Churchill? Seriously, he invoked Winston...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Shut the fuck up.

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

It characterized waterboarding as torture 12 times.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld basically rapes you on that one.

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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

---

United States v. Parker et al, CR-H-83-66 (S.D. Tex., 1983)
United States v. Lee, 744 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1984)

Knock yourself out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

when alqueda signs the geneva convention, let me know.

---

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

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

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

...subject prisoners to a suffocating “water torture” ordeal in order to coerce
confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and
mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner
began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or
drowning.

Sounds familiar enough.

They were convicted on that count.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Powerlineblog.com

Obama veers into the Daily Ditch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Powerlineblog

Even if you are an intelligent man, reading Andrew Sullivan can make you stupid. It happened to President Obama this week. At his 100-day press conference, President Obama invoked Churchill rejecting the use of torture for interrogation in the days of the Blitz during World War II. Obama instructed the assembled multitude:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by President Obama

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, 'We don't torture,' when the entire British--all of the British people--were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat....the reason was that Churchill understood -- you start taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

---

Now if you've ever read much Churchill or any competent history of World War II, you would have a pretty good idea that one thing Churchill never said in the course of long-life is: "We don't torture." As it happens, Churchill scholar Richard Langworth has now attested to the absence of the words from Churchill's vast corpus.

Churchill was not a liberal sentimentalist on the subject of means and ends in war. Is there anything he would not have done to advance Britain's survival and victory in World War II? Not bloody likely. "If Hitler invaded Hell," Churchill remarked with respect to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, "I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

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

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

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

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

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

Sullivan derives Churchill's purported disdain of torture from a 2006 London Times column by Ben Macintyre on the interrogation of captured German spies in London during the war at the interrogation center codenamed Camp 020. Yesterday Macintyre crowed over his contribution to Obama's learning.

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

Quote:

---

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

The terrifying commandant of Camp 020 refined psychological intimidation to an art form. Suspects often left the interrogation cells legless with fear after an all-night grilling. An inspired amateur psychologist, Stephens used every trick, lie and bullying tactic to get what he needed; he deployed threats, drugs, drink and deceit. But he never once resorted to violence. "Figuratively," he said, "a spy in war should be at the point of a bayonet." But only ever figuratively. As one colleague wrote: "The Commandant obtained results without recourse to assault and battery. It was the very basis of Camp 020 procedure that nobody raised a hand against a prisoner."

---

Drugs and drink go well beyond purely psychological duress, and Stephens's "terrifying intimidation" exceeds the "name, rank and serial number" limitations prescribed for prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Neither in his original nor in his follow-up column does Macintyre quote Churchill for the proposition that "we don't torture" or cite some rule of conduct supporting the statement. Macintyre purports to derive some high standard of conduct from the story of Col. Stephens's interrogation of German spies, but the true story supports quite the contrary point of view.

How do I know? I know it from Ben Macintyre's most recent book. Macintyre's most recent book is Agent Zigzag, the story of British double agent Eddie Chapman. Macintyre's book is essentially a chapter in the larger story of the famous British Double Cross system developed during the war to befuddle the Germans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

here's the video

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

defense of Truman

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

The apology

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

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

Typical liberal tactic.

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

lol langworth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

lol langworth.

---

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

:lmao @ poor yoni.

:lmao langworth :downspin:

Wow clambake? Langworth?

log off and let your father Chumpdumper handle the debate.

So what torture did Churchill order again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Wow clambake? Langworth?

---

being from n. ireland, i'm well versed on this pretentious hack.

would you like to add your knowledge on langworth? lol

Quote:

---

log off and let your father Chumpdumper handle the debate.

---

my fathers dead.

good comeback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by implacable44

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

---

Come on, you know chumpy never answers questions, he likes to answer questions with more questions and more questions until he has made the original poster forget what the question was.

Because Obama returning the Churchill bust is really important.

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

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

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

RIF.