labeled torture on the spot. Which is what makes the Cheneys of the world a bunch of hypocrites.

[mogrovejo]

I'll retract the comment when you condemn the practice.

Haven't I done that multiple times? I was the one opening this thread. I condemn the practice of torture and its enabling/rationalization/mitigation - in every time and regardless of who does it.

What about you? I confess that I find your narrow focusing on the last Administration very disturbing. Are you really anti-torture or merely anti-Bush?


They don't get to define what torture is, and THAT is exactly the problem. By any measurable standard, it's been already defined in the Geneva convention they signed and promised to uphold. Furthermore, I have absolutely zero doubt that if an enemy were to do the same things to an American, it would be labeled torture on the spot. Which is what makes the Cheneys of the world a bunch of hypocrites.I agree - except with singling out Cheney when the previous Administrations also tried to define torture in a way that would exclude their practice of torture and the focus on the Geneva Convention and such - if the Geneva Convention didn't exist or was overturned, torture wouldn't be more admissible. Your faith on legalism in such issues is, once again, disturbing. Waterboard is torture regardless of what Cheney says it's torture - and the exact same reasoning applies to treaties like the Geneva Conventions.

[Winehole23]

History will be way kinder to Bush than his fanatic opponents of today would like, I think - not because he was good, but merely because he wasn't exceptionally bad relatively to his peers (at least when it comes to torture).Relative to his peers, we say in English. It is a preposition. I can see how the adverbial context would throw you off there.

The reference to the ultimate verdict of history is premature in both pre approved flavors, but I'll say this: the *fans* aren't always wrong. They just lived through it.

[Winehole23]

Your faith on legalism in such issues is, once again, disturbing.As is yours. Codifying harsh interrogation techniques as being "not torture", isn't necessary unless you've already been torturing people. You seem to buy the ad hoc Bush legal justifications wholesale, while dismissing the treaty-level convention against torture as a quaint "legalism".

I guess "legalism" is in the eye of the beholder, huh?

[Winehole23]

Riddle me this mogrovejo: if waterboarding wasn't torture, why did we quit doing it in 2004?

[ElNono]

Haven't I done that multiple times?

Have you?


I was the one opening this thread. I condemn the practice of torture and its enabling/rationalization/mitigation - in every time and regardless of who does it.

That's more like it. I retract my comment then.


What about you? I confess that I find your narrow focusing on the last Administration very disturbing. Are you really anti-torture or merely anti-Bush?

I made it clear every time this topic came up that I don't support torture or whatever they want to call it these days (enhanced interrogation techniques?), and any attempts to rationalize it. I have also condemned the continuation of this policy by this administration.


I agree - except with singling out Cheney when the previous Administrations also tried to define torture in a way that would exclude their practice of torture and the focus on the Geneva Convention and such - if the Geneva Convention didn't exist or was overturned, torture wouldn't be more admissible. Your faith on legalism in such issues is, once again, disturbing.

The previous administration tried to bastardize what the entire world understood as torture, and tried to pass it as publicly accepted and justified policy. There's really no two ways to look at it. I singled out Cheney and his office because they were the intellectual and political creators of that abomination.

I'm completely disgusted with the current administration also because they're following in his trail. This is the extinction of due process as we knew it.

[ElNono]

As is yours. Codifying harsh interrogation techniques as being "not torture", isn't necessary unless you've already been torturing people. You seem to buy the ad hoc Bush legal justifications wholesale, while dismissing the treaty-level convention against torture as a quaint "legalism".

I guess "legalism" is in the eye of the beholder, huh?

hear hear! Again, if anything, Cheney needs to be singled out for being the father of the child. That doesn't mean I don't condemn the continuation of the justifications by this administration.

[mogrovejo]

Have you?

Yes.


The previous administration tried to bastardize what the entire world understood as torture, and tried to pass it as publicly accepted and justified policy. There's really no two ways to look at it.
I singled out Cheney because he was the intellectual and political creator of that abomination.

I'm completely disgusted with the current administration also because they're following in his trails. This is the extinction of due process as we knew it.

I still can't understand why aren't you disgusted with the previous administrations who did EXACTLY the same, but that's okay.


I made it clear every time this topic came up that I don't support torture or whatever they want to call it these days (enhanced interrogation techniques?), and any attempts to rationalize it. I have also condemned the continuation of this policy by this administration.

They started calling it "enhanced interrogation techniques" a few decades ago, it's not exactly a novelty, but it's fine to finally have a more or less unambiguous statement.

[Winehole23]

(mogrovejo, swinging his censer, blesses the newly baptized euphemism for torture)

[Winehole23]

In a nutshell, the mainstreaming of US torture policy is radical and significant. It is a 180 degree reversal from our traditional PR on the subject.

[Winehole23]

And our traditional method of justice.

[ElNono]

Exactly. I condemn torture in any shape or form, done under the guise of covert ops or openly by any government. What infuriates me is the attempt at pseudo-justification-legalization where torture is now OK in certain circumstances, even though doing that shits all over our justice system and what it represents to the world. I certainly was hoping for change in policy WRT this but it hasn't happened...

[mogrovejo]

Exactly. I condemn torture in any shape or form, done under the guise of covert ops or openly by any government. What infuriates me is the attempt at pseudo-justification-legalization where torture is now OK in certain circumstances, even though doing that shits all over our justice system and what it represents to the world. I certainly was hoping for change in policy WRT this but it hasn't happened...

Yeah, many people were expecting the Nixon Administration to change that, but unfortunately it didn't happen.

[Winehole23]

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff226/hideaway159/barbrady.jpg

[Marcus Bryant]

If torture is good for terrererests, then perhaps one day it will be good for....federal drug offenses. Remember when we accepted the death penalty for someone deemed to be a 'drug kingpin'? Put "drugs" on it and no expenditure is too great and no punishment is too severe in these United States.

There's a history of techniques and technology finding their way from military use to civilian law enforcement. Still, the elimination of judge, jury, and the Constitution is a bit much, don't you superheroes think?

[Winehole23]

Waterboard(ing) is torture regardless of what Cheney says it's torture - Awkward. Leave the clause rounded off, and omit the verbal particle. This threw me first time through.

Waterboarding is torture regardless of what Cheney says. Agree 100%.


and the exact same reasoning applies to treaties like the Geneva Conventions.Unclear, unless you mean Geneva remains in force despite the self-granted US exceptions to it. I would hardly expect you to make this case, but stranger things have happened.

[ElNono]

Put "drugs" on it and no expenditure is too great and no punishment is too severe in these United States.

Or "children".