The Mukasey nomination for attorney general has stirred up the torture debate again. The unfair treatment that Mukasey has received is appalling, but the crux of the current opposition to his appointment is the definition of torture--and, of course, the usual politics are in play.

The specific interrogation technique at issue is waterboarding. Call it what you will and despite its history as an alleged war crime, I say waterboarding should be allowed for certain high-value combatants and as a training method for some members of the armed forces.

For those that think waterboarding is torture, please answer the following questions:

1. Is tasering on a subject torture? If not, why not?

2. Do you know specifically how waterboarding is conducted during the interrogations in question?

3. What is the position of Senator Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for president, on torture and specifically waterboarding? Don't we have a right to know?

4. What is torture?

11/2/2007 11:11:28 AM

This is ludicrous.

By any definition of the word, waterboarding is torture.

It's been accepted as such with certainty until the Bush administration proved once again how gullible its followers are.


Allow me to reverse your loaded question-- find me a definition of torture from any legitimate source that wouldn't include waterboarding.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 11:38:52 AM

^ Please answer each enumerated question. And here's one more:

5. Has the United States been torturing its own military personnel by subjecting them to waterboarding?

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 11:53:25 AM

You mean have we been preparing special forces for torture? Yes.


This smacks of Limbaugh Logic. Fess up.



[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 11:55 AM. Reason : oh hey, it's 12:00 on a weekday.]

11/2/2007 11:54:23 AM

Quote :

"^ Please answer each enumerated question."

11/2/2007 11:55:00 AM

What didn't I answer? We prepare our special forces for torture.

These guys opt into it willingly.


Why won't you answer the only question I asked?

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 11:57 AM. Reason : MEGA DITTOS]

11/2/2007 11:56:44 AM

Quote :

"1. Is tasering on a subject torture? If not, why not? 2. Do you know specifically how waterboarding is conducted during the interrogations in question? 3. What is the position of Senator Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for president, on torture and specifically waterboarding? Don't we have a right to know? 4. What is torture?"

11/2/2007 11:58:46 AM

Are people against using it as a training method? Shouldn't the people that might face torture be prepared for this torture technique?

How do you determine what a "high value" combatant is?

11/2/2007 11:59:01 AM

hooksaw is above answering your questions, or engaging in any sort of constructive conversation.

He's a graduate student, you know.

You should just be happy he talks to you at all.

11/2/2007 11:59:19 AM

THIS THREAD BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE EIB NETWORK


^He'll discuss things, but only if I follow the script, apparently.

Quote :

"Are people against using it as a training method? Shouldn't the people that might face torture be prepared for this torture technique?"

No, hooksaw's saying (or rather Limbaugh is saying vicariously through hooksaw) that because we use it to prepare our SOC guys for torture, it's perfectly ok to use it against other people.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 12:00:29 PM

Quote :

"1. Is tasering on a subject torture? If not, why not? 2. Do you know specifically how waterboarding is conducted during the interrogations in question? 3. What is the position of Senator Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for president, on torture and specifically waterboarding? Don't we have a right to know? 4. What is torture?"

1) When used to detain a person after following standard law enforcement procedures, no it is not. When used liberally without just cause, yes it is.

2) No.

3) Vote Barack Obama 2008

4) Torture is defined by the Geneva Conventions as a means to ensure prisoners around the world receive humane treatment while detained.

As a rule, torture should be illegal. Every scenario in which it could be justified should be considered an exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Using it too often for ambiguous purposes will justify our enemies use of similar methods. it will also continue to degrade the credibility of the US around world, lessening our ability to resolve problems through diplomacy.

*************

EDIT - Stop fucking saying that hooksaw is parroting Limbaugh. I don't give a crap if he's quoting Rush or the Dali Lama, just answer the freaking questions

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:18 PM. Reason : w]

11/2/2007 12:15:50 PM

1. Is tasering on a subject torture? If not, why not?

Used as a means of allowing physical compliance when otherwise force which could lead to injury would need to be used, no. Used continuously over a period of time as a means to extort information, yes.

2. Do you know specifically how waterboarding is conducted during the interrogations in question?

Yes.

3. What is the position of Senator Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for president, on torture and specifically waterboarding? Don't we have a right to know?

Sure I'd want to know her position on this, but it has nothing to do with waterboarding being torture or not.

4. What is torture?

Clearly a loaded question which in your mind 'disproves' waterboarding as torture when combined with your own candid answers to the above questions.

"the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure"

As stated above, using a taser to prevent the use of violent force on a target is in the safe interests of both the target and the enforcement officer. Used as a mean to coerce or punish (to purely cause pain), then obviously it would fit under the umbrella of torture.

5. Has the United States been torturing its own military personnel by subjecting them to waterboarding?

No, this is clearly intended to prepare military personnel for the realities that they may face when captured by a foreign country (or, now-a-days, from their own country). It is not intended as punishment or coercion.



Now please "Find me a definition of torture from any legitimate source that wouldn't include waterboarding."

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:21 PM. Reason : n]

11/2/2007 12:19:42 PM

PSYCH!

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:23 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 12:21:45 PM

^ Boone, now you left him an out to avoid the question by changing the subject to 'refute' this new statement

11/2/2007 12:22:29 PM

^x5 To be perfectly honest, I had no idea that this was Rush's position--but I'm not surprised. I haven't listened to him for a few months now. I do have him turned on today, though.

For your edification, many of these same questions were raised on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, which I also listened to this morning. Do you object to her show or only to shows with which you disagree politically?

^x4 Thank you.

^x3 Thank you for answering the questions.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 12:23:00 PM

Find me a definition of torture from any legitimate source that wouldn't include waterboarding.

11/2/2007 12:23:53 PM

How's that definition coming?

11/2/2007 12:24:22 PM

^^^ No one objects to the questions, they object to your refusing to answer other questions while asserting that people MUST answer YOUR questions.

11/2/2007 12:26:44 PM

I'll get the ball rolling:


1.tor·ture \'to?r-ch?r\ , n.:

11/2/2007 12:31:31 PM

^^^^ First, cut me some slack. I've got about five different arguments going in different threads. I'm just one guy against all the foaming moonbats. JK.

Second, you are asking for something that I can't produce. The definition of torture remains an open question among many of our politicians on both sides of the aisle--Congress and presidential candidates can't even come to terms with the question.

Democrats Drowning In Hypocrisy

Quote :

"The 'ticking bomb scenario' represents a narrow exception to what should otherwise be our categorical prohibition against torture. After all, 'in the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans,' it might be necessary for a president to make 'the decision to depart from standard international practices[.]' The president, of course, 'must be held accountable' for such a decision; but the president would have to be prepared to make it in such dire circumstances. Who says so? Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, that's who. The Democrats' coronee-in-waiting made the comments in an interview by the New York Daily News last October."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/opinion/main3440144.shtml

Kennedy Makes a Weapon Of McCain's Torture Law

Quote :

"The new anti-torture law written by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody, became a topic of discussion during Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings yesterday, when Alito was asked whether the president has the authority to ignore such a law."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011100241.html

I have clearly stated that I do not think waterboarding is torture--if used properly by trained personnel on specific high-value combatants. But pretending that the definition of certain techniques as torture is cut-and-dried and not entangled in politics is to ignore reality.

Some--not me--would say that taser wounds are "cruel":



[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 12:47:27 PM

Quote :

"The definition of torture remains an open question among many of our politicians on both sides of the aisle--Congress and presidential candidates can't even come to terms with the question."

If it's so open, please provide one of these "open definitions" that would exclude waterboarding.

Or do you mean to say that "the definition has been so blurred by White House attorneys that there's really not a whole lot that we can't get away with now."

11/2/2007 12:56:43 PM

Quote :

"I have clearly stated that I do not think waterboarding is torture--if used properly by trained personnel on specific high-value combatants."

You realize, from a legal standpoint, that's a meaningless position? How would you define legally what a high-value combatant is? What do you mean by "trained personnel?"

If your position was put in to law, it would basically allow torture of anyone our military is holding. All they'd have to do is say they have some classified information that X had useful knowledge, and deserved torture. Where as now, where torture is not allowed, they can't even claim that they tortured someone, they just have to try and keep it buried (hence the CIA black sites).

Also, why wouldn't a local law enforcement be allowed to use torture as well? Can they not have situations where they "need" to torture someone? How do you determine where the line is drawn?

11/2/2007 12:58:30 PM

Quote :

" Article 1 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. 2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. Article 2 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. Article 3 1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Article 4 1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature."

Seems like a pretty good definition.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ]

11/2/2007 12:59:11 PM

Did we go out of our way to violate every point?

11/2/2007 1:03:03 PM

1. I agree with Lavim and Erios.

2. Yes.

3. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hillary supported waterboarding. She disgusts me.

4. A more appropirate question would be "Is waterboarding torture?".

100 US law professors say waterboarding is torture.

Senator John McCain says waterboarding is torture.

The US Department of State says waterboarding is torture.

That's a start.

The current administration's cries of "WE DO NOT TORTURE" are no less a game of ridiculous semantics than "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is," only in this case, people's lives are at stake. George W. Bush says that we do not torture because he has created a new definition of the word that virtually no other civilized nation in the world would agree with.

Repeatedly forcing somebody's air passage under water makes them think they're dying, causes permanent psychiatric damage, and can and has killed people in the process. It is ridiculous and inhumane to call this anything other than what it is, which is TORTURE.

11/2/2007 1:07:21 PM

Quote :

"If it's so open, please provide one of these 'open definitions' that would exclude waterboarding."

I posted "open question"--ask Hillary and some of the others. They seem to be confused about what constitutes torture, too.

Quote :

"Also, why wouldn't a local law enforcement be allowed to use torture as well? Can they not have situations where they 'need' to torture someone? How do you determine where the line is drawn?"

This type of decision should be made at the highest levels of government--perhaps by the president. And the enhanced interrogation techniques in recent use were usually conducted by civilian intelligence officials, not frontline military personnel, according to The Diane Rehm Show guest(s).

Quote :

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

This doesn't pass the "ticking bomb scenario," which is a good and not unrealistic scenario to cut through the bullshit, whether some here think so or not. In addition, any person that wouldn't be prepared to do whatever might be necessary to protect me and all other Americans doesn't deserve to be president and is a danger to us all.

Quote :

"Repeatedly forcing somebody's air passage under water makes them think they're dying, causes permanent psychiatric damage, and can and has killed people in the process. It is ridiculous and inhumane to call this anything other than what it is, which is TORTURE."

(1) I dispute the "permanent psychiatric damage" claim. (2) Tasering has killed people, too--or at least contributed to their deaths. And (3) if the torture definition is so clear, why can't some Democrats seem to grasp it?

11/2/2007 1:34:45 PM

I kinda want to be water boarded to see what it's like. I'm not hard core at all, so I imagine I'd crack in seconds.

11/2/2007 1:40:33 PM

Quote :

"ticking bomb scenario"

You watch too much 24.

I've avoided this argument because I was hoping to get a direct answer from you in regard to the definition of torture, but I guess that isn't going to happen, sooo....

Torture doesn't provide reliable information. Especially in a "timebomb" scenario. Provide one bit of proof that it does, please.

That we'd forsake one of our fundamental values as a country to obtain worthless information is a move so impossibly stupid that it could only have been done by Bush & Co.

11/2/2007 1:41:55 PM

Oh, Jesus Fucking Christ. Not the ticking time bomb scenario again. And drop the taser bullshit. You cannot equate taser use and waterboarding.

Tasering, when used properly to apprehend someone, is not torture.

Tasering someone that is already in custody in order coerce information from them is torture.

Waterboarding someone that is already in custody in order to coerce information from them is torture.

Can you understand the differences between tasering and waterboarding? Tasering does have legitimate uses. Waterboarding does not. You cannot waterboard someone into custody.

11/2/2007 2:26:15 PM

Quote :

"This type of decision should be made at the highest levels of government--perhaps by the president. And the enhanced interrogation techniques in recent use were usually conducted by civilian intelligence officials, not frontline military personnel, according to The Diane Rehm Show guest(s). "

Wouldn't that then invalidate the ticking time bomb scenario? If a decision on torture must reach the president, then we wouldn't have time before the bomb goes off.

Also, it's completely irrelevant that it was "civilians" that did the torturing. The only way these "civilians" would have gotten access to do the torturing, or to be able to fly to CIA controlled black sites, would be with the blessing of gov. officials. If the gov. was so against those civilian torturings, why not arrest and charge those torturers.

11/2/2007 2:35:11 PM

Why do you guys even respond to hooksaw? Just ignore him and he'll stop making threads.

11/2/2007 3:30:13 PM

The real problem, to me, is that the democrats are playing political games in a confirmation hearing. They are trying to back the nominee into a corner over a current issue so that when he is confirmed they can hold his feet to the fire on an issue they are currently contesting; if he doesn't stick to his coerced statement from the confirmation hearings, they will call for his head immediately.

Confirmation hearings were never meant to be used for scoring political points on a nominee. It is not the AG's job to interpret every last nuance of the law. It his job to follow the law and ensure that it is followed. It is certainly worthwhile to ask Mukasey "what do you think," but they certainly should respect it when he says "I don't want to be bound to this by you fuckers, so fuck off." Now, if somewhere it specifically said "Waterboarding is torture," then the Dems would be right to be wary of him not responding to the question. However, Mukasey said that he would not support torture and that torture was wrong according to the law, so that should have been the end of it.

Now, if Mukasey evades every single question in that manner, then that is a different issue. But here, they are just playing games, trying to back him in a corner, and it is despicable.

11/2/2007 6:58:48 PM

^ I haven't looked at anything regarding the current hearing, but considering Alberto Gonzalez's performance, the democrats, and all of congress really, have a right to be picky on the next AG.

11/2/2007 10:18:11 PM

Apparently Schumer and Weinstein ( i think) will vote to confirm Mukasey b/c they are afraid Bush will recess appoint him.

11/2/2007 11:24:13 PM

Schumer (D-NY) and Feinstein (D-CA). I'm not surprised by Schumer's defection; he was actually one of Mukasey's biggest supporters, recommending him to President Bush as a solid, acceptable choice back when they were looking for Ashcroft's replacement. Feinstein's defection really surprises me though. I guess Schumer is much more convincing than expected.

As for Waterboarding, apparently President Teddy Roosevelt was against it, banning the practice during another famous insurgent battle: the American occupation of the Philippines back in 1898. Roosevelt was so pissed, he court marshaled and then sacked the general who committed some of the worst atrocities.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6647.html

Quote :

"Roosevelt responded by disregarding the verdict of the court-martial and ordering the general’s dismissal from the Army. Morris wrote that Roosevelt’s decision “won universal praise” from Democrats, who congratulated him for acknowledging cruelty in the Philippine campaign, and from Republicans, who said that he had “upheld the national honor.”"

11/3/2007 12:47:21 AM

You people need to at least read CAT, 18 USC 2340, and the Torture Memos before you engage in this conversation, because really, your subjective opinion of what constitutes torture is completely worthless.



1. Is tasering on a subject torture? If not, why not?

It may be if you tasered someone with the specific intent to cause severe physical or mental pain or suffering which results in severe physical or mental pain or suffering.

2. Do you know specifically how waterboarding is conducted during the interrogations in question?

No one knows exactly how the CIA is using waterboarding, but there is a general technique.

3. What is the position of Senator Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for president, on torture and specifically waterboarding? Don't we have a right to know?

I have a feeling that is a fairly mushy topic and she probably won't answer it directly.

4. What is torture?

I will quote it for you. This is the definition we use to determine torture committed outside the borders of this country. Inside, torture is covered by pre-existing criminal law.

Quote :

"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. "

Pay special attention the the definition of severe and specific intent. Oh, there is no definition of severe. INTERESTING ISN'T IT!



[Edited on November 3, 2007 at 9:00 PM. Reason : adsf]

11/3/2007 8:50:29 PM

Quote :

"You watch too much 24."

Quote :

"Torture doesn't provide reliable information. Especially in a 'timebomb' scenario. Provide one bit of proof that it does, please."

Boone-Tard

For the record, I do not watch 24. And if I did, I would have no problem admitting that.

Concerning your request for evidence of the effectiveness of waterboarding, no problem:

Quote :

"According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess [emphasis added]."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

You will note well that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was a top al Qaeda operative. As a result of the waterboarding technique, valuable intelligence was gained by the good guys--have you forgotten who that is?

Quote :

"Oh, Jesus Fucking Christ. Not the ticking time bomb scenario again. And drop the taser bullshit. You cannot equate taser use and waterboarding."

A Tarzansanus

Concerning the "ticking bomb scenario," please note well that it was simply part of the article that I posted. In addition, whether you or others care for it or not, the scenario has been presented in the presidential debates to major candidates of both parties--none of them has objected to the question in the manner that you have. Any one of them could have said, "This question is unrealistic and I refuse to answer it"--but none did.

The fact that you don't like the scenario at issue has been duly noted. But (1) a number of other people seem to think it's relevant, (2) I don't care whether or not you think it's relevant, and (3) STFU about it.

Concerning your taser argument, I have to throw the bullshit flag. (1) Waterboarding leaves no permanent physical damage--and I am confident that it leaves no permanent psychological damage either. And (2) tasers deliver ~50,000 volts of electricity through wires attached to barbs that forcefully puncture the skin--burns and permanent scarring can result. In addition, tasers are admitted by the manufacturers on the company's Web site to be possible instruments of torture, and a growing list of people have actually died as a result of sudden in-custody death syndrome.

From the TASER International Web site:

Quote :

"Avoid Torturous or Other Misuse. Misuse can result in criminal prosecution and/or civil litigation."

Quote :

"Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome Awareness. If a subject is exhibiting signs or behaviors 2 that are associated with Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome, 3 consider need for medical assistance. 2 Signs of Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome include: extreme agitation, bizarre behavior, inappropriate nudity, imperviousness to pain, paranoia, exhaustive exertion, 'superhuman' strength, hallucinations, sweating profusely, etc. 3 Sudden in-custody death results from a complex set of physiological and psychological conditions characterized by irrational behavior, extreme exertion, and potentially fatal changes in blood chemistry. Promptly capturing, controlling, and restraining a subject exhibiting signs of these conditions may end the struggle and allow early medical care intervention."

Quote :

"Probe Removal. In most areas of the body, injuries or wounds caused by TASER probes will be minor. TASER probes have small barbs. There is a possible risk of probes causing injury to blood vessels. Skin Wound Treatment. TASER devices can cause skin irritation, small puncture wounds, friction abrasions, minor burns, etc. As with any injury of this type, in some circumstances infection(s) may occur. Thus, appropriately cleanse any such wounds and if necessary seek medical attention."

Quote :

"Scarring. Use of a TASER device, especially in drive (or touch) stun mode, can cause marks, friction abrasions, and/or scarring that may be permanent depending on individual susceptibilities or circumstances surrounding TASER device use and exposure."

http://www.taser.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Controlled%20Documents/Warnings/LG-INST-CTZWARN-001%20REV%20E%20Citizen%20Warnings.pdf

From the Sacramento News & Review:

50,000 volts
Taser guns have become a favored control device for local law-enforcement
officers, but something's gone wrong with this 'nonlethal' weapon. In Sacramento, the dead bodies are mounting.

http://www.demos.org/pubs/50,000%20Volts%20Sacramento%20News%20and%20Review%2011.17.05.pdf

[Edited on November 4, 2007 at 1:58 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2007 1:46:49 AM

Quote :

"The fact that you don't like the scenario at issue has been duly noted. But (1) a number of other people seem to think it's relevant, (2) I don't care whether or not you think it's relevant, and (3) STFU about it."

I take away a couple of things from this:

(1) The fact you have to resort to "a number of other people seem to think it's relevant" is a clear indication that you are completely incapabable of defending it. Much like last time we went over this.

(2) You fail at debate. You cannot say that torture is OK based on the premise of a 'ticking time bomb scenario' and then, when others question your premises, dismiss their comments as irrelevant. It reduces your argument to "I'm right and your wrong" which is really no argument at all. It just makes you look like a complete and total ass.

Quote :

"Concerning your taser argument, I have to throw the bullshit flag."

Way to miss the point of the argument. Tasers being/not being torture has little to do with whether or not it inflicts pain or permanent damage. What makes taser use torture/not torture depends on when tasers are used.

Tasers are used to subdue someone who is not in custody, e.g. a beligerent arrestee. This is not torture (provided that the use is compliant with whatever escalation of force rules the police have).

Tasers used on a person who is already in custody is torture because, in this situation, the taser can serve no purpose other than inflicting pain and suffering.

This is no different than baton use: using a baton during an arrest is not torture. Using a baton on somebody already in custody is torture. Same thing with brooms. Using a broom to sweep a floor is not torture. Shoving a broom up someone's ass while that person is in custody is torture.

Can you see the differences? Almost any object can be used to torture someone. What defines torture has as much to do with when something is used as it does with the pain and suffering inflicted.

Tasers do have legitimate uses, namely to subdue a beligerent person in order to take them into custody. Waterboarding cannot be used to subdue someone--you cannot waterboard someone that you do not already have physical control over.

This is why you cannot compare tasers and waterboarding. One does have legitimate use outside of inflicting pain. The other does not.

Quote :

"and I am confident that it leaves no permanent psychological damage either."

And what do you base this confidence on? What makes you so confident that waterboarding--a sensation so horrible most people can last only a few seconds--leaves no permanent psychological damage?

Quote :

"As a result of the waterboarding technique, valuable intelligence was gained"

How do you know the information was valuable, or even right? From the very same article (do you read the articles you link to?):

Quote :

"The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. [...] It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer. Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust … than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets." One argument in favor of their use: time. In the early days of al Qaeda captures, it was hoped that speeding confessions would result in the development of important operational knowledge in a timely fashion. However, ABC News was told that at least three CIA officers declined to be trained in the techniques before a cadre of 14 were selected to use them on a dozen top al Qaeda suspects in order to obtain critical information. In at least one instance, ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq. According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals. His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment. "This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," one source said. However, sources said, al Libbi does not appear to have sought to intentionally misinform investigators, as at least one account has stated. The distinction in this murky world is nonetheless an important one. Al Libbi sought to please his investigators, not lead them down a false path, two sources with firsthand knowledge of the statements said."

Quote :

"the good guys--have you forgotten who that is?"

I know who the good guys are. But, I think some of the good guys have forgotten who they are.

11/4/2007 9:43:22 AM

^ Currently studying at the McDouche School for Advanced Asshattery.

11/5/2007 5:09:56 AM

Mukasey To Congress: You Say It First
By Refusing To Say Waterboarding Is Torture, Justice Nominee Puts the Ball In Congress' Court

Quote :

"So in the end the Democrats were unable to force Attorney General-nominee Michael B. Mukasey into publicly declaring that the simulated-death form of interrogation called 'waterboarding' falls within the legal definition of torture, and thus is outlawed completely. Good. Instead of trying to coerce a high-ranking executive branch official into undercutting his own president’s power, the legislators ought to instead look inward, toward Capitol Hill, and simply and expressly prohibit 'waterboarding' by federal statute. They’ve been talking about it for years. And for years the White House and Congressional Republicans have been able to maintain the status quo, which is mealy-mouthed statutory language that clearly leaves open (as a legal possibility anyway) the notion that waterboarding is lawful. Now, it’s true that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., believes that waterboarding is outlawed by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. But unfortunately for those in the anti-waterboarding camp, McCain does not have a vote on the United States Supreme Court. And he has only one vote on the floor of the Senate. He should use that vote, and the pulpit of a presidential campaign (pay attention Hillary, Barack and Rudy!), to try to rouse a veto-proof majority in both houses into a clear and definitive federal ban on waterboarding of any sort as an interrogation technique. I mean, even the soon-to-be-Attorney General himself, Mukasey, called the practice 'repugnant' last week and pointedly noted that it is already prohibited for use by the U.S. military."

Quote :

"Concerns about a retroactive application of the ban which might lead to the prosecution of interrogation officials? Forget about them. The ban would have to be — and should be — prospective. You can’t go after intelligence officials now who believed that they were acting under valid orders — remember the Bybee and Gonzales memos that temporarily loosened the rules for torture? The retroactivity issue is a perfect carrot to toss at Congressional Republicans and the White House in order for the deal to get done. And even if a veto-proof majority against waterboarding were not possible, would it not serve the nation to force the President to either confirm or deny in public, via his veto choice, whether it really is true that the feds are out of the waterboarding business for good? Yes or no, up or down. At least then we’d have the kind of legal and moral clarity it seems to me we need, and deserve, when the issue is a barbaric interrogation technique that is 'real drowning' that 'simulates death.' In his statement Friday pledging continued support for Mukasey’s nomination, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., offered this significant (and significantly under-reported) nugget. Mukasey, Schumer wrote, 'made clear to me [in private] that, were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the President would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.' Clearly, Schumer believes that Mukasey is disposed (even poised) to say the magic words -'waterboarding is illegal' - if Congress first offers better guidance in the form of specific statutory language. This is no small thing. It signals that Mukasey isn’t interested in obstructing justice when it comes to waterboarding but rather is eager to defer to the legislative branch the dispositive call on the matter. Congress should rush to accept the nominee’s invitation; after all, the lawmakers have been waiting for 6 years to be invited by the executive branch to help it lead the anti-terror effort. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisc., who also rode to Mukasey’s rescue late last week, seems to understand the need for speed here. On Friday afternoon, Feingold offered this: 'Both Senators [Edward] Kennedy [D-Mass.] and [Joseph] Biden [S-Md.] have introduced legislation to this effect. I believe we should put one of those bills in the FISA legislation now under consideration in the Judiciary Committee. Once this law is enacted, the Attorney General would be required to enforce it, and Judge Mukasey’s answers give every reason to believe that he would.' That’s why Mukasey’s nomination ultimately could be the catalyst that finally ends waterboarding as a legal form of interrogation. Public attention now is drawn to the issue in an unprecedented way. The man and the moment have arrived. And the passage of a ban on waterboarding would ensure that Mukasey has contributed to our nation’s enduring, fair and decent rule of law even before he spends his first day as Attorney General of the United States."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/04/opinion/courtwatch/main3450456.shtml

11/5/2007 5:54:49 AM

Quote :

"^ Currently studying at the McDouche School for Advanced Asshattery."

Great reply.

It only reinforces my point:

Quote :

"You fail at debate."

11/5/2007 7:24:34 AM

^ And that makes my point for me.

Quote :

"McDouche: 'anything that I think is good and that other countries already have is a right....IT JUST HAS TO BE!!' :retard: common sense: 'um, no it's not. rights are universal, come from "god" or nature, and don't contradict other rights.' :truth: McDouche: 'That's not how you argue!! Therefore I win. Debate over.' :smug:"

392

Democrats and Waterboarding
By ALAN DERSHOWITZ

Quote :

"The members of the judiciary committee who voted against Judge Mukasey, because of his unwillingness to support an absolute prohibition on waterboarding and all other forms of torture, should be asked the direct question: Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans in a situation of the kind faced by Israeli authorities on the eve of Yom Kippur? Would you want your president to authorize extraordinary means of interrogation in such a situation? If so, what means? If not, would you be prepared to accept responsibility for the preventable deaths of hundreds of Americans? [Emphasis added.] Perhaps political campaigns and confirmation hearings are not the appropriate fora in which to conduct subtle and difficult debates about tragic choices that a president or attorney general may face. But nor are they the appropriate settings for hypocritical public posturing by political figures who, in private, would almost certainly opt for torture if they believed it was necessary to save numerous American lives. What is needed is a recognition that government officials must strike an appropriate balance between the security of America and the rights of our enemies. Unless the Democratic Party -- and particularly their eventual candidate for president -- is perceived as strong and smart on national defense and prevention of terrorism, the Bush White House may be proved to have made a clever partisan decision by refusing to make the war against terrorism a bipartisan issue. The Democrats may lose the presidency if they are seen as the party of MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Dennis Kucinich and those senators who voted against Judge Mukasey because he refused to posture on a difficult issue relating to national security. They will win if they are seen as just as tough but a lot smarter on how to deal with real threats to our national interests."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119439827396084663.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Abso-fucking-lutely. BTW, the Democrats lose again.

11/7/2007 5:51:18 AM

i think the guy that bought myspace bought wsj not too long ago

11/7/2007 5:52:54 AM

^ GTFO.

11/7/2007 6:09:37 AM

I'd prefer my nation take the moral high ground than dive down to the terrorists level and start torturing people.

11/7/2007 7:15:13 AM

^

Quote :

"[W]ould you be prepared to accept responsibility for the preventable deaths of hundreds of Americans?"

11/7/2007 7:43:38 AM

would you be prepared to think beyond the immediate consequences of an action?

11/7/2007 7:49:41 AM

Yes, I would accept their deaths as my responsibility for protecting Western ideals, freedom, and morality.

Mostly because I would know that I exhausted all plausible roads to save them. (Torture is only plausible if you are morally deficient.)

11/7/2007 7:54:29 AM

Quote :

"^ And that makes my point for me."

Sigh.

I never claimed that I win becuase 'That's not how you argue!!'. I only said that you're near impossible to argue with when you dismiss others' comments by repeating the same thing over and over or by calling their comments irrelevant.

Again, as joe_schmoe asked you yesterday, why do you do this? Nearly everyone in TSB is making a conscious attempt to engage you without name calling or insults. But you barely seem able to rise above name calling and grammar-nazism. It is apparently impossible for you to move past cut-paste-highlight and have an actual conversation with anyone.

Why is that?

11/7/2007 8:11:45 AM

^

Quote :

"You fail at debate."

11/7/2007 8:33:34 AM