So, not only did Holder's DOJ...

...screw up in it's attempt to politicize the enhanced interrogations investigation; it appears they may have broken the law, as well.

Stolen...ChumpDumper will google it and let you know from where. But, please note the source from which I plagiarized this, also links to the DOJ regulations and Privacy Act and Washington Post Opinion piece containing all the relevant facts.

From a Washington Post editorial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaPo

Investigations of this type are usually kept secret unless and until the investigating entity determines that wrongdoing has occurred. There's a certain logic and decency to this: Mere news that someone is under investigation is often enough to tarnish that person's reputation -- even if charges ultimately are not brought. Yet the existence of the investigation and many details of the OPR report have already found their way into the public arena. For example, The Post and other news outlets have reported that the OPR will recommend that Judge Bybee and Mr. Yoo be referred to their respective bar associations for possible sanctions.

---

The Post makes it sound like the leaks of the OPR report, which is still a preliminary document, are nothing more than a deviation from the usual way of doing things. In fact, they are a violation of OPR's rules and, it would appear, a criminal violation of the Privacy Act.

The Justice Department has clear rules governing the circumstances under which OPR's findings may be publically disclosed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOJ

Public Disclosure of OPR Findings

OPR's findings in certain cases may be publicly disclosed. The Department may consider disclosing the final disposition, after all available administrative reviews have been completed, of any matter in the following categories:

A finding of intentional or knowing professional misconduct in the course of litigation or investigation where the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General finds that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest of the attorney and any law enforcement interests;

Any case involving an allegation of serious professional misconduct where there has been a demonstration of public interest, including referrals by a court or bar association, where the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General finds that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest of the attorney and any law enforcement interests;

Any case in which the attorney requests disclosure, where law enforcement interests are not compromised by the disclosure.

If a matter appears to meet these criteria, OPR prepares a summary of the matter including the attorney's name, sufficient facts to explain the context of the allegation, and the final disposition. This summary is submitted to the Department's Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, which determines whether the Privacy Act permits disclosure of the included information and whether revisions should be made to the summary prior to disclosure. If Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties advises that the statement is appropriate for disclosure, the summary is sent to the attorney and the appropriate supervisory official, and both are given the opportunity to make written comments and objections to the proposed disclosure on grounds of privacy or law enforcement concerns. Any such objections are reviewed by Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties.

OPR forwards the proposed summary to the Deputy Attorney General with its recommendation regarding release and attaches all comments that were received. The final decision as to whether to release a summary is made by the Attorney General. If the Attorney General decides that disclosure is appropriate, the summary is forwarded to the Office of Public Affairs for release.

---

Here, the key conditions for disclosure have not been satisifed. For example, the draft was leaked before Bybee, Yoo, or their lawyers had an opportunity to comment and before the Department of Justice determined that the preliminary report should become final.

The leaks also appear to consititute a criminal offense under the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. section 552a(i)(1) provides:

Quote:

---

Criminal Penalties.-- Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.

---

Agency "records" are "any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph." 552a(a)(4).

DOJ regulations make it clear that the Privacy Act's strictures apply to exactly the class of OPR records that were leaked to, and used, by the Post. (I understand that there have been some minor modifications to the regs, but none that would change the analysis here). Thus, the leaking of such documents under circumstances that violate DOJ/OPR rules would appear to be a criminal offense.

The "fairness" the Washington Post calls for is, I assume, out of the question on this issue with this administration. But is it too much to ask that the Obama-Holder Justice Department comply with the law?

It seems to me that DOJ should consider the appointment of a Special Counsel to look into this matter. Surely this is what the Democrats, and the Washington Post, would be calling for if leaks like these had occurred under a Republican adminstration.

I don't know why yoni can't just link powerlineblog.

That's all he has to do.

He must like whining about me as much as he hates America.

Why Doesn't the Left Call for Pelosi's Resignation?

Quote:

---

Right after Obama released the interrogation memos, John Podesta, the head of the Center for American Progress and Obama's chief transition adviser, called for the impeachment of federal judge Jay Bybee, who signed off on the memos while at the Justice Department. "Bybee has neither the legal nor moral authority to sit in judgment of others," Podesta wrote in a letter to House judiciary chairman John Conyers.

So here's the question: Do people who believe that harsh interrogations were gravely immoral and violated the law think that Nancy Pelosi retains the moral authority to serve as speaker of the House? Based on the 2007 Washington Post story, Porter Goss's testimony, and the latest CIA memo--which reports Pelosi was given a "Briefing on [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed”--don't opponents of 'EITs' think it's time for Pelosi to go?

The excuses trotted out in her defense so far are pretty pathetic. See this anonymously authored Center for American Progress post as a good example. One talking point--that Pelosi wasn't specifically informed about waterboarding--is particularly laughable. As Goldfarb notes below, Rep. Hoekstra says there are documents showing otherwise, and Allahpundit points out that Pelosi was briefed just a month after Zubaydah was waterboarded repeatedly: "Consider the context of when the briefing was held — one week before 9/11/02, when fears of an anniversary attack were sky high — and ask yourself why the CIA wouldn’t have told Pelosi they had waterboarded Zubaydah." It certainly looks like Pelosi knew about waterboarding, and if she didn't she was certainly briefed about other interrogation techniques. Do her apologists think that waterboarding is the only technique that qualifies as torture?

Even if you take Pelosi at her (latest) word--that she was briefed on the authorization of harsh techniques but not that they had been used--that's all the more damning, as Charles Krauthammer argued last week:

Quote:

---

If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."

---

Some people like Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Glenn Greenwald, and Andrew Sullivan have talked a good game about the need to find out who knew what and when they knew it no matter who is implicated. But don't they already know enough to demand Pelosi's resignation?

---

That would be sweet...

So now you want people who approved of waterboarding to be punished?

Make up your mind.

He can't remember which side he's on. It's probably a side effect of being such a big bullshitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So now you want people who approved of waterboarding to be punished?

Make up your mind.

---

No, I want the Left to stand by their principles...

But, I guess that's too much to ask.

I believe the articles says, IF they believe Bybee should be impeached for writing the memos, shouldn't Pelosi be similarly treated for condoning enhanced interrogation techniques, (or, at the very least, standing by while they were used)?
Frankly, I'm with Pelosi, Bybee, and the rest on this.

Waterboarding isn't torture and the enhanced interrogation techniques saved American Lives.

Too bad Pelosi is such a coward. Maybe she should resign for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Waterboarding isn't torture and the enhanced interrogation techniques saved American Lives.

---

:lol

Everyone who had knowledge of torture and remained silent is morally complicit, and must face his/her own conscience. As for legal culpability it makes more sense to focus on the makers of the policy and the official path of authorization, than US officials compelled by law to remain silent about it IMO.

Chances are, no one gets prosecuted for this in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

:lol

---

And there you have the debate in a nutshell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Everyone who had knowledge of torture and remained silent is morally complicit, and must face his/her own conscience. As for legal culpability it makes more sense to focus on the makers of the policy and the official path of authorization, than US officials compelled by law to remain silent about it IMO.

Chances are, no one gets prosecuted for this in the US.

---

Because no crimes were committed...except, of course, those by the New York Times (and their traitors in the NSA and CIA) in leaking sensitive National Security Information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

And there you have the debate in a nutshell.

---

Exactly. Your claims are laughable.

http://chrisfarnsworth.files.wordpre...zarroworld.jpg

Leave my Pelosi alone. :nope

http://namtab.com/aquablog/superman379pg15.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FaithInOne

Leave my Pelosi alone. :nope

---

I whacked her pretty good in the Reid/Pelosi thread, or didn't you notice?

That's right, you don't really read. You just like to pop off, don't you?

http://namtab.com/aquablog/superman379pg21.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Exactly. Your claims are laughable.

---

The maniacal laugh of one who's out of ideas...

Nah, that waterboarding is torture has been well-established. Your continued willful ignorance has no influence on that.

The "saving lives" claims is especially dubious, since there is no record of the interrogations themselves. Seriously -- if nothing was wrong with it, why would anyone destroy the videos of the interrogations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Nah, that waterboarding is torture has been well-established. Your continued willful ignorance has no influence on that.

---

Which version of waterboarding? The type used by the Japanese in World War II that resulted in permanent injury and death or the type used by the U. S. on both al Qaeda and military SERE participants which causes no harm?

Because, to my knowledge that type has not been determined to be torture...other than by idiots like you.

Calling something a name doesn't mean it is what you call it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

The "saving lives" claims is especially dubious, since there is no record of the interrogations themselves. Seriously -- if nothing was wrong with it, why would anyone destroy the videos of the interrogations?

---

Four former DCI's disagree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Which version of waterboarding? The type used by the Japanese in World War II that resulted in permanent injury and death or the type used by the U. S. on both al Qaeda and military SERE participants which causes no harm?

---

You do know why SERE started training US soldiers to resist waterboarding right?

Or are you completely ignorant of that as well?

Quote:

---

Because, to my knowledge that type has not been determined to be torture...other than by idiots like you.

---

As I said, your ignorance isn't a factor in that determination.

Quote:

---

Four former DCI's disagree with you.

---

:lol again. Where are the tapes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You do know why SERE started training US soldiers to resist waterboarding right?

Or are you completely ignorant of that as well?

---

It's okay if you don't want to answer the question.

But, I'll ask it again... Are you talking about the waterboarding employed by the Japanese that resulted in injuries and death or the, pardon the pun, "watered down version" of waterboarding used by the U. S. on al Qaeda and SERE participants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

As I said, your ignorance isn't a factor in that determination.

---

Nor does your continued insistence make it torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

:lol again. Where are the tapes?

---

Weren't they destroyed?

Again, were any of the al Qaeda detainees injured or killed by this procedure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

It's okay if you don't want to answer the question.

But, I'll ask it again... Are you talking about the waterboarding employed by the Japanese that resulted in injuries and death or the, pardon the pun, "watered down version" of waterboarding used by the U. S. on al Qaeda and SERE participants?

---

How does anyone know that's what was done? No tapes.

Quote:

---

Nor does your continued insistence make it torture.

---

Simple legal precedent did that.

Quote:

---

Weren't they destroyed?

---

Why would they be destroyed?

Quote:

---

Again, were any of the al Qaeda detainees injured or killed by this procedure?

---

How would anyone know?

Alexander: Why not probe Congress on briefings?
Can't wait to see how Pelosi dances this coming week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

How does anyone know that's what was done? No tapes.

---

So, you admit you don't know if what was done is torture. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Simple legal precedent did that.

---

See above

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Why would they be destroyed?

---

I have no idea, goverments have retention schedules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

How would anyone know?

---

Well, the three against whom the government admits to using the technique are alive and well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, you admit you don't know if what was done is torture. Thanks.

---

If it is what you claimed it to be, yes. Thanks.

Quote:

---

I have no idea, goverments have retention schedules.

---

Yes, their retention "schedule" is to destroy tapes when a judge asks for them. You love being ignorant, don't you?

Quote:

---

Well, the three against whom the government admits to using the technique are alive and well.

---

People who are tortured can indeed live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

If it is what you claimed it to be, yes. Thanks.

---

Okay, now you're babbling.

If you have no knowledge of what was done, how can you call it torture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Yes, their retention "schedule" is to destroy tapes when a judge asks for them. You love being ignorant, don't you?

---

And, someone went to jail over that, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

People who are tortured can indeed live.

---

So can people who are merely waterboarded. In fact, everyone who has ever undergone the U. S. version of waterboarding has survived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Okay, now you're babbling.

If you have no knowledge of what was done, how can you call it torture?

---

I said if it went as you described, yes. Are you now backing away from your own description?

I don't blame you. You fare quite badly when you try to operate without stealing.

Quote:

---

And, someone went to jail over that, right?

---

That is still in the courts. Why would they destroy the tapes when a judge asked for them?

Quote:

---

So can people who are merely waterboarded. In fact, everyone who has ever undergone the U. S. version of waterboarding has survived.

---

So what? People can survive all manner of trauma. You condone the rape of women as an interrogation technique since it is survivable.

As long as a Republican lawyer says it's ok.

Bravo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I said if it went as you described, yes. Are you now backing away from your own description?

I don't blame you. You fare quite badly when you try to operate without stealing.

---

I don't think I've ever described the procedure except to say, it is my understanding that this is the same procedure inflicted on thousands of U. S. Military personnel when they go through SERE training. And, if so, it's not torture.

You're the one who admitted to not knowing what was being done...and yet, you're convinced it is torture. Are you now going to say that our SERE trainees are tortured? Because, none of them have been killed or injured by the waterboarding they've undergone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That is still in the courts. Why would they destroy the tapes when a judge asked for them?

---

Why isn't someone in jail? Apparently the courts don't have their panties in as big a wad as you.

But, I'll tell you this. Considering how Obama is betraying the intelligence community in releasing documents and photos, it was a smart thing to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So what? People can survive all manner of trauma. You condone the rape of women as an interrogation technique since it is survivable.

---

Nope. But, waterboarding is a safe, humane, and effective form of interrogation that won't get you pregnant or give you and STD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

As long as a Republican lawyer says it's ok.

Bravo.

---

Bravo, indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I don't think I've ever described the procedure except to say, it is my understanding that this is the same procedure inflicted on thousands of U. S. Military personnel when they go through SERE training. And, if so, it's not torture.

---

So we were training detainees to resist torture?

:lmao

Quote:

---

You're the one who admitted to not knowing what was being done...and yet, you're convinced it is torture. Are you now going to say that our SERE trainees are tortured? Because, none of them have been killed or injured by the waterboarding they've undergone.

---

I'm saying they were being trained to resist torture if captured. To that end, they were voluntarily subjected to various forms of torture.

Quote:

---

Why isn't someone in jail? Apparently the courts don't have their panties in as big a wad as you.

---

Why were they destroyed?

Quote:

---

But, I'll tell you this. Considering how Obama is betraying the intelligence community in releasing documents and photos, it was a smart thing to do.

---

They were detroyed while Bush was president. Why would they destroy them?

Quote:

---

Nope. But, waterboarding is a safe, humane, and effective form of interrogation

---

Prove it.

Quote:

---

that won't get you pregnant or give you and STD.

---

Neither is rape if your lawyer tells you the right way to do it.

Bravo, indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So we were training detainees to resist torture?

:lmao

---

Yes, by using a technique that stopped short of torture. Keep up. We don't torture our own people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I'm saying they were being trained to resist torture if captured. To that end, they were voluntarily subjected to various forms of torture.

---

Because you say that doesn't make it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Why were they destryoed?

---

I don't know, I wasn't in on that decision. Have they said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

They were detroyed while Bush was president. Why would they destroy them?

---

Prescience?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Prove it.

---

Nobody's died or been injured (safe), I refuse to believe we'd be inhumane to our own troops (humane), produced actionable intelligence that saved American lives (effective).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Neither is rape if your lawyer tells you the right way to do it.

---

There's a wrong way? You're being silly...who would we get to rape Khalid Sheik Mohammed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Bravo, indeed.

---

Wooo Hooo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Yes, by using a technique that stopped short of torture. Keep up. We don't torture our own people.

---

Sure we do -- if we are training them how to resist torture.

Quote:

---

Because you say that doesn't make it so.

---

Because that's what we do makes it so.

Quote:

---

I don't know, I wasn't in on that decision. Have they said?

---

Take a guess.

Quote:

---

Prescience?

---

I understand why you don't want to even acknowledge this.

Quote:

---

Nobody's died or been injured (safe), I refuse to believe we'd be inhumane to our own troops (humane), produced actionable intelligence that saved American lives (effective).

---

Your claims are not proof.

Quote:

---

There's a wrong way? You're being silly...who would we get to rape Khalid Sheik Mohammed?

---

If a Republican lawyer told you it would work, you would let KSM rape you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Sure we do -- if we are training them how to resist torture.

---

We don't train medics by shooting our soldiers, do we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Because that's what we do makes it so.

---

So, tell me this. Is there any other technique -- other than waterboarding -- that has been employed by the Bush administration that you consider torture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Take a guess.

---

Okay. I'll guess no since you're not tearing up their reason yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I understand why you don't want to even acknowledge this.

---

Do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Your claims are not proof.

---

Nor are yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

If a Republican lawyer told you it would work, you would let KSM rape you.

---

If we're willing to inflict it on our soldiers to train them. Yes. Let me know when we start raping in SERE.

Why don't we drive bamboo shoots under fingernails, pull out fingernails, or drill holes in our soldiers during SEER?

Why don't we line up three soldiers against the wall and shoot one of them in the head?

After all, that would prepare them for the torture they might encounter if captured; Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

We don't train medics by shooting our soldiers, do we?

---

Are they being trained to take a bullet? No. Analogy: failed.

Quote:

---

So, tell me this. Is there any other technique -- other than waterboarding -- that has been employed by the Bush administration that you consider torture?

---

Why do you want to muddy the waters?

Oh, that's right. You're losing.

Quote:

---

Okay. I'll guess no since you're not tearing up their reason yet.

---

"No" isn't an answer to "why would they destroy them?"

Quote:

---

Do you?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Nor are yours.

---

Which is why I didn't use them as proof.

Quote:

---

If we're willing to inflict it on our soldiers to train them. Yes. Let me know when we start raping in SERE.

---

The Chinese didn't use rape to extract false confessions.

They used waterboarding for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

bullshit

---

You really don't know why SERE exists, do you?

Tell us all how it got started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I don't have a response for you so I'll go down this rabbit trail.

---

Nice try.

So, if we torture our soldiers to train them what to expect then, why not go all out?

And, you didn't answer the earlier question. Are there other enhanced interrogation techniques, used by the Bush administration, you consider to be torture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Nice try.

---

So you don't know or you are afraid to answer. Either way is fine.

Quote:

---

And, you didn't answer the earlier question. Are there other enhanced interrogation techniques, used by the Bush administration, you consider to be torture?

---

I'm content to stick to waterboarding at this point.

Tell me, if the military thinks waterboarding is awesome and has known it for 50 years, why do they not waterboard all their prisoners as a matter of course?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Nope. But, waterboarding is a safe, humane, and effective form of interrogation that won't get you pregnant or give you and STD.

---

Orly? What are the attending physician and the trach kit for?

Detainees who contumaciously stop breathing during the course of interrogation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Orly? What are the attending physician and the trach kit for?

---

Accidents happen. Why is there an AED in most workplaces these days?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Detainees who contumaciously stop breathing during the course of interrogation?

---

Where did you get that word? I had to look it up.

But, since I did, I can report that 4 year-olds contumaciously stop breathing whenever they don't get their way. Are their parents torturing them by not giving them the cookie?

Contumacious (adjective) - stubbornly disobedient, wilfully obstinate or rebellious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Accidents happen.

---

That's awfully generous of you, Yoni.

Nice you admit it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

That's awfully generous of you, Yoni.

Nice you admit it though.

---

Well, to my knowledge, none did.

And, they have ambulances at Football games too. Are those torture?

Are parents waterboarding their kids?

I would call that torture.

You would call it safe, humane and effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Where did you get that word?

---

With its specifically legal inflection (willfully disobedient to the order of a court) it describes a prevalent attitude toward the law.

You know, like when a court orders the historical record to be preserved, and the party the court makes responsible for the preservation destroys it instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

And, they have ambulances at Football games too. Are those torture?

---

God you're so trite. There are about three dozen clear homicides among the hundred or so who died in US custody of other than natural causes. That means killings for which no legal justification could be established by the military investigator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

With its specifically legal inflection (willfully disobedient to the order of a court) it describes a prevalent attitude toward the law.

You know, like when a court orders the historical record to be preserved, and the party the court makes responsible for the preservation destroys it instead.

---

So, in the context of your sentence, what are you saying?

"...contumaciously stopped breathing..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Are parents waterboarding their kids?

I would call that torture.

You would call it safe, humane and effective.

---

If their children had been responsible for toppling two buildings and killing three thousand people and, it was probable they had information about other kids preparing to do the same, yeah, I'd consider waterboarding appropriate.

I don't care what you call it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

God you're so trite. There are about three dozen clear homicides among the hundred or so who died in US custody of other than natural causes. That means killings for which no legal justification could be established by the investigator.

---

Just trying to make a point.

Hell, if the Bush Administration was so cavalier about "torture" or the treatment of the detainees, why would they even bother with a doctor?

On the one hand, you would have me believe they were running torture chambers resembling those Saddam Hussein was so famous for; yet, on the other, we provided medical care just in case something went wrong.

Shit happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

If their children had been responsible for toppling two buildings and killing three thousand people and, it was probable they had information about other kids preparing to do the same, yeah, I'd consider waterboarding appropriate.

---

But it's safe, humane and effective.

Why not use it on everybody?

If the officials at your school suspected your child knew the location of drugs in the school and your child refused to tell them, you should have no problem with your child's being waterboarded.

It's safe, humane and effective isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, in the context of your sentence, what are you saying?

"...contumaciously stopped breathing..."

---

It was a supposed to be a joke. Usually when people stop breathing it's involuntary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It was a supposed to be a joke. Usually when people stop breathing it's involuntary.

---

Well, I ruined the joke by pointing out that 4 year-olds do, indeed, contumaciously stop breathing. I thought it translated well to Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

But it's safe, humane and effective.

Why not use it on everybody?

If the officials at your school suspected your child knew the location of drugs in the school and your child refused to tell them, you should have no problem with your child's being waterboarded.

---

Well, because our criminal laws prohibit coersion. It violates their constitutional rights. See U.S. v Parker

Quote:

---

It's safe, humane and effective isn't it?

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Well, because our criminal laws prohibit coersion.

---

Coersion for what? It's just a little information.

They aren't cops.

And kids could die from those drugs.

You don't care about American lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Just trying to make a point.

Hell, if the Bush Administration was so cavalier about "torture" or the treatment of the detainees, why would they even bother with a doctor?

---

They realized people dying from waterboarding was a possibility. Why they suddenly realized this isn't publicly known, but it could have something to do with the waterboarding. It's in one of the Bradbury memos they just released. Don't you read up on any of this Yoni?

Quote:

---

On the one hand, you would have me believe they were running torture chambers resembling those Saddam Hussein was so famous for

---

Strawman. You're the only one who says so. This has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

Quote:

---

... yet, on the other, we provided medical care just in case something went wrong.

---

How kind.

I think it's to makes sure guys don't die while we're torturing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Strawman. You're the only one who says so. This has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

---

Eh, he tried to make 9/11 about Saddam for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Well, I ruined the joke by pointing out that 4 year-olds do, indeed, contumaciously stop breathing.

---

Should we start waterboarding 4 year olds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

They realized people dying from waterboarding was a possibility. Why they suddenly realized this isn't publicly known, but it could have something to do with the waterboarding. It's in one of the Bradbury memos they just released. Don't you read up on any of this Yoni?

---

People die from sleep deprivation but, you're not bitching about that enhanced interrogation technique.

People die from exposure but, you're not bitching about that enhanced interrogation technique.

People die from devoping embolisms associated with being in stress positions too long but, you're not bitching about that enhanced interrogation technique.

What is it about waterboarding that has your cackles up over the fate of three terrorists, two of whom had valuable and actionable intelligence.

Hell, people die doing a lot of things. I think it was an overabundance of caution to have the medical team there. That KSM wasn't exactly the picture of health to begin with -- certainly not up to SERE standards and, I'll bet they have medical staff on hand at SERE as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I knew you would immediately adduce it to your own case as an excuse. You're so dense, Yoni.

---

Well, it was what we were talking about.

I think you screwed up the context because, "...contumaciously stopped breathing..." makes no sense with your explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Tell me, if the military thinks waterboarding is awesome and has known it for 50 years, why do they not waterboard all their prisoners as a matter of course?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

People die from sleep deprivation but, you're not bitching about that enhanced interrogation technique.

People die from exposure but, you're not bitching about that enhanced interrogation technique.

People die from devoping embolisms associated with being in stress positions too long but, you're not bitching about that enhanced interrogation technique.

---

Actually, by referring to the officially released tally of homicides, I was talking about all of those things.

Quote:

---

What is it about waterboarding that has your cackles up over the fate of three terrorists, two of whom had valuable and actionable intelligence.

---

Prove it. Are you talking about that lame memo that proved nothing and can't be proved, now that the evidence has been destroyed?

Quote:

---

Hell, people die doing a lot of things. I think it was an overabundance of caution to have the medical team there. That KSM wasn't exactly the picture of health to begin with -- certainly not up to SERE standards and, I'll bet they have medical staff on hand at SERE as well.

---

First it was because we care, but in the Yoniverse even this prudent precaution is too extravagant. What a surprise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Well, it was what we were talking about.

I think you screwed up the context because, "...contumaciously stopped breathing..." makes no sense with your explanation.

---

Just plug in the definition you posted. It works. Ignore the other example if it confuses you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Actually, by referring to the officially released tally of homicides, I was talking about all of those things.

---

So, you're opposed to the other forms of EIT's as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Prove it. Are you talking about that lame memo that proved nothing and can't be proved, now that the evidence has been destroyed?

---

Four previous DCI's and former Vice President Cheney have said President Obama has memos that will do just that and has asked him to declassify and release them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

First it was because we care, but in the Yoniverse even this prudent precaution is too extravagant. What a surprise.

---

Meh, He appears to have suffered no ill effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Just plug in the definition you posted. It works. Ignore the other example if it confuses you.

---

You know, if you have to explain a joke because there was a more logical use of the term, it's ruined.

Let's move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

You know, if you have to explain a joke because there was a more logical use of the term, it's ruined.

---

I'll admit it wasn't very funny, but it's a shame you're too dense to get it. Not surprising that contumaciousness would be a blind spot for you, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, you're opposed to the other forms of EIT's as well?

---

As employed in the GWOT to date, pretty much. Bush pretty much went off the rails on this thing.

Quote:

---

Four previous DCI's and former Vice President Cheney have said President Obama has memos that will do just that and has asked him to declassify and release them.

---

Aren't you worried sources and methods will be revealed, or national security otherwise compromised? When did you become such a big advocate for declassifying the intelligence portfolio?

Weren't you just calling Obama a traitor and a reckless man for what he's already declassified, like yesterday?

At any rate, the argument from expedience misses the point. Even if torture is useful, it's still wrong, and it's still against the law.

Contrary to form, you're been completely incurious about the legalities, Yoni.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Weren't you just calling Obama a traitor and a reckless man for what he's already declassified, like yesterday?

---

Well, the memos being called for could do no more harm than those already released.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

At any rate, the argument from expedience misses the point. Even if torture is useful, it's still wrong, and it's still against the law.

---

You've still failed to prove it's torture.

The administration maintains it was not and, went to extreme lengths to insure they didn't cross that line.

That you disagree with the OLC findings doesn't make you right. And, to my knowledge, nothing official -- judicial or legislative has actually classified the enhanced interrogation techniques used, as torture. Nor is anyone being prosecuted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Well, the memos being called for could do no more harm than those already released.

---

You don't know that. And anyway that's a horrible agrument. Because security has been compromised already, we should go ahead and compromise it some more?

That's nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

You don't know that. And anyway that's a horrible agrument. Because security has been compromised already, we should go ahead and compromise it some more?

That's nonsense.

---

I would say the results of the interrogations is less sensitive than the methods and practices employed.

Sorry, I'm not buying your concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

You've still failed to prove it's torture.

---

I don't have to. Official disclosure pretty much confirms it.

Quote:

---

The administration maintains it was not and, went to extreme lengths to insure they didn't cross that line.

---

Pussies. In the Yoniverse Bush was afraid of torturing detainees.

Quote:

---

That you disagree with the OLC findings doesn't make you right. And, to my knowledge, nothing official -- judicial or legislative has actually classified the enhanced interrogation techniques used, as torture. Nor is anyone being prosecuted.

---

There's the hyperlegal mind we know so well. OJ didn't murder his wife either, Sherlock.

If it was so effective, Why did it have to be done hundreds of times on the same people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

If it was so effective, Why did it have to be done hundreds of times on the same people?

---

Check your facts...

It wasn't done hundreds of time on anyone.

You've been depending too much on your left wing blogs again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Sorry, I'm not buying your concern.

---

I was questioning yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Check your facts...

It wasn't done hundreds of time on anyone.

---

Five?

Eight?

With multiple applications each session?

Why did it need to be done that many times?

Despite Reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times

The 183 figure represents the number of times water was poured on KSM's face during no more than 5 waterboarding sessions.

This seems to underscore CD's point to me, even if he is guilty of a slight inaccuracy.

Waterboarding = pouring water on the face

If pouring water on a prisoners face was so effective, why did it need to be done 183 times?

So, if there are 183 hits in a baseball game it means they played 183 games?

You guys are idiots.

All it underscores is how meticulous the government was in keeping accurate records of what was done during the sessions.

Blow it out your ass...

Oh, and to answer an earlier question; then CIA Director, General Michael Hayden, said the tapes were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had any intelligence value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, if there are 183 hits in a baseball game it means they played 183 games?

You guys are idiots.

All it underscores is how meticulous the government was in keeping accurate records of what was done during the sessions.

Blow it out your ass...

---

How meticulous and accurate was it?

Tell us all about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Oh, and to answer an earlier question; then CIA Director, General Michael Hayden, said the tapes were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had any intelligence value.

---

They never heard of digital blurring?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

They never heard of digital blurring?

---

Like the man said, they no longer had any intelligence value.

Deal with it, or don't. It doesn't appear there will be any legal ramifications for destroying them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

How meticulous and accurate was it?

Tell us all about it.

---

I believe it was the Red Cross, who has been give access to the detainees all during their detention, that reported this based on their interviews with KSM and the officials at Guantanamo.

Ask them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I believe it was the Red Cross, who has been give access to the detainees all during their detention, that reported this based on their interviews with KSM and the officials at Guantanamo.

Ask them.

---

No, you said the government.

Not the Red Cross.

More lies from the liar.

Why do you lie so much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Like the man said, they no longer had any intelligence value.

Deal with it, or don't. It doesn't appear there will be any legal ramifications for destroying them.

---

It was a classic covering of the ass.

You're a clown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

It was a classic covering of the ass.

You're a clown.

---

Well, that's your contention...stick with that.

I see it differently.

Of course you do.

Because you are a clown.

An apologist.

An excuse-maker.

A partisan hack.

Everyone involved with this is trying to cover his ass and you won't see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Of course you do.

Because you are a clown.

An apologist.

An excuse-maker.

A partisan hack.

Everyone involved with this is trying to cover his ass and you won't see it.

---

More like they were just trying to survive the partisan sniping of the left while, at the same time, trying to keep your ass from being beheaded by terrorists.

You're welcome.

You guys spent eight years (and counting) and illegally leaked national security secrets trying to fabricate a crime on which to try the Bush Administration and the best you could muster was Scooter Libby for lying to a prosecutor who already knew who had leaked the name of the "spy" his office was investigating.

Why is Richard Armitage not in prison? He was the person that supposedly outed Valerie Plame...if, in fact, the statute that was alleged to have been violated had actually applied to her.

Here's an interesting twist to the debate...

If Obama releases the interrogation photographs, will the New York Time then accuse him of violating the Geneva Conventions?

After all, the newspaper raised the question of violating international law after photographs of Saddam Hussein in captivity in his underpants were published in newspapers — “The Sun in London and The New York Post, both part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.”

Here is what the New York Times reported on March 21, 2005: “The publication on Friday of photographs of Saddam Hussein wearing only underwear in his cell in Iraq led the Bush administration on Friday to open an investigation into how the pictures made their way into tabloid newspapers in London and New York, apparently supplied by someone in the American military.”

That White House condemned the release of the photo. Deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said: “These photos were wrong; they’re a clear violation of D.O.D. directives, and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals.”

Now we are about to release photos that show unlawful combatants under interrogation. I suppose that since it will cast a bad light on us, not them, that is OK.

Say someone detained and interrogated you, Yoni. For being a dangerous extremist asshole or something like that.

You call it torture, they call it theraputic massage and a facial treatment. Nobody believes you, or at least, you can't prove it.

The situation remains at an impasse until there is a change of administrations. The new administration repudiates torture and admits past participation. Information that proves your case is released.

Your basic argument is that laws protecting the dignity of the tortured man should trump the disclosure of information that proves you were tortured. or that the disclosure itself amounts to a grave new injury to your humanity.

Your concern is obviously facetious, but showing the detainees being tortured and humiliated is a serious matter. It is no surprise the law takes a concern. But your argument that humanitarian concern for the victim's dignity must prevent the truth of his mistreatment from being disclosed, is plainly perverse.

US law requires officials to report and punish torture. But you would require them to use the law as a veil to conceal their crimes.

For you, law is a mechanism that serves justice by hiding the truth.

You're an effing political pervert, Yoni. You're a torture freak. You like it. You think there should be more of it. You probably think I should be tortured just for annoying you.

I may be a pedantic douche, but you're a twisted torture freak. You should really consider that, Yoni. Your cynical take on the law make you look like a sociopath, too.



BTW, why do you suppose the Bush DOD released the Abu Ghraib photos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Say someone detained and interrogated you, Yoni. For being a dangerous extremist asshole or something like that.

You call it torture, they call it theraputic massage and a facial treatment. Nobody believes you, or at least, you can't prove it.

The situation remains at an impasse until there is a change of administrations. The new administration repudiates torture and admits past participation. Information that proves your case is released.

Your basic argument is that laws protecting the dignity of the tortured man should trump the disclosure of information that proves you were tortured. or that the disclosure itself amounts to a grave new injury to your humanity.

---

Accusing an American citizen of being a "dangerous extremist asshole or something like that," is galaxies apart from being a known terrorist believed to possess knowledge of plots that will kill Americans.

But, thanks for the laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole

Your concern is obviously facetious, but showing the detainees being tortured and humiliated is a serious matter. It is no surprise the law takes a concern. But your argument that humanitarian concern for the victim's dignity must prevent the truth of his mistreatment from being disclosed, is plainly perverse.

US law requires officials to report and punish torture. But you would require them to use the law as a veil to conceal their crimes.

For you, law is a mechanism that serves justice by hiding the truth.

You're an effing political pervert, Yoni. You're a torture freak. You like it. You think there should be more of it. You probably think I should be tortured just for annoying you.

---

Actually no. I don't condone torture of any kind. I do, however, believe it is appropriate to use enhanced interrogation techniques to extract intelligence that just might save your sorry ass so you can continue to be an ignoramus.

Again, you're welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole

I may be a pedantic douche, but you're a twisted torture freak. You should really consider that, Yoni. Your cynical take on the law make you look like a sociopath, too.

---

You're torturing the word torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole

BTW, why do you suppose the Bush DOD released the Abu Ghraib photos?

---

I don't remember the circumstance but, I'm sure release of the photographs wasn't the administration first choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I don't remember the circumstance but, I'm sure release of the photographs wasn't the administration first choice.

---

Your lack of intellectual integrity is showing again. What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.

If it's a mistake now, it was a mistake then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Your lack of intellectual integrity is showing. What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.

If it's a mistake now, it was a mistake then.

---

There's a difference between willingly releasing photos and being compelled to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Actually no. I don't condone torture of any kind.

---

:rollin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

There's a difference between willingly releasing photos and being compelled to do so.

---

Who made the government do it?

I'll give you a hint. The silly grunts that got thrown under the bus had memorialized their misconduct. Some of the photos were going to be released with or without the government's sayso, so they got out in front of it, and covered their own asses with a weak alibi about a few bad apples.