We forget the lessons of history at our peril. Armies have constantly marched out of the Middle East in an effort to conquer Europe. Pivotal battles, be they Thermopylae, Lepanto, Tours and Belgrade, have blunted and turned back Middle Eastern invasions.

Muslim predation continued through the 1600′s and 1800′s, raiding Western commerce and taking millions as hostages and slaves until the US Marines and others were dispatched to suppress their state-based piracy and terrorism.

Ultimately it was perhaps European colonialism that quieted the Islamic wars against the West.

Again, those in the Middle East have vowed death to us in the West and we are fools to ignore it. What we do now is valid self defense. To kill those who have risen up and are endeavoring to kill us is not homicide, but malicide — the destruction of evil.

The killing of evildoers was “not homicide but malicide.” Bernard argued that killing non-Christians was permissible as a last resort if there was no other way to stop them from oppressing Christians.

.

‘He does not wear a sword without cause; he is God’s agent for punishment of evil-doers and for glorification of the good.’ Clearly, when he kills an evil-doer, he is not a homicide, but, if you will allow me the term, a malicide, and is plainly Christ’s vengeance on those who work evil and the defense Christ provides for Christians. …. Pagans would not even have to be slaughtered, if there were some other way to prevent them from besetting and oppressing the faithful. But now it is better that they be killed than that the rod of these sinners continue to imperil the lot of the just, preventing the just from reaching out their hands against iniquity.

– DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITIAE, (St. ) Bernard of Clairvaux

And you snivelers are bitching about some terrorists and murderers getting (snort) waterboarded?

I’d have them all gigged and writhing around the end of my bayonet.

These vermin are trying to kill us — you idiots.

mohamadeism is not a race. Nor are the hoodwinked followers of the false prophet drawn from a single race, nor is any race a wholly contained subset of mohamadeism. Ergo the extirpation of mohamadeism would NOT be genocide (the extermination of a race), buzz’s xenophobic and racist allegations not withstanding.

LOL — Isn’t that what it’s intended to do? Scare the crap out of people so they talk … without doing any harm? Maybe that’s why they quacked.

Reality is much different than what your brain says it is. Water boarding is designed to overload the senses, make you think one thing is happening when it isn’t. There are plenty of examples of this, in sideshow carnivals.

If Mancow hadn’t freaked out, does anybody think it would be a useful technique. I saw a FNC guy be subjected to it, he also blew a cork.

Arrest those torturers right now!!!

Waterboarding is torture, and it is illegal. We execute those who do it to Americans.

The real question is: Would you waterboard someone to save lives?

In a New York minute.

Second of all, waterboarding is torture. Everyone who has ever been subjected to it has said it was torture. Mr. Mancow, who’s only reason for doing this was so he could say it wasn’t torture, admitted it was torture after only 6 seconds. Look it up in the dictionary and it’s called torture. There are very few people who will say it’s not torture, and none of them have actually been waterboarded. There comes a time when you have to realize you have been proven wrong, and stop defending illegal and immoral behavior.

These people are going to be tried for war crimes, right? I mean, isn’t this illegal?

Absolutely torture

You can’t trust any information gained from torture.

ManCow wimped out and added to the hilarity of this whole issue. After seeing live beheadings by our enemies of Pearl and others. I cannot honestly call the practice of waterboarding torture. Especially since it is something used to train our slite soldiers.

Yes used for publicity it is torture. But used to garner information that stops another 911 with a enemy combatant intent on death and mayhem… it ain’t torture.

Genghis Khan, far from obliterating the muslims, accodmodated them wherever he went.

Not true. Genghis massacred millions and razed several muslim cities before he stopped attacking muslims, why he stopped is a matter of debate. Some say he got bored with muslims and went back to finish what he started with the Chin. You’re right in a sense though, he didn’t raze every city, he would sometimes give cities the option of surrendering to him but I wouldn’t say he was accomodating. He was suprisingly tolerant of different religions and cultures. I don’t think his actual intent was to wipe any culture off the map, he just wanted to conquer whoever was in his way and he didn’t care who you were. His descendants in the Golden Horde were more accomodating.

We also know why the interrogators used waterboarding, and it wasn’t in order to torture, but rather to extract information.

Lets look at theft, which is another specific intent crime. In order to be convicted of theft you have to have specific intent to deprive someone of their property permanently. You can’t get out of stealing a car because you needed transportation. Sure, your intent was to get transportation, but in order to get transportation you also intended to steal a car.

A specific intent crime not only requires that a defendant act knowingly, but that the defendant also acted with a specific purpose in mind. I would argue that torture was the intent, or purpose. They intended to torture in order to extract information. They could have obtained the information in other ways, but they decided to torture. They intended to waterboard, they wrote memo’s saying they intended to waterboard. Extracting information is one intent, one action. Waterboarding is another intent, another action.

The real question is: Would you waterboard someone to save lives?

Waterboard? Waterboard?

To save lives I could be much, much more direct than that.

Actually, I suspect most folks (whether they think they would or not) would be less than delicate if put in a situation where their families safety was in their hands alone.

To me, it’s a no brainer.

First of all, the question is not would you waterboard to save lives. That doesn’t matter at all. The question is: is waterboarding torture? If so, then everyone who did it and everyone who approved of it broke the law.

Whether or not we’d do it to save lives is beside the point, I’d do a lot of illegal things to save lives, but they’re still illegal. I’d drive faster than the speed limit to save lives.

We don’t, and that’s why we are better than they are. Part of the reason we fight is so that we can live in a world without torture, right?

Now that is a thought I share. This war on terror could have and should have been more aggressively prosecuted in my opinion. We were far to lenient.

oppose Islam and call for its eradication.

I wondered where Mr. Compassion went. I am called a racist because I don’t agree with hood niggers randomly killing people. But it is OK for likadik to call for the extermination of millions of people only because of their religion. Which is typical by the way for most of his cult followers.

Is this what happens when you get a Limbomity?

I’d drive faster than the speed limit to save lives.

So should we right the offender’s a ticket and tell them to take a class on torture and it won’t go on their record?

Investigate what, exactly?

Exactly who approved of waterboarding, and when. Exactly who did the actual waterboarding, and when. Exactly who knew about it, when, and what action did they take to stop it.

Apparently we also need some sort of an independant investigation to decide whether waterboarding is torture or not. It appears that everyone who did it, or stands to be prosecuted for it, says it’s not torture. Almost everyone else in the world, including everyone who has ever been waterboarded, says it is torture.

With all due respect Ashley, calling waterboarding torture is pathetic. Really now.

My opinion on the matter has very little weight, I’ve never been waterboarded. Personally I think it’s torture because everyone who has ever been waterboarded say’s it is and I believe them, not you. If you don’t think waterboarding is torture, then let someone waterboard you and see if you still feel that way, if you don’t think it’s torture after you’ve been waterboarded then I’ll listen to you.

So what should be the punishment for these guys in the video?

You have to torture someone against their will for it to be illegal. There are lots of people who like to be tortured, they get off on it.

1. Like so many pet issues of the left, the very definition of “toruture” has been made so subjective as to be meaningless.

2. Under current law with the element of specific intent, waterboarding is very unlikely to rise to the level of torture.

3. The legal precedent for prosecuting waterboarding as a war crime was a case of the method being used against bona fide Prisoners of War (where interrogation methods are strictly limited).

4. Terrorists, as illegal combatants, are not Prisoners of War. Their sole two rights under the Customary Laws of Warfare are to become dead, and remain dead.

Good points. I think the matter should go to court and we should let a judge decide whether or not waterboarding breaks the legal threshold of torture and whether illegal combatants should be afforded the same legal rights as POW’s when it comes to torture. Personally I think it is and will be judged torture, and I think people are people and no person should be tortured. Not torturing is a humanitarian law, and all humans should be treated equally under it regardless of what their combatant definition is.

We tortured to extract information. In this case, both torturing and extracting information are specific intents. We specifically intended to waterboard, waterboarding didn’t incidentally happen because we were negligent and left the prisoner alone with a board and a bucket of water.

You are again confusing specific intent with general intent. The general intent was to torture. The specific intent was to extract information.

Now, if the general intent was to torture, and the specific intent also was to torture, then you’d have something.

In this hypothetical both tortured and extract are specific intents, but we could argue that killing wasn’t our specific intent, it just happened.

Now you are confusing actus reus with specific intent. Actus reus is the ‘criminal act’ itself; which in this case would be the actual torture. It is not yet another ‘specific intent’ as you put it. A crime can only have one intent . . . otherwise you change an element of the crime and becomes a different crime.

and when you torture someone to extract information, you have specific intent to torture.

Huh? No, when you torture someone to extract information, you are torturing someone to extract information.

This is exactly what you are tripping up on.

okay. Arrest those torturers.

How about we have a full investigation and get the facts before we just dismiss everything because supposedly there is no specific intent?

Investigate what, exactly?

We know what waterboarding is. We know how many times it was used, and against whom.

We also know why the interrogators used waterboarding, and it wasn’t in order to torture, but rather to extract information.

Because torture is a specific intent crime, no one will be convicted, and all the Obama administration will have done is embarrass itself and prove to the world that no torture occurred, which will throw Obama off his high horse.

He will never let that happen.

I am called a racist because I don’t agree with hood niggers randomly killing people.

Oh, for much more than that, Buzz! But, I do like the unintended irony of the racist slur in “defense” of your racism!

Ashley,

I hear your moral argument. But a few things here.

1. The verdict on waterboarding being torture is not in.
2. We did it 3 times. That isn’t enough to warrant the moral outrage given that waterboarding is at best questionable at this point and Congress did not object knowing EIT were in play.
3. It apparantly thwarted attacks that would have killed more Americans.

Now if it is determined that waterboarding is torture and therefore no longer an EIT available to us, then we’ll take it from there. But to try people for waterboarding in the past given the circumstances and lack of objection among our elected officials, is absurd.

The Customary Laws of Warfare are independent of Federal Law.

The Federal Courts, with the possible exception of the Supreme Court, are not empowered to rule on Treaties.

The Customary Laws of Warfare are enforced through reciprocity and reprisal.

As a further matter of practicality, should this policy issue become a matter for the courts, a subsequent terrorist attack would become a matter of public vigilance.

According to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which was signed into law by President Reagan in 1987:
Article 12:
Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.
Article 13:
Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.
Article 14, Paragraph 1:
Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation.

According to the law signed by Reagan, not the Geneva convention, if our courts can’t handle prosecuting torture, then we need to ensure some other way in our legal system to prosecute it.

Your analysis of torture as a specific intent crime is simply wrong. There can only be a conviction for torture if the interrogator’s specific intent was to torture. The interrogator does have the intent to torture. But that is the general intent, not the specific intent. The specific intent is to extract information, not to torture.

My interpretation of the law is completely different, I fundamentally disagree with you. According to your definition of specific intent, we would never be able to prosecute anyone for any crime that has a specific intent requirement. The accused could always change their specific intent after the fact to suit their argument. For instance, I could say my specific intent is to save lives, not to extract information.

Did you actually read the case that set that precedent? Auguste v. Ridge, Nov 1, 2004. Mr. Auguste was an illegal alien who commited a felony, he was fighting his deportation back to Haiti on the grounds that they tortured prisoners in the Haitian prisons. In the Haitian prisons the prisoners were neglected, their conditions were cramped due to overcrowding, the prisons were unclean, some of the prisoners were diseased etc. The court found that the guards at the prisons did not intend to torture, they did not tie people down and inflict pain to them on purpose, therefore there was no specific intent to torture and the court ruled against Mr. Auguste on those grounds. This is a completely different situation, in the case of us waterboarding prisoners there

is

specific intent. We did tie people down and intentionally inflict physical pain and suffering. I don’t see how you can expect a specific intent defense to work in this case.

Ashley Hefley – Exchange the word Islam with the word Judaism and I disagreed with this the first time I read it, in Mein Kampf.

*shrugs* Way to be intellectually dishonest Ashley! Judaism isn’t a religion filled with texts preaching death to unbelievers and adherents who spend their time explicitly trying to kill you.

But seriously, in Mein Kampf it goes on about how Judaism was invented by a war loving child molester? Can you quote the relevant passages? Failure to do so will only hammer home the point that you’re intellectually dishonest.

Mucho thanks for outing yourself so early! It’s nice to know early on what kind of person I’m dealing with.

Not really an issue for the Federal Courts in that:

The Customary Laws of Warfare are independent of Federal Law.

The Federal Courts, with the possible exception of the Supreme Court, are not empowered to rule on Treaties.

The Customary Laws of Warfare are enforced through reciprocity and reprisal.

As a further matter of practicality, should this policy issue become a matter for the courts, a subsequent terrorist attack would become a matter of public vigilance.

Almost everyone else in the world, including everyone who has ever been waterboarded, says it is torture.

Sorry, Eric Mankow Muller is not the final authority on whether waterboarding is torture or not. We are talking about a specific legal definition here, not anecdotal subjective accounts about whether or not it is torture.

Your analysis of torture as a specific intent crime is simply wrong. There can only be a conviction for torture if the interrogator’s specific intent was to torture. The interrogator does have the intent to torture. But that is the general intent, not the specific intent. The specific intent is to extract information, not to torture.

Otherwise you are simply saying that there is no such thing as a specific intent crime, which of course is not the case.

I posted this elsewhere, but it bears repeating, from Demjanjuk v. Holder:

[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”)

There is nothing preventing a prosecution for the interrogator’s actus reas under other laws that only require a general intent.

But not for torture.

You’re welcome, Ashley.

Rome was an example of an advanced, and by their lights, moral society.

What would Julius Ceasar do with barbarians such as the Taleban and Al Qaeda.

1. Like so many pet issues of the left, the very definition of “toruture” has been made so subjective as to be meaningless.

2. Under current law with the element of specific intent, waterboarding is very unlikely to rise to the level of torture.

3. The legal precedent for prosecuting waterboarding as a war crime was a case of the method being used against bona fide Prisoners of War (where interrogation methods are strictly limited).

4. Terrorists, as illegal combatants, are not Prisoners of War. Their sole two rights under the Customary Laws of Warfare are to become dead, and remain dead.

Ashley,

Are you familiar with the phrase “Tacetean peace”? I think the odds are very good that Julius Ceasar would have obliterated the mohammedean world.

Rob:

It’s certainly extremely unpleasant, but so is a root canal watching The View.

Fixed it for you.

You may proceed.