The Case for Waterboarding

[Yonivore]

The Case for Waterboarding (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24653)


FrontPageMagazine.com | September 29, 2006

Discussing his recent compromise with the White House on detention and interrogation of captured terrorists, John McCain said on the Today show that ‘there will be no such thing as waterboarding…You will never see that again. We stood up and said that cannot be done.’

It is not easy to grasp the thinking of senator McCain and others who seek to ban this practice in the light of its immense value in our fight against terror. Take, for instance, the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed captured in Pakistan in March of 2003. One of the masterminds of 9/11 and al-Qaeda’s operational leader at the time, he possessed a wide-ranging knowledge of the network’s plans, logistics and personnel. Unwilling to share it voluntarily, he was subjected to forced interrogation. As resilient as he was and defiant, he held out until the interrogators decided to proceed with waterboarding. Two and a half minutes into the procedure, a broken Mohammed begged for relief. Stunned and shaken, his extensive confession amounted to nothing less than a treasure trove of priceless intelligence.

This case is unusual not in how quickly the waterboarding worked, but how long Mohammed was able to withstand it. Two and a half minutes is by all accounts a record of sorts, as most subjects usually break down inside a minute. CIA agents who undergo this procedure as part of their training rarely last more than 40 seconds. This despite the fact that they are in a friendly environment and know that death is not an option.

Although waterboarding is normally employed as the last resort and the frequency of its use kept secret, it has been made known that so far it has worked every time it has been tried. Thanks to its extraordinary efficacy, we have been able to obtain a great amount of critical intelligence that would have otherwise remained inaccessible. With the help of this information we have captured al-Qaeda operatives, stopped deadly plots, and saved many innocent lives. One of the fruits of Mohammed’s confession, to give one example, was the thwarting of a conspiracy to fly an airliner into the Library Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles.

Given these facts, it is almost incomprehensible that there are some people in this country who insist that we relinquish this life-saving tool. Resting their objections on ethical grounds, they try to convince us that the procedure is morally unacceptable. But theirs is a misguided stance, since careful consideration shows that waterboarding is in fact one of the least injurious among interrogation techniques.

To see why this is so, it is enough to contrast it with the most common approach which involves a combination of sleep deprivation and cold exposure. Frequently requiring days and even weeks to break the captive’s spirit, it carries a real possibility of long-term physical and psychological damage. Worse still, it often fails to achieve the desired effect with the result that the captive is subjected to prolonged hardships, but we still end up without the information we so urgently need.

Waterboarding, on the other hand, is fleeting in duration with the actual discomfort lasting seldom more than a couple of minutes. And since a man can be safely deprived of oxygen for at least twice as long, there is almost no risk of long-term harm. The possibility of injury is further reduced by the fact that the procedure calls for no direct physical contact between the subject and his interrogators. Not even as much as pushing or chest slapping is required at any time, making waterboarding one of the safest and least confrontational among interrogation methods. Involving the lowest risk of long-term harm and the least amount of cumulative discomfort, it is also the most humane. Most importantly, it is the most effective.

While other interrogation procedures employ raw force, intimidation or long-term duress, waterboarding brings the terrorist face to face with that which he himself seeks to inflict upon his victims – the horror of dying. Viewed in this light, waterboarding may well be the most just form of interrogation for this kind of criminal, because it gives him a taste of his own evil. The difference is that his anguish is stopped the moment he expresses a desire for it to be so. This, tragically, is something which his victims would never be granted. While the terrorist turns his prey into mangled corpses, waterboarding gives him a chance to see another day without being so much as scathed by his momentary ordeal. But even as he goes on living, we have in our possession crucial intelligence that will save innocent lives.

It is widely agreed that the horrors of 9/11 took place primarily because of our intelligence gathering failures. The fact that at the time we had in our custody the 20th hijacker makes this tragedy all the more painful. Even though we suspected that Zacarias Moussaoui knew something big was in the works, we did not interrogate him aggressively enough to extract this information from him. Had we done so, things could have turned out differently. One of the primary objectives of waterboarding is to bring forth the kind of intelligence that will prevent tragedies like 9/11 from occurring again.

Rather than depriving our interrogators of this tool for wresting intelligence from recalcitrant terrorists, we must ensure that it is available whenever the need arises. Our government officials would do well to remember what the stakes are and whose protection they have been entrusted with. Once they do so, they cannot but recognize that our government not only is fully justified in utilizing this invaluable technique, but has a moral obligation to use it to save lives.

And as far as opponents of waterboarding are concerned, I have these questions to ask: Are a few moments of a terrorist’s discomfort more important than the lives of the innocents he seeks to destroy? Are two minutes of Moussaoui’s anguish worth more than the three thousand lives lost on 9/11? Does his momentary pain override a lifetime of hurt of those left behind?

If you can’t answer in the affirmative then hold your peace.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll defer to the man who was tortured for six years. If Vasko had a similar experience in Czechoslovakia I'll consider his opinion too.

[Yonivore]

I'll defer to the man who was tortured for six years. If Vasko had a similar experience in Czechoslovakia I'll consider his opinion too.
I defer to the Americans that were incinerated, pulverized, or forced to jump from 80 story windows on September 11, 2001.

[ChumpDumper]

Do you have a quote from them?

Essays about torture they worte?

A blog you can steal from and pass off as your own thoughts?

You have no shame. How dare you attempt to speak for them. You are pathetic.

[Yonivore]

Do you have a quote from them?

Essays about torture they worte?

A blog you can steal from and pass off as your own thoughts?

You have no shame. How dare you attempt to speak for them. You are pathetic.
I'm sorry, they're all dead and unavailable for comment. Thank God, there are those who will stand in their stead.

Your indignation is touching.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sorry, they're all dead and unavailable for comment.You are SPEAKING for them! You are saying this is what they would say.
You have no shame.
Thank God, there are those who will stand in their stead.Not you. You are sitting on your ass, claiming you know the minds and thoughts of every 9/11 victim and yelling for other people to torture and kill and turn each other into the FBI because you are too much of a coward to do any of it yourself.

[Yonivore]

You are SPEAKING for them! You are saying this is what they would say. You have no shame.
Fine, whatever. Here you go changing the subject. Nice.


Not you. You are sitting on your ass, claiming you know the minds and thoughts of every 9/11 victim and yelling for other people to torture and kill and turn each other into the FBI because you are too much of a coward to do any of it yourself.
No, I'm sitting on my ass saying that I am determined that no one suffer the same fate. And, by supporting the administration's efforts to ferret out these plots by whatever means necessary, that's what I'm doing.

So, exactly what does your feigned offense have to do with the original article? How about the fact these techniques have resulted in credible actionable intelligence that prevented attacks?

Or, do you just want to re-direct by attack and faux indignation?

[Yonivore]

You are sitting on your ass, claiming you know the minds and thoughts of every 9/11 victim and yelling for other people to torture and kill and turn each other into the FBI because you are too much of a coward to do any of it yourself.
Oh, and you're doing so much more than the same for you stupid position?

[01Snake]

Jesus Chump...get a grip.

[ChumpDumper]

Fine, whatever. Here you go changing the subject. Nice.You can't expect something so completely stupid as speaking for all the victims of 9/11 to go unchallenged.
No, I'm sitting on my assYes you are. What sacrifice for the war effort.
So, exactly what does your feigned offense have to do with the original article?There's nothing feigned about this, you worm. You disgust me.
How about the fact these techniques have resulted in credible actionable intelligence that prevented attacks?I deferred to someone who can actually speak, and someone who knows what he's talking about. I didn't have to be a completely reprehesible jackass to do it.
Or, do you just want to re-direct by attack and faux indignation?Now you're speaking for me too? Fuck you.

[01Snake]

Get a hose...Chump is on FIRE!

[Yonivore]

Get a hose...Chump is on FIRE!
More like mental.
So, was Arar waterboarded?

[01Snake]

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

So, was Arar waterboarded?Nope.

[turambar85]

Where did my thread go? It is no longer here or trolls...

[ChumpDumper]

I deleted it. You could probably post something like it within a thread, but we don't need to have seperate threads for that stuff and the troll forum has taken on a life of its own, so it really didn't belong there either.

[turambar85]

Thats just damn mean, why did you do that?

[01Snake]

I deleted it. You could probably post something like it within a thread, but we don't need to have seperate threads for that stuff and the troll forum has taken on a life of its own, so it really didn't belong there either.

Good job moderating Chump. Nice to see that in a political forum.
:tu

[Yonivore]

Nope.
Then what does it have to do with the thread?

[ChumpDumper]

Then what does it have to do with the thread?Nothing, he wasn't mentioned here at all until you brought him up.

[smeagol]

I defer to the Americans that were incinerated, pulverized, or forced to jump from 80 story windows on September 11, 2001.
Only the Americas?

Human beings from many countries died in 9/11. Actually, at least 3 were Argentine . . .

[smeagol]

Good job moderating Chump. Nice to see that in a political forum.
:tu
Not happy the way chump moderates?

You can always post in the club

[Yonivore]

Only the Americas?

Human beings from many countries died in 9/11. Actually, at least 3 were Argentine . . .
Fine, the Argentinians too.

Seriously, the trivial nit-picking in this forum. No one can argue concepts because of all the sentence diagramming and diversions to minor points.

I really didn't even mean I would defer to the victims...(yeah, yeah, yeah, I know what I said)...what I should have said was that I defer to the memory of the victims and the proposition that we owe it to that memory and to the sense of security of their survivors to do whatever is possible to prevent this from ever happening again.

Sometimes, in the pursuit of making another, larger point, we all rush a thought out into the forum.

[boutons_]

The entire fallacy of the torture discussion that is that the pro-torture side builds its case on the basis that the war on terror cannot be won without torture.

That torture is absolutely necessary to winning the war, that the war absolutely cannot be won without torture.

That simply isn't true, so their case for torture is false.

[ChumpDumper]

Not happy the way chump moderates?

You can always post in the clubI thought he was happy.

[smeagol]

Fine, the Argentinians too.

Seriously, the trivial nit-picking in this forum. No one can argue concepts because of all the sentence diagramming and diversions to minor points.

I really didn't even mean I would defer to the victims...(yeah, yeah, yeah, I know what I said)...what I should have said was that I defer to the memory of the victims and the proposition that we owe it to that memory and to the sense of security of their survivors to do whatever is possible to prevent this from ever happening again.

Sometimes, in the pursuit of making another, larger point, we all rush a thought out into the forum.
Sorry

[smeagol]

I thought he was happy.
It looks like it.

It was too early in the morning and I was without my dose of coffee.

Sorry, snake dude.

[clambake]

Who knows? Torture of some kind may be needed. However, part of the reason so many suffered on 9/11 is due to failure of leadership.

I'll settle for both, if thats what it takes. The terrorist did this, and our leadership allowed it to happen. Facts.

[gtownspur]

Who knows? Torture of some kind may be needed. However, part of the reason so many suffered on 9/11 is due to failure of leadership.

I'll settle for both, if thats what it takes. The terrorist did this, and our leadership allowed it to happen. Facts.


WOw,

Finally someone whose reasonable.

[01Snake]

WOw,

Finally someone whose reasonable.


Ditto on that!

[ChumpDumper]

I'm glad the administration got around to accepting its Constitutional responsibilties and at least tried to codify what it's doing. That they had to do it kicking and screaming after claiming fairly dictatorial powers for itself through a nondeclaration of a war that could arguably never end is troubling to say the least. There are plenty of things still troubling about the legislation, but at least the Imperial Presidency has been reined in a bit by Constitution Bush took an oath to uphold.

[Yonivore]

I'm glad the administration got around to accepting its Constitutional responsibilties and at least tried to codify what it's doing.
Well, this is a start Chump.

Considering that no other administration in the history of this country has had to fit enemy combatants into our domestic jurisprudence, I think you at least owe it to intellectual honesty to concede that this is the first time any U. S. President has been forced to do so.

Intellectual honesty would also dictate that you admit this President asceded to the rulings of the Supreme Court immediately and not "kicking and screaming." They attempted to defend their position and they lost in the courts. It's that simple. This was an undecided issue until now, you can't argue what he was doing was unconsitutional because well, it's been the practice of previous administrations and no previous Supreme Court had ever ruled on it.

People's opinions aren't the law...even if they are a dozen partisan law professors.


That they had to do it kicking and screaming after claiming fairly dictatorial powers for itself through a nondeclaration of a war that could arguably never end is troubling to say the least. There are plenty of things still troubling about the legislation, but at least the Imperial Presidency has been reined in a bit by Constitution Bush took an oath to uphold.
Oh please. This administration was just doing what every previous administration (with the possible exception of Clinton) has done since our founding. Exercising every power within it's purview to secure this country.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

[PixelPusher]

People's opinions aren't the law...even if they are a dozen partisan White House lawyers


(fixed to make a point)

[Yonivore]

(fixed to make a point)
Yep, especially when they White House was relying on precedent.

[ChumpDumper]

Considering that no other administration in the history of this country has had to fit enemy combatants into our domestic jurisprudence, I think you at least owe it to intellectual honesty to concede that this is the first time any U. S. President has been forced to do so.This is the first time a President tried to sidestep the Geneva Conventions so blatantly.
Intellectual honesty would also dictate that you admit this President asceded to the rulings of the Supreme Court immediately and not "kicking and screaming."No. They and you are the sorest losers ever. Lookk at the AGs latest veiled threat to judges.
People's opinions aren't the law...even if they are a dozen partisan law professors.Even if they are Attorneys General or Presidents saying they can make the law without oversight.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.That guy wasn't President and he's spinning in his grave at what is being passed off as conservatism these days.

[PixelPusher]

This:


Considering that no other administration in the history of this country has had to fit enemy combatants into our domestic jurisprudence, I think you at least owe it to intellectual honesty to concede that this is the first time any U. S. President has been forced to do so.

Plus this:

Yep, especially when they White House was relying on precedent.

Equals: Yoni contradicting himself

[boutons_]

http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/10/01/ta061001.gif


http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/09/30/bs060930.gif


http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/10/01/wpnan061001.gif


http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/09/29/sc060929.gif

[RandomGuy]

How does waterboarding combat the idea that we are evil?

[JoeChalupa]

Nobody is above the law including the President of the United States. We all knew that the U.S. had secret prisons and interrogation tactics and they will continue to do so. And no I'm not bashing my own country just stating what I feel are the facts.
Even my progressive thinking ass knows that sometimes boundaries will be crossed to accomplish our goals.

[boutons_]

"accomplish our goals"

... that just might be arguable, with extreme difficulty, if the Exec had purely those security goals, but we know that dickhead came into office with the agenda, dating back to his evil, criminal spiritual godfather Tricky Dick Nixon, to greatly increase, ie, unbalance and uncheck, the power of the Exec, totally pre-dating any threat of terror.

And we all know by now that dickhead has been proven to be a untrustworthy, evil, lying sonofabitch. NEVER trust anything that un-American, anti-Constitutional motherfucker wants to do.

[boutons_]

'The More Subtle Kind of Torment'

By Joseph Margulies
Monday, October 2, 2006; A19

In these uncertain times, it's worth recalling that the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of madmen is not new. Nearly 50 years before Sept. 11, 2001, the American public learned that a group of prisoners in military custody confessed to being part of an elaborate conspiracy to bomb civilian targets with bacteriological weapons.

The first prisoner to crack said the goal was "the mass annihilation of the civilian population." As often happens, his confession led to others, and before long, three dozen prisoners had coughed up page after page of chilling, meticulously detailed admissions.

But it was all a lie. Thirty-six American airmen, shot from the sky during the Korean War, falsely confessed to a vast plot to bomb civilian targets. How did this happen? With Congress having approved a "compromise" that gives the president authority to determine the meaning of the Geneva Conventions and redefines the War Crimes Act to protect CIA interrogators, we should revisit this all-but-forgotten moment in U.S. history.

During the Korean War, thousands of American POWs were forced to endure grotesque and sadistic physical torture. But the downed airmen were treated differently. The senior officer among them was Col. Frank Schwable, the highest-ranking Marine captured in the conflict. "I want to emphasize," Schwable said later, "that I did not undergo physical torture. Perhaps I would have been more fortunate if I had, because people nowadays seem to understand that better. Mine was the more subtle kind of torment."

The airmen were subjected to something new: touchless torture. They were kept isolated from all human contact, apart from their interrogators. One prisoner spent 10 months in solitary confinement, another 13. Schwable did not learn of the armistice until after he confessed.

They were made to stand or sit in awkward and painful positions for hours at a time. One prisoner had to sit at attention on the edge of a stool for 15 hours per day for 33 days. Another time he had to stand for 30 consecutive hours, until he collapsed. Schwable was required to sit at attention every day for almost 10 weeks.

They were demeaned, taunted and treated like animals. Schwable said the guards "growled" or "barked" at him, slopped food at him, and made him defecate in public. "Every effort was made to degrade and humiliate me," he said.

And of course they were interrogated. Grueling interrogations that lasted hours and hours, repeating the same material they had gone over the day before, and the day before that, until the past became a confusing whirl of fact and fantasy suggested to them by their relentless interlocutors. At last, exhausted and demoralized, their resistance overcome, they confessed. They all confessed in the end. And they all lied.

Maj. William Harris later tried to explain to an incredulous public how he could falsely accuse his country of something so barbaric as a conspiracy to bomb civilians, especially if he wasn't "tortured." "They don't have to lay a hand on you to make you the most miserable person in the world," he said. "I would rather take a beating any day than be subjected to their type of questioning and treatment."

After the war North Korean atrocities were roundly condemned by the United States, which complained to the United Nations that the Koreans had not complied with the Geneva Conventions. One institution, however, was not repelled but intrigued. The experience led the CIA to accelerate its research into the theory and science of coercive interrogation.

Between 1950 and 1962, the CIA poured millions of dollars into studies that tested different interrogation techniques, hoping to learn from and refine the lessons of Korea. The research culminated in the top-secret KUBARK manual, a 1963 primer on how to conduct coercive counterintelligence interrogations. The manual was finally disclosed in 1997 and is now available online.

KUBARK operates on the premise that a prisoner will divulge what he knows once he realizes that resistance is pointless. The prisoner must believe his captors are "all-powerful." Confusion, fear and isolation are the interrogator's stock in trade, since they "create and amplify an effect of omniscience."

Interrogators must create a menacing and ominous environment that destroys the prisoner's capacity to function as a "civilized man." Prisoners should be kept disoriented because "the capacity for resistance is diminished by disorientation."

The prisoner's environment must be manipulated to produce a "regression of the personality to whatever earlier and weaker level is required for the dissolution of resistance." This usually doesn't take much. "Relatively small degrees of homeostatic derangement, fatigue, pain, sleep loss, or anxiety" are generally sufficient.

When in doubt, the interrogator should always keep in mind this useful advice: In order to achieve " the maximum amount of mental discomfort ," (emphasis in original), your prisoner must be instilled with a sense of "debility, dependence, and dread." "When this aim is achieved, resistance is seriously impaired." The prisoner enters "a kind of psychological shock or paralysis." At that moment, "the source is far more open to suggestion [and] far likelier to comply."

Will mild "homeostatic derangement" be deemed acceptable under the legislation just passed by Congress -- a little sleep deprivation here, some extended standing there, perhaps a few more hours in the cold room, a wee drop of solitary confinement now and again, extended isolation from the outside world? Nothing like "real" torture, since everyone knows that's unreliable.

Regrettably, we may not hear the answer in the sad, distant voices of three dozen American airmen. There is a lesson in their cries, if only we'd listen.

The writer is a law professor at Northwestern University and was lead counsel in Rasul v. Bush, which concerned the legality of the detentions at Guantanamo Bay. He is the author of "Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

==================

The Repugs are truly REPUGNANT motherfuckers, corrupt, evil, totally spineless opposite the Truth, worshippers of the lie (Satan's crowning achievement). :lol

Would anybody be surprised to learn that al Qaida training camps gave all trainees repeated waterboardings?

[Yonivore]

Yoni contradicting himself
The precedent of no previous President having to apply Constitutional protections to enemy combatants.

To what contradiction are you referring?

[johnsmith]

After reading this thread, I have concluded that ChumpDumper is by far and away the biggest bitch on this website.

[01Snake]

Defense Department Update
September 14, 2006 - Ten Facts about Guantanamo

1. The detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility include bin Laden’s bodyguards, bomb makers, terrorist trainers and facilitators, and other suspected terrorists.

2. More money is spent on meals for detainees than on the U.S. troops stationed there. Detainees are offered up to 4,200 calories a day. The average weight gain per detainee is 20 pounds.

3. The Muslim call to prayer sounds five times a day. Arrows point detainees toward the holy city of Mecca.

4. Detainees receive medical, dental, psychiatric, and optometric care at U.S. taxpayers’ expense. In 2005, there were 35 teeth cleanings, 91 cavities filled, and 174 pairs of glasses issued.

5. The International Committee of the Red Cross visits detainees at the facility every few months. More than 20,000 messages between detainees and their families have been exchanged.

6. Recreation activities include basketball, volleyball, soccer, pingpong, and board games. High-top sneakers are provided.

7. Departing detainees receive a Koran, a jean jacket, a white T-shirt, a pair of blue jeans, high-top sneakers, a gym bag of toiletries, and a pillow and blanket for the flight home.

8. Entertainment includes Arabic language TV shows, including World Cup soccer games. The library has 3,500 volumes available in 13 languages — the most requested book is “Harry Potter.”

9. Guantanamo is the most transparent detention facility in the history of warfare. The Joint Task Force has hosted more than 1,000 journalists from more than 40 countries.

10. In 2005, Amnesty International stated that “the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times.”

From the Department of Defense Office of Public Affairs – OSD Writers’ Group

[Yonivore]

Defense Department Update
September 14, 2006 - Ten Facts about Guantanamo

1. The detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility include bin Laden’s bodyguards, bomb makers, terrorist trainers and facilitators, and other suspected terrorists.

2. More money is spent on meals for detainees than on the U.S. troops stationed there. Detainees are offered up to 4,200 calories a day. The average weight gain per detainee is 20 pounds.

3. The Muslim call to prayer sounds five times a day. Arrows point detainees toward the holy city of Mecca.

4. Detainees receive medical, dental, psychiatric, and optometric care at U.S. taxpayers’ expense. In 2005, there were 35 teeth cleanings, 91 cavities filled, and 174 pairs of glasses issued.

5. The International Committee of the Red Cross visits detainees at the facility every few months. More than 20,000 messages between detainees and their families have been exchanged.

6. Recreation activities include basketball, volleyball, soccer, pingpong, and board games. High-top sneakers are provided.

7. Departing detainees receive a Koran, a jean jacket, a white T-shirt, a pair of blue jeans, high-top sneakers, a gym bag of toiletries, and a pillow and blanket for the flight home.

8. Entertainment includes Arabic language TV shows, including World Cup soccer games. The library has 3,500 volumes available in 13 languages — the most requested book is “Harry Potter.”

9. Guantanamo is the most transparent detention facility in the history of warfare. The Joint Task Force has hosted more than 1,000 journalists from more than 40 countries.

10. In 2005, Amnesty International stated that “the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times.”

From the Department of Defense Office of Public Affairs – OSD Writers’ Group
Sounds like Saddam Hussein's prisons to me. Yep.

[boutons_]

Yoni likes to quote Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War.

Well, for 50 or 60 years after the Civil War lynching blacks in the South wasn't prosecuted; women couldn't vote; women had essentially no rights and protections in divorce. We've made 150 year of "social progress".

Social/political conservatives, at their core, want to go back to 18th century society and jurisprudence (when cherry picking that state of society suits their agenda).

Again, Yoni, as well as puppet dubya, places torture and unwarranted , no-oversight electronic fishing expeditions as the "sine qua non" of the Repug war on terror. It simply isn't true.

The intelligence community hadplenty of tools to fight terror before 9/11. They just sat on their chair-warming/pension-protected/time-serving asses with not leadership from the WH which didn't wanti to "alarm" the USA about terror, as the terrorists took down the WTC.

Remember the entire schtick of the Repugs was that they were "in control", the "CEO Whitehouse", the "take charge" Executive branch.

With that bullshit smokescreen, how could the Repugs possibly start pushing red buttons and raising all kinds of alarms to the public? It would have been incongruent with their bullshit self-promoting propaganda that "America was safe under the Repugs".

[CommanderMcBragg]

Yonivore wouldn't last 15 minutes in a POW camp.

[ChumpDumper]

Departing detaineesThese dangerous terraists are being let go?

[Yonivore]

These dangerous terraists are being let go?
Over a dozen of whom have ended up re-captured or dead on the battlefield.

I wonder where are the rest of the released.

Why are they being released? Because of the efforts of people such as yourself. Thanks alot.

[Yonivore]

Yonivore wouldn't last 15 minutes in a POW camp.
I bet I'd do okay at Gitmo.

[ChumpDumper]

Why are they being released? Because of the efforts of people such as yourself. Thanks alot.They didn't have to release them. Why did they? I expect a real answer.

[Yonivore]

They didn't have to release them. Why did they? I expect a real answer.
Well, apparently, because they had good liars...I'm sorry, lawyers...on their side. I know, you think they aren't represented...but, obviously, you'd be wrong.

How do you explain how they ended up back on the front lines?

[ChumpDumper]

How do you explain how they ended up back on the front lines?They were released.

Why were they released?

[Yonivore]

They were released.

Why were they released?
Well, apparently, capturing them on the battlefield wasn't good enough for those haranguing the Administration into releasing them. Or, maybe, after they were questioned -- after being captured on the battlefield -- it was determined they were victims of circumstances and released.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, apparently, capturing them on the battlefield wasn't good enough for those haranguing the Administration into releasing them.What a bunch of pussies the administration is.
Or, maybe, after they were questioned -- after being captured on the battlefield -- it was determined they were victims of circumstances and released.What's this maybe bullshit? Don't you know?

[RandomGuy]

Defense Department Update
September 14, 2006 - Ten Facts about Guantanamo

1. The detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility include bin Laden’s bodyguards, bomb makers, terrorist trainers and facilitators, and other suspected terrorists.

2. More money is spent on meals for detainees than on the U.S. troops stationed there. Detainees are offered up to 4,200 calories a day. The average weight gain per detainee is 20 pounds.

3. The Muslim call to prayer sounds five times a day. Arrows point detainees toward the holy city of Mecca.

4. Detainees receive medical, dental, psychiatric, and optometric care at U.S. taxpayers’ expense. In 2005, there were 35 teeth cleanings, 91 cavities filled, and 174 pairs of glasses issued.

5. The International Committee of the Red Cross visits detainees at the facility every few months. More than 20,000 messages between detainees and their families have been exchanged.

6. Recreation activities include basketball, volleyball, soccer, pingpong, and board games. High-top sneakers are provided.

7. Departing detainees receive a Koran, a jean jacket, a white T-shirt, a pair of blue jeans, high-top sneakers, a gym bag of toiletries, and a pillow and blanket for the flight home.

8. Entertainment includes Arabic language TV shows, including World Cup soccer games. The library has 3,500 volumes available in 13 languages — the most requested book is “Harry Potter.”

9. Guantanamo is the most transparent detention facility in the history of warfare. The Joint Task Force has hosted more than 1,000 journalists from more than 40 countries.

10. In 2005, Amnesty International stated that “the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times.”

From the Department of Defense Office of Public Affairs – OSD Writers’ Group

I got some news for you, there is only one fact that Al Qaeda needs to win this battle of ideas:

1. The one nation on earth that is the richest and pushes the loudest for democratic reforms based on the ideals of fairness and liberty, has said that holding people forever without trial and torturing captives is ok.

I will ask my question yet again.

HOW DOES INDEFINITE DETAINMENT WITHOUT TRIAL AND TORTURE COMBAT THE IDEA THAT WE ARE EVIL?

[Extra Stout]

Considering that no other administration in the history of this country has had to fit enemy combatants into our domestic jurisprudence...

...except the Cleveland, McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson administrations...

[Extra Stout]

Oh, I forgot, one of those "enemy combatants" of old actually assassinated McKinley...

[clambake]

because we've lowered our standards to meet equally with those we accuse of having lower standards.

[ChumpDumper]

It's odd. The detainees of which Yoni speaks are sometimes released after a military board of review takes a look at them and determines whether they are a continued threat to the US. Detainees have been let go after doing something as simple as signing a piece of paper saying they won't do it again.

Is that the kind of thing he's afraid would happen in a real court trial?

[Yonivore]

It's odd. The detainees of which Yoni speaks are sometimes released after a military board of review takes a look at them and determines whether they are a continued threat to the US. Detainees have been let go after doing something as simple as signing a piece of paper saying they won't do it again.

Is that the kind of thing he's afraid would happen in a real court trial?
Yeah, I think this guy is one of them.


Qari Esmhatulla, for example, told the tribunal that he agreed to be a Taliban cook because his friends challenged him to do so, and he was with the Taliban for just four days before he was arrested by the Northern Alliance while carrying a radio and a few grenades. U.S. officials accused him of joining the Taliban to participate in jihad.

"Out of everything on that paper, the only thing that was right was I had the radio and the grenades with me," Esmhatulla said, adding that he dropped the grenades and was unarmed when he was captured. "Other than that, everything else is false. I did not say or do any of those things."
I could see where it could be eventually determined this guy no longer posed a risk. I don't know, I don't have access to the entire file.

But, if the military review board were to determine this guy no longer posed a risk and sent him home...I'd be okay with it. But, considering his admission to joining the Taliban and carrying grenades, I can certainly understand why he was detained until we were satisfied he no longer posed a risk.

I'm not even sure if this guy has been released yet...but, it's an example of why I believe there are conditions under which release, even after extended detention, might be warranted.

[ChumpDumper]

So you are ok with releasing detainees after some procedure to determine whether they are a threat to the US.

What were you complaining about again?

[Yonivore]

So you are ok with releasing detainees after some procedure to determine whether they are a threat to the US.
Yep.


What were you complaining about again?
Who determines whether or not they are a continuing threat and whether or not this should be done in our judiciary or by our military. Isn't that what this entire argument is about?

[ChumpDumper]

Who determines whether or not they are a continuing threat and whether or not this should be done in our judiciary or by our military. Isn't that what this entire argument is about?It was until you started spouting off about releasing any of them.

But getting back to that, now you say that the military and the Deputy Secretary of Defense have made rather obvious mistakes in their assessments, right? What makes them so much better than the court system? Their track record in this case?

[Yonivore]

It was until you started spouting off about releasing any of them.

But getting back to that, now you say that the military and the Deputy Secretary of Defense have made rather obvious mistakes in their assessments, right?
In what way?

If you're talking about split decisions, made on a battlefield, I wouldn't characterize that as a mistake.

If I'm getting shot at and are able to overtake and capture those who are doing the shooting, everybody that even looks like they were involved are going to have to convince me they weren't before I let them go on their merry way.

[ChumpDumper]

In what way?Releasing combatants that ended up back on the battlefield, dumbass.

The court system isn't on the battlefield capturing suspects.

[Yonivore]

Releasing combatants that ended up back on the battlefield, dumbass.
It says they had nothing but their gut instincts on continuing to hold them and, apparently, that's not good enough.

I wouldn't call it a mistake that you don't have enough information on which to hold a person.


The court system isn't on the battlefield capturing suspects.
Yeah, but it wants to be.

[ChumpDumper]

It says they had nothing but their gut instincts on continuing to hold them and, apparently, that's not good enough.Where does "it" say? Good enough for whom? They determine all the criteria.
Yeah, but it wants to be.Link?

[Yonivore]

Where does "it" say? Good enough for whom? They determine all the criteria.
Why else would the military release them? I think it's a logical conclusion to say they were getting a lot of pressure from domestic bleeding hearts and international U.N. types to release them and they have made a best effort to do so. Sometime resulting in releasing combatants back into the fray.

Hell, there are some -- some of whom have posted in this forum -- who believe everyone in custody at Gitmo should be released.

I think the military is bending over backwards to treat the detainees fairly and to make good judgement on whether or not they belong there, and when they can find no compelling reason to do so, releasing them.

What's your point here ChumpDumper?


Link?
You don't believe there was a push to move the Gitmo status hearings from the military to the civil judiciary?

You don't believe there is a generally held belief, by the ACLU types, that our military should be able to immediately determine the combatant status of everyone they encounter on the battlefield?

Hell, there was even talk of extending fifth amendment rights, up to mirandizing captured combatants, for awhile.

[ChumpDumper]

Why else would the military release them? I think it's a logical conclusion to say they were getting a lot of pressure from domestic bleeding hearts and international U.N. types to release them and they have made a best effort to do so.Right so 469 seperate hearings in 9 days is the absolute best way to determine the the threat level of those 469 detainees right?
What's your point here ChumpDumper?My point is that, in their haste to respond to pressure, the administration set up a badly flawed system that could be worse than a civilian court remedy.
You don't believe there was a push to move the Gitmo status hearings from the military to the civil judiciary?I don't believe the courts are calling to be on the battelfield as you said they were.

[Yonivore]

Right so 469 seperate hearings in 9 days is the absolute best way to determine the the threat level of those 469 detainees right?
Apparently.


My point is that, in their haste to respond to pressure, the administration set up a badly flawed system that could be worse than a civilian court remedy.
A civilian court remedy would have required sensitive sources and methods as well as dangerous witnesses to be available for the defense to see and pass along to non-detained enemy combatants. Any process would be better than that.


I don't believe the courts are calling to be on the battelfield as you said they were.
I know you don't.

[ChumpDumper]

Apparently.How can that be? You admitted they made mistakes.
A civilian court remedy would have required sensitive sources and methods as well as dangerous witnesses to be available for the defense to see and pass along to non-detained enemy combatants. Any process would be better than that.So one that's just lets them go at their word to kill again is better? You support letting terrorists go on their word.
I know you don't.You haven't convinced me that officers of civilian courts want to be on the battlefield making decisions about whom to detain, no.

[Yonivore]

How can that be? You admitted they made mistakes.
Okay, first of all, I can admit nothing on behalf of the U. S. Military. I wasn't involved in the decisions. Just to bring you back to reality, everything you and I say in here is just two peoples' opinions.

It all boils down to whether or not I believe this administration is being straightforward in dealing with it's prosecution of the war on terror and I do.

Obviously, some people were released that shouldn't have been but, without knowing facts that were on hand when the decision was made, neither you nor I can say it was a mistake or just a lack of information that led to the release.


So one that's just lets them go at their word to kill again is better? You support letting terrorists go on their word.You haven't convinced me that officers of civilian courts want to be on the battlefield making decisions about whom to detain, no.
I'm opposed to this being moved to a civil court not because I believe they won't make better decisions but because it opens all the evidence up to the defense, including sensitive sources and methods.

Besides, neither you nor I have any evidence they let anyone go "at their word." It was mere speculation.

I'm sure if you or I were interested enough, we could find the criteria under which the U. S. Military made these determinations. My interest isn't doesn't lie there, it lies with keeping our intelligence sources and methods out of the reach of the enemy despite the Left's bets efforts to force it into the civilian domain.

[clambake]

Some people being released that shouldn't have been is a mistake. "Not knowing the facts that were on hand?" has it's answer included.

Blame the bleeding hearts is a typical Yoni spin. No responsibility.

[TurretMonkey]

If the war on terror is a war of ideas:

How do secret trials, indefinite detention without trials, torture, and rendition combat the Al Qaeda idea that we are evil?

Isn't that just basically handing them a weapon that is more deadly than any truck bomb that can be used to recruit more people to their cause?

[turambar85]

I guess that is the absolute question.

Will we win this war by sheer power of numbers and weopons?
or
Will we win this war through winning over with ideas?

That should decide our actions. But be wary of the 1st, as their style combat is extremely deadly, and if the ideas aren't changed, their numbers trump ours as well.

[RandomGuy]

I guess that is the absolute question.

Will we win this war by sheer power of numbers and weopons?
or
Will we win this war through winning over with ideas?

That should decide our actions. But be wary of the 1st, as their style combat is extremely deadly, and if the ideas aren't changed, their numbers trump ours as well.

Read the recently released bit on the National Intelligence Estimate. It says what I have been saying for a while, and it pretty much outlines that we are in a war of ideas.

Military force, although necessary, IS NOT SUFFICIENT.

This is a war against extremism, and the surest way to create more extremists is to fight them only with weapons.

Extremism can only be truly effectively fought with ideas.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf#search='nationa l%20intelligence%20estimate'

[turambar85]

Read the recently released bit on the National Intelligence Estimate. It says what I have been saying for a while, and it pretty much outlines that we are in a war of ideas.

Military force, although necessary, IS NOT SUFFICIENT.

This is a war against extremism, and the surest way to create more extremists is to fight them only with weapons.

Extremism can only be truly effectively fought with ideas.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf#search='nationa l%20intelligence%20estimate'

Precisely why the ignorance of this white house and many neo-conservatives may end up causing the downfall of the country that the supposedly love so much and protect from the treasonous bastards who would try to work with the enemy.

[boutons_]

When "none of the above" WHIG "ideas" (aka lies) worked, the WHIG pulled the idea of "spreading freedom and democracy in M/E" out of their asses. That idea has failed just as miserably.

The problem is that the Repugs, driven by Rove/DeLay/Mehlman, knew how to win control of the government, but had absolutely no interest in governing, never intended to govern or to lead or to advance the USA and world. They were exclusively interested in cutting taxes for and protecting the super-rich and corps,

They are shameless, cynical, incompentent bunch. Here's one respected conservative's take on the leadership vacuum unfilled by the Repug assholes, with a clever play on Rummy's "the army we have".

======================

The Leaders We Have

By George F. Will
Tuesday, October 3, 2006; A17

While leading the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the summer of 2003, David Kay received a phone call from "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, who wanted a particular place searched: "The vice president wants to know if you've looked at this area. We have indications -- and here are the geocoordinates -- that something's buried there." Kay and his experts located the area on the map. It was in the middle of Lebanon.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

This story from Bob Woodward's "State of Denial" would be hilarious were it not about war. The vignette is dismaying because it seems symptomatic of a blinkering monomania that may have prevented obsessed persons from facing facts.

Some will regard "State of Denial" as Katrina between hard covers, a snapshot of dysfunctional government. But it is largely just a glimpse of government , disheartening as that fact may be to those who regard government as a glistening scalpel for administering social transformation.

Once, when President William Howard Taft was listening to an aide talk about "the machinery of government," Taft murmured, "The young man really thinks it's a machine." Actually, government is people, and not a random slice of the population. Those at government's pinnacle generally are strong-willed, ambitious, competitive, opinionated and have agendas about which they care deeply. That is why they are there. And why almost any administration, carefully scrutinized, looks much like a teaspoon of pond water viewed under a microscope -- a teeming, disorderly maelstrom of sometimes rival life forms. That is especially true of an administration staffed with such canny Washington survivors as Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell. A government of rookies or shrinking violets would be more harmonious. So, how much of a virtue is harmony?

"State of Denial" will take a toll on government collegiality and the candor of its deliberations. It is based on astonishing indiscretions -- current and past officials making private memos and conversations public for motives that cannot be pure.

The book is hardly a revelation about supposed hidden chaos in Washington that produced the obvious chaos in Iraq. It does demonstrate that President Bush and others were shockingly slow to recognize Iraq's complexities and downward spiral. But we already knew that.

The book does not demonstrate that the president is in a state of denial. His almost exclusive and increasingly grating reliance on the rhetoric of unwavering resolve may be mistaken. It certainly has undermined his reputation as a realist. But he believes a president must be "the calcium in the backbone" of the nation, so the resolute face that he thinks he must show the nation does not preclude private anguish.

The book's central figure, however, is not Bush, whose lack of inquisitiveness is a defect, but Rumsfeld, whose abrasive inquisitiveness is supposedly a defect. The prologue begins with Rumsfeld's selection as defense secretary. The 45th and final chapter contains much about Bush but revolves around an interview with Rumsfeld.

The book actually includes one heartening story that should enhance Rumsfeld's reputation. On Veterans Day 2005, the president traveled to a Pennsylvania Army depot to deliver a speech announcing the new military policy for Iraq, the policy of "clear, hold and build." Woodward says Rumsfeld, having read the speech, called Andy Card, the White House chief of staff, a half-hour before Bush was to deliver it, and said, "Take that out." Card replied that the three words were the centerpiece of the speech, not to mention the war strategy. Rumsfeld replied, "Clear, we're doing. It's up to the Iraqis to hold. And the State Department's got to work with somebody on the build."

( that "somebody" to own and fix Iraq is the same guilty party that broke it. Who else did Rummy think it would be? )
At last, a division of labor that uses the U.S. military only for properly military purposes and assigns responsibilities in a way that will force Iraq's government to grow up. In the name of counterinsurgency, there has been too much of what today's military argot calls "full-spectrum operations" -- operations that go beyond killing insurgents to building schools, connecting sewers and other civil projects that keep the training wheels on the Iraqi government's bicycle and keep the United States chasing the chimera of "nation-building."

"Where's the leader?" Bush, according to Woodward, has exclaimed in dismay about the Iraqi government's dithering. "Where's George Washington? Where's Thomas Jefferson? Where's John Adams, for crying out loud?" For a president to ask that question about Iraq, that tribal stew, is enough to cause one to ask it about the United States.

[email protected]

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

===============

dubya, a vast majority of Americans, after 5 years of exposure to you and your vapid stupidity, is asking the same question. It's transparently clear that you are a President in name only.

dubya has "lead" the world into a horrible mess and he's not enough of leader, or even enough of a man, to even have an idea how to get us out of it.

[johnsmith]

Well, at least he's enough of a man to express his opinions in public rather then from the basement of his mothers house while sitting in front of his PC on an anoynomous chat board you waste of a fucking human being.

[RandomGuy]

Looks like the protorture camp has also fled the field here.

Kinda hard to defend the practice.

[ToughActinTinactin]

Just an FYI if not already posted:

Number of years of hard labor a Japanese soldier was sentenced to for waterboarding a U.S. civillian in 1947: 15 years

[RandomGuy]

Just an FYI if not already posted:

Number of years of hard labor a Japanese soldier was sentenced to for waterboarding a U.S. civillian in 1947: 15 years

Very good point.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

No, I'm sitting on my ass saying that I am determined that no one suffer the same fate.

Hmmmm... I wonder how the Iraqi people see the 150,000 "collateral casualties" they suffered in the war? Do you think maybe they look upon the devastation of their population by an invader in much the same way you see the deaths in the Twin Towers (except that 50 times more people died in Iraq)? Your moral relativity is quite astounding.

This is the point where ideology becomes truly sickening.

Yonivore, I am curious. What is your background? How did you become this rabid?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

As for waterboarding, if you want to endorse torture as a policy of American forces, then admit to it and get over it already. Seriously, you can't have the moral highground and torture people/detain people without trial at the same time.

The irony is that only America sees itself on the moral highground - the rest of the world sees America as a massive hypocrite with very little moral standing. Your govt advocates legal process yet won't try the terrorists. Your govt advocates fair treatment of prisoners, yet claims that waterboarding is not torture, and regularly sends prisoners to proxy regimes to be tortured.

Your govt should admit its perfidy already, admit that you don't practice what you preach, and give up this pretence of morality. Admit that in many ways America is like it's enemy, justify it by saying that extraordinary times require extraordinary behaviours, and get on with business.

But please, stop pretending you are somehow the nice guys.

[smeagol]

As for waterboarding, if you want to endorse torture as a policy of American forces, then admit to it and get over it already. Seriously, you can't have the moral highground and torture people/detain people without trial at the same time.

The irony is that only America sees itself on the moral highground - the rest of the world sees America as a massive hypocrite with very little moral standing. Your govt advocates legal process yet won't try the terrorists. Your govt advocates fair treatment of prisoners, yet claims that waterboarding is not torture, and regularly sends prisoners to proxy regimes to be tortured.

Your govt should admit its perfidy already, admit that you don't practice what you preach, and give up this pretence of morality. Admit that in many ways America is like it's enemy, justify it by saying that extraordinary times require extraordinary behaviours, and get on with business.

But please, stop pretending you are somehow the nice guys.

Again, I agree with your post. The same thing happenes with America in other areas such as economic policies.

One thing I will say in favor of the US that it is way better option than the other option we had up until 1989.

[SA210]

[i]October 26th, 2006 4:37 pm
Cheney endorses simulated drowning

Calls use of water boarding a ‘no-brainer’ to get intelligence on terrorists
By Demetri Sevastopulo / Financial Times (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15431835/)

WASHINGTON - Dick Cheney, US vice-president, has endorsed the use of "water boarding" for terror suspects and confirmed that the controversial interrogation technique was used on Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the senior al-Qaeda operative now being held at Guantánamo Bay.

Cheney was responding to a conservative radio interviewer who asked whether water boarding, which involves simulated drowning, was a "no-brainer" if the information it yielded would save American lives. "It's a no-brainer for me," Cheney replied.

The comments by the vice-president, who has been one of the leading advocates of reducing limitations on what interrogation techniques can be used in the war on terror, are the first public confirmation that water boarding has been used on suspects held in US custody.

"For a while there, I was criticized as being the 'vice-president for torture'," Cheney added. "We don't torture ... We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth.

"But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture and we need to be able to do that."

Cheney said recent legislation passed by Congress allowed the White House to continue its aggressive interrogation program. (I love the wording they use :lol what a joke. Like how they turned the wiretapping into "Terrorist Surveillence Program")

But his remarks appear to stand at odds with the views of three key Republican senators who helped draft the recently passed Military Commission Act, and who argue that water boarding is not permitted according to that law.

" a direct affront to the primary authors of the Military Commission Act in the Senate — John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner — all of whom have publicly stated that the legislation signed by the president last week makes water boarding a war crime," said Jennifer Daskal, advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. "This is Cheney ignoring the consensus of his own Pentagon," she said, referring to comments by senior officials that harsh interrogation techniques do not produce reliable intelligence.

John Bellinger, the State Department legal adviser, last week declined to answer specific questions on water boarding, saying Congress would have to determine whether specific interrogation techniques were permissible under the Geneva conventions.

The Bush administration was forced to work with Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act after the Supreme Court ruled that al-Qaeda suspects were entitled to some protections under the Geneva convention. "Any procedures going forward would have to comply with the standards of Common Article 3 [of the Geneva conventions], including the prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," Bellinger said. "Congress would have to agree that they are permitted under the law."

Asked in the radio interview whether he would agree that the debate over terrorist interrogations and water boarding was "a little silly", Cheney responded: "I do agree".

"I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high-value detainees like Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation," he said.

[boutons_]

"able to secure the nation"

another lie. the bordes and ports are not secure. fuck you, dickhead.

If an enemy waterboards our people, it's an imprisonable war crime.

If the Repugs waterboard an enemy, it's ok.

[SA210]

More lies. :rolleyes



October 27th, 2006 11:43 am
White House denies Cheney OK'd torture



By Terence Hunt / Associated Press (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/breaking_news/15864457.htm)

WASHINGTON - The White House said Friday that Vice President Dick Cheney was not talking about a torture technique known as "water boarding" when he said dunking terrorism suspects in water during questioning was a "no-brainer." :lmao (no, of course not, he meant something else :rolleyes)

Human rights groups complained that Cheney's comments amounted to an endorsement of water boarding, in which the victim believes he is about to drown.

President Bush, asked about Cheney's comments, said, "This country doesn't torture. We're not going to torture." He spoke at an Oval Office meeting Friday with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

Earlier, White House press secretary Tony Snow denied that Cheney had endorsed water boarding.

"You know as a matter of common sense that the vice president of the United States is not going to be talking about water boarding. Never would, never does, never will," Snow said. "You think Dick Cheney's going to slip up on something like this? No, come on."

In an interview Tuesday with WDAY of Fargo, N.D., Cheney was asked if "a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives."

The vice president replied, "Well, it's a no-brainer for me but for a while there I was criticized as being the vice president for torture. We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in."

Peppered with questions about the remarks, Snow said Cheney did not interpret the question as referring to water boarding and the vice president did not make any comments about water boarding. He said the question put to Cheney was loosely worded.

The administration has repeatedly refused to say which techniques they believe are permitted under the new law. Asked to define a dunk in water, Snow said, "It's a dunk in the water." (:lmao this lie is just terrible)

Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said in a statement, "What's really a no-brainer is that no U.S. official, much less a vice president, should champion torture. Vice President Cheney's advocacy of water boarding sets a new human rights low at a time when human rights is already scraping the bottom of the Bush administration barrel."

Human Rights Watch said Cheney's remarks were "the Bush administration's first clear endorsement" of water boarding.

[gtownspur]

Waterboarding is good for all americans.

Even homeless people.

[SA210]

Waterboarding is good for all americans.

Even homeless people.
Darn gtown, a year later and you still have it out for me? :lol

[gtownspur]

Darn gtown, a year later and you still have it out for me? :lol


I'm sorry, you're mistaken. I like my women crab- free and non promiscous. :toast

[SA210]

I'm sorry, you're mistaken. I like my women crab- free and non promiscous. :toast
You used to get me upset, now it's just funny. :lol

[gtownspur]

You used to get me upset, now it's just funny. :lol


Well now that you admitted to me getting under your skin, didi that mean all those :lol 's were really just you :cry 'ing inside?


Awwww,

I'm sorry will you forgive me?

[SA210]

Well now that you admitted to me getting under your skin, didi that mean all those :lol 's were really just you :cry 'ing inside?


Awwww,

I'm sorry will you forgive me?
Actually, let me clarify.

I would get bothered by your nonsense directed at poor people.

After a short while, it was a well known fact by myself and many others on this board that you were just ridiculous and backed nothing up with facts and just spewed most of your responses with insults.

The :lol 's were real and usually they followed those insults or lack of facts, which of course you continue today.

:smokin

[gtownspur]

Actually, let me clarify.

I would get bothered by your nonsense directed at poor people.

After a short while, it was a well known fact by myself and many others on this board that you were just ridiculous and backed nothing up with facts and just spewed most of your responses with insults.

The :lol 's were real and usually they followed those insults or lack of facts, which of course you continue today.

:smokin


All those words just so that you could say that you were extremely butt-hurt.

[MultiTroll]

Do you have a problem with either one of these two being waterboarded for info?

1. Abdelhamid Abaaoud, suspected ringleader of Paris attacks.

2. (CNN)An associate of Jihadi John was arrested in Istanbul on Friday while on his way to Europe to deliver orders on a planned terror attack, leading Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported Tuesday and a Turkish official confirmed to CNN.


Aine Lesley Davis was arrested after Turkish intelligence worked with British MI6 to monitor the movements of a messenger linked to Jihadi John inside the Syrian city of Raqqa and received information on Davis' plans, Hurriyet said.

[ChumpDumper]

Since it doesn't work, yes.