Say Anything Blog

Even if it’s performed by Cardinal Fang?

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Is it safe to say that you support the use of waterbooaring by enemy combatants who want to get info from captured American soldiers?

Just came across this article which previews testimony to be provided to Congress tomorrow. I guess some people who should know whether waterboarding is torture or not think it is.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

goodbye to yet another dirty gop

and another

here’s a gop an up and comer

and another

and another dirty gop is off to the big house

gop starts their own down the wrong road early

Hey, rob – ya gonna do a little write up about yesterdays election?

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

Yep that looks like torture. I think this whole discussion of water boarding being torture is crazy, if there is a bomb in a American city or if this saves an american convoy from being IEDed, I want this used to get information.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

realitydenyingboob! Where been? Finally get out of rehab, or jail?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Fica

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

My mother treated me worse than that. At least they didn’t cut off his head…

Realityboob is back.

How ya been?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Hey nutters

hows that party of yours doing?

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

These days, boob, it seems like I have as many problems with Republicans as I do with Democrats.

But how’s your Dems doing?  11% approval rating I see.

That’s gotta hurt.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

11% you say?  Didn’t seem to hurt them in most of yesterdays election now did it?

How many gop perverts will get caught this month?

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

Really, boob?  How many school board seats did the Dems pick up?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Tell me Rube, I don’t know. And while you’re at it tell me about the state houses and governorships.

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

Meh, what do I care.  I’m a federalist.  I just worry about my state.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Mike A,

There is no denying Malcolm Nance’s credentials, but as in just about any other area of endeavor, the credentials are anything but a guarantee on the veracity of his conclusions.  Only a liberal accustomed to dishing out slur and ad hominem would suggest that disagreement with those conclusions amounts to an attack on Nance’s integrity.

This, for example,

The result, Nance says, is that al-Qaeda now has, essentially, its own SERE school in U.S. detention facilities, as released detainees have given numerous accounts of their interrogations… He says he’s testifying in part to help his old comrades in SERE, which he sees as a vital tool for training U.S. troops. “SERE needs to be increased,” Nance insists, “but what needs to be stopped is the transfer of SERE techniques to official interrogations.”

would seem to strongly suggest that instead of releasing selected detainees, we should simply shoot them.

Reports are that only three detainees have been subjected to waterboarding, among them Khalid Sheik Mohammed.  It is extremely doubtful that any of the three detainees who have undergone waterboarding would have been released.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

The moonbats are a barking that’s for sure.  But if waterboarding is torture and people who do the waterboarding are criminals why weren’t these moonbats arrested?  I mean they say that anyone who carries out this act is a criminal.  Hell, if you volunteer for something that illegal, like say to be a murder victim, the person doing the murder would be arrested.  So why aren’t these Water Spaniels in jail?  “Oh if only the new AG believed what we believed, we’d be in jail right now.”  How dumb can people get?
-Caomhin

Reports are that only three detainees have been subjected to waterboarding, among them Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Reports also state that somebody died of a heart attack due to waterboarding.  So are we to believe that 1/3 people die from waterboarding or that you can’t trust the reports?

Is it safe to say that you support the use of waterbooaring by enemy combatants who want to get info from captured American soldiers?

This just has to be one of the silliest questions I have ever been asked.

This just has to be one of the silliest questions I have ever been asked.

Except that an assistant Secratary of State stated in Emgland that if water boarding was used against Americans he wasn’t sure if it would be illegal.

Thanks fuckheads, this can now be used against Americans without objection.

Lestat,

Your hypothetical prattle isn’t especially relevant… at least not to me.  In my view, the argument over whether or not waterboarding constitutes “torture” and should be considered illegal is meaningless quibble.  Apparently it works.  And I have seen no evidence to suggest that someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammed should be entitled to the protections of either the Geneva Conventions or the U.S. Constitution.

As I noted above, Malcolm Nance makes a far stronger case for shooting the detainees once they’ve been “cleaned out” than he does for discontinuing the practice of waterboarding.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Thanks fuckheads, this can now be used against Americans without objection.

I wonder which of the enemies America has ever fought has ever followed the Genva conventions?  Or refrained from mistreating our soldiers in general?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

You fuckheads act like there is not a definition of torture in US law.  There is.  Why don’t you go read it.  Waterboarding fits squarely as illegal.  A new law is not necessary to define it as illegal.  I thought you conservatives hated new laws and wanted to enforce the laws we have?  Here’s your chance.

And I have seen no evidence to suggest that someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammed should be entitled to the protections of either the Geneva Conventions or the U.S. Constitution.

That’s because you don’t believe in the Constitution.  Nobody is entitled to rights, they are natural rights granted to everybody.  Their is no requirement. 

That is precisely why we need strong laws against no torture, ever.  Than there is no decision to be made.  We just don’t do it.

Good thing waterboarding isn’t torture then.

And by the way, if our enemies waterboard our captured troops instead of, say BEHEADING THEM I am all in favor of it.

Is it safe to say that you support the use of waterbooaring by enemy combatants who want to get info from captured American soldiers?

Silly doesn’t begin to cover it.  The fact is there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that our country’s behavior toward Islamist terrorist detainees, illegal combatants according to the Geneva Conventions, would in any way effect how a captured American would be treated.  Fallujah, Mogadishu, and the torture deaths of James Buckley, Ambassador Cleo A. Noel, Jr., and George C. Curtis should all make the gruesome point.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

You fuckheads act like there is not a definition of torture in US law.

And all this time I thought these discussions were intended for adults, and not for foul-moouthed, intemperate children who apparently can’t make a cogent, rational argument without resorting epithet, insult, and tantrums.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

OK jackasses, here is the definition of torture under US law.  Start spinning and explain how it is not the threat of death.

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Thank you Lestat, for providing a definition that shows waterboarding is clearly not torture.

Note the words such as ‘prolonged’ and ‘severe’ that remove waterboarding from the purview of this law.

I actually don’t see where waterboarding is covered under any of that.  It certainly isn’t prolonged mental or physical pain.  Supposedly Khalid Sheik Mohammed was broken in two minutes.  Most people last under a minute.

That’s not prolonged in my book.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Lestat,

Perhaps you should take it upon yourself to hunt down the evil-doers and make a citizen’s arrest.  That’ll certainly show them what’s what!

As I noted yesterday, if Thomas Jefferson, author of the Bill of Rights, had intended that the rights enumerated therein should be applied to anyone who walked the face of the earth, as you stupidly suggest, then please explain why Jefferson unleashed the Marines on the Barbary pirates at the “shores of Tripoli…” instead of having those same Islamist pirates arrested and brought back to the U.S. to stand trial?

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

I actually don’t see where waterboarding is covered under any of that.  It certainly isn’t prolonged mental or physical pain.  Supposedly Khalid Sheik Mohammed was broken in two minutes.  Most people last under a minute.
That’s not prolonged in my book.

It’s because you are too stupid to read part C.  It is the prolonged mental anguish caued by the threat of imminent death.  It doesn’t matter how long the threat of imminent death lasts.

As I noted yesterday, if Thomas Jefferson, author of the Bill of Rights, had intended that the rights enumerated therein should be applied to anyone who walked the face of the earth, as you stupidly suggest, then please explain why Jefferson unleashed the Marines on the Barbary pirates at the “shores of Tripoli…” instead of having those same Islamist pirates arrested and brought back to the U.S. to stand trial?

Learn your fucking history.  Jefferson did not right the Bill of Rights, but the Declaration of Indepedence.  Those are actually two different documents.

I don’t give a shit what the Chief Executive will do if given enough power, that is why we have a Bill of Rights.  Even the best will abuse power if given the opportunity.

Study the law.  It is legion with cases about non citizens having the protection of Bill of Rights. 

Stop speaking out of your ass and do some research.

It doesn’t matter how long the threat of imminent death lasts.

Waterboarding merely produces discomfort, not the threat of imminent death.

Therefore it is not torture.

Lestat, give it up. You have lost this argument.

Waterboarding merely produces discomfort, not the threat of imminent death.

You really don’t think we are threatening imminent death when we start drowning somebody.  What do you believe they think? The way the law is written, our intentions are irrelevantg to what the victim believes.

It is amazing to see people, some of which are American citizens, going to such lengths to condemn one method of interrogation in hopes of demonizing our military efforts to defend freedom and our citizens from terrorists. 

They must really hate America.

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(C) the threat of imminent death;

The way the law is written, our intentions are irrelevantg to what the victim believes.

Not what the victim believes, but what “prolonged mental harm” results from waterboarding. Hence, it is not torture.

No Lestat, you are wrong - the law is not judged on the subjective views of the person being waterboarded, but on an objective ‘reasonable person’ standard.

No reasonable person would conclude that waterboarding produces a fear of imminent death, therefore it is not torture.

It merely produces some discomfort, that is all. If it produced fear of imminent death, protestors would not be lining up to do it like it was some party trick.

And yes, Lestat sure does seem to have all his hopes and dreams pinned on proving waterboarding is torture.

I am leery of his motives.

Ken,

Obviously you went to the community college of law schools.  The standard is the reasonable person under like circumstandes.  Those circumstances are a person who is being waterboarded during interrogation. 

I’ll agree the people on the street are not umder like circumstances, so legally they are irrelevant.  They are in no fear of death.

I submit that every reasonable person who is being waterboarded during interrogation would be in fear of imminent death.  Do you really think they believe in our benevolence?

The standard is the reasonable person under like circumstandes.  Those circumstances are a person who is being waterboarded during interrogation.

That does not change the analysis, Lestat. No reasonable person under the circumstances, either, would believe they were in imminent fear of death.

You lose.

You know what, Lestat, I don’t mind debating people.

You, however, are a jerk.

It is amazing to see people, some of which are American citizens, going to such lengths to condemn one method of interrogation in hopes of demonizing our military efforts to defend freedom and our citizens from terrorists. 

HG, these people are fu(#en idiots and are anti american and have no f’n clue. They are traitors in my book.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

I submit that every reasonable person who is being waterboarded during interrogation would be in fear of imminent death.  Do you really think they believe in our benevolence?

Benevolence has nothing to do with it… and even you should know that.

The whole point of waterboarding isn’t to kill the person being interrogated.  Fact is they are probably told they will not be killed.  They are also informed that the procedure will be repeated again and again… until they agree to talk.

Obviously, you don’t have a shred of experience with any of this stuff.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

That does not change the analysis, Lestat. No reasonable person under the circumstances, either, would believe they were in imminent fear of death.

You honestly don’t believe that somebody captured by this country in a detention center when water boarded would not believe that we would kill them? 

This is a slam dunk that this is torture, there is just nobody who is brave enough to prosecute.

You honestly don’t believe that somebody captured by this country in a detention center when water boarded would not believe that we would kill them?

No. I honestly do not think they believe that. Especially if we are after information.

You, however, are a jerk.

Just trying to make up for Robert108, BatOne and 2Hotel9. 

Glad you noticed.  I wasn’t trying to be nice.

Still makes you a jerk.

Lestat:

Thanks fuckheads, this can now be used against Americans without objection.

News flash, you retard:

Our enemies have always ignored international law.

So unless you’re talking public condemnation (man I can just FEEL THE BURN of Osama’s ears now!!!), the rest is utterly pointless.

This is a slam dunk that this is torture, there is just nobody who is brave enough to prosecute.

Again, you’re a retard.

If Congress were to pass a law explicitly prohibiting waterboarding, it’d be a “slam dunk”.  The fact they could have, and haven’t, is implicit approval of the technique.

Quit breathing in a paper bag and get some oxygen to your brain. It’ll help.

On another note, one can question the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques.  We got more than our share of bad intel from Khalid Sheik Mohammed for example.

Then there is the Norfolk four, where simply forcing sailors to withstand 18 hours straight interrogation was enough to break them and force a false confession.  The fact that water boarding has been used so sparingly is a suggestion to me that interrogation specialists realize the inherent problems with it. 

It shouldn’t be illegal IMHO, but it may not be a very useful means of garnering actionable and accurate intelligence.

It shouldn’t be illegal IMHO, but it may not be a very useful means of garnering actionable and accurate intelligence.

This is where I’m at.  I don’t know enough to say whether or not it’s a good technique.  I do know enough to say that I want it on the table.

And besides, one pretty powerful tool (I’d think) is the fact that these detainees may not know what we’ll do to them.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

This,“OK jackasses, here is the definition of torture under US law.  Start spinning and explain how it is not the threat of death.” is just too funny. lestupid, the only one spinning here is you. Your Party, the Democrat Party, has refused 4 times now to name waterboarding specifically as torture. That ends the entire debate. Period.

And this,“The way the law is written, our intentions are irrelevantg to what the victim believes.” is moral relativism. This clearly shows lestupid to be the anti-American Marxist moron it is.

lestupid? Terrorists have only one right under GCs, the right to be swiftly executed upon the ground they are captured. Brigands/Bandits.

As for waterboarding of American soldiers captured by terrorists, that is fucking hilarious! All soldiers of Signatory Nations who are captured/kidnapped are routinely dismembered, electrocuted, cauterized, beaten, sodomized, and starved. Why are you defending these practices by terrorists?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

An interesting thread of comments for sure. If anyone is interested, here is what I’ve taken away from the discussion.

There are legal definitions of torture available. There are interrogation techniques which are morally repugnant but may not satisfy the legal definition of torture.

Some people believe that waterboarding as used in interrogations is the same as what’s happening in the video. Some people believe that waterboarding is extremely unpleasant but leaves no lasting harm. Some people believe that waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture because the detainee might reasonably fear for his life.

Some people believe waterboarding is appropriate because it works. Some people believe waterboarding doesn’t work and is torture while others think it doesn’t work and isn’t torture.

I believe waterboarding is torture because the accounts and opinions advanced by individuals who have intimate knowledge of the procedure seem to support that notion. This doesn’t mean that waterboarding is torture in and of itself because when it comes down to it, the definition of torture is the result of a widely shared consensus and not the discovery or identification of a definitive fact.

It’s sort of like the question of pornography…it’s difficult to identify descriptively and legally but everyone knows it when they see it. I read accounts and descriptions of waterboarding and it appears to be torture to me but not to Ken, B1, etc. We have to agree to disagree IMO or see waterboarding enshrined as an illegal act which isn’t likely to happen.

My last thoughts on the subject unless developments warrant…to the relief of most I am sure.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(C) the threat of imminent death;

I fail to see where the “threat of imminent” death is the measure of torture.  The above says that the threat must cause “prolonged mental harm”.

By this standard one may be under the threat of imminent death if no prolonged mental harm follows.  One may think he is drowning and will subsequently die without prolonged mental harm. 

Although, I agree with Ken.  I don’t think the enemy is threatened, rather the enemy is made to feel as if he is drowning.  What the enemy feels does not produce prolonged mental harm.

Mike A,

Actually, that is not quite the end of the discussion.

Another point not yet examined is whether interrogations of illegal combatant detainees, particularly if those interrogations take place outside the U.S., fall under the president’s constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief, and as such, are not subject to congressional interference or restriction.  This would echo a similar discussion being carried on in the federal courts with regard to the NSA surveillance program(s) illegally detailed by the NYT late last year.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

B1…are you suggesting that Congress might not be in a position to legislate in this area? That would surprise me…not that you might advance such a view but that Congress wouldn’t have such authority.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Mike A.

Congress, as you well know, can legislate whatever it chooses.  They could legislate the sun out of the sky if tthey like (daylight savings) or the price of virtually any item or commodity you can think of.  If they so choose, they could legislate that from henceforth Supreme Court Justice will be nominated by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, bypassing the president and the constitution altogether.  But whether such legislation would stand a constitutional test before the Supreme Court is another matter entirely.

And that, of course, is the point.  Each branch of government has certain powers granted by the constitution.  And those may not be over-ridden or diminished by either of the other two branches.  The Congress cannot appoint persons to executive positions, the president cannot direct the IRS to collect higher (or lower) taxes than those passed by the legislature, the Supremes cannot rule on the constitutionality of pending legislation, even if Congress mandates that they do so.  Nor can they impeach members of the executive branch of Congress.  And so it goes.

All I am suggesting is that there is ample judicial precedent to sustain the argument that the president’s power as Commander-in-Chief, a power specifically granted by the Constitution, may not be abridged or diminished by Congress.  It is an argument that is ultimately likely to win at the Supreme Court level regarding the NSA surveillance program, and I suspect a similar argument regarding overseas interrogations of illegal combatant detainees might also be successful.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

B1…I defer to your superior expertise in this area. It makes sense to me that the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces is responsible for all aspects of an ongoing war. In your opinion, would it make a difference if the interrogation was not conducted by the military but by another government agency?

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

In your opinion, would it make a difference if the interrogation was not conducted by the military but by another government agency?

Mike A,

Its an interesting question you pose.  I assume that it would make a difference, yes.  CIA is a civilian agency, while NSA is technically adjunct to the Department of Defense, and is headed by a 3-star Flag Officer.

There is another, perhaps more likely scenario:  that certain captured illegal combatants could be turned over to certain private security concerns under government contract.  And I have no idea how to sort out either the legality or the constitutionality of any of this.

The question does point out, however, that the nature of war itself has changed dramatically, and is far more complex than it was in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or the most recent Cold War.  I believe Donald Rumsfeld was originally selected as Secretary of Defense to try and sort some of this out.  9-11 kinda interrupted that process.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Rendition, anyone? Billie Jeff thought it was an excellent idea.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

B1…it is all very complicated I agree. Outsourcing is an interesting topic…I read this blog, not so much for its author’s conclusions, but for the issues it raises. I wonder if private security outfits qualify as employers of illegal combatants…that would be an interesting twist.

2H9…rendition is cowardice IMO.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Rendition is the brainchild of the political left, cowardice being the left’s stock in trade.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I have no idea who the brainparent is but whoever uses is truly Machiavellian.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

“Machiavellian” describes the left succinctly.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem