by Jack Lee
The following is in our comments section and it evolved into something I think was too important to leave in back pages of our blog.
Tommy, welcome to our discussion, always nice to have new folks drop in and offer an opinion.
You seem like the voice of reason on so many issues near and dear, especially your thought on offering a pardon to those in the Bush Admin. to prevent the possibility of being tried for war crimes. See like if we are going to back date the rules, then absolutely, its only fair to do that.
Next, you said, “Torture is not Christian. Torture only works to make some one confess to untrue things.” Torture isn’t Christian, i.e. moral, and I agree. I disagree that torture only makes one confess to untrue things.
Anyone in the military who has ever had the experience of being in a SERE school or a POW will likely disagree. The SERE school is offered to people who will have classified information and be close to the front lines. Any SERE student will tell you, the human condition can only endure so much and then you break. It’s only a matter of when, not if.
This was true in WWII and it was true in wars throughout history. By the way, do you think we didn’t use torture during WWII? Well, nothing has changed since then, just because we live in so-called modern times. Today’s enemy is even more ruthless than the NAZI’s, they don’t respect any rules of war and illegally operated without a national flag as combatants. People like that are not subject to any rules of the Geneva Convention, but I digress.
This is why when people, mostly liberals, with no background or poor information on this subject of torture come up with the idea that torture doesn’t work…well, to those who know better, it sounds absurd. I’m not blaming you for your opinion, it’s just that I believe you’ve trusted the wrong sources to form it.
Sure, there are plenty of so-called experts to support what you said, but those who’re being honest and have real first-hand experience will tell you almost every single time it’s used, torture does work… like it or not.
Please bear with me, because this is an important subject to hash over. When time is of the essence, torture is the short cut to getting the information you need to know, and without any question in my mind, this is true.
Imagine you are the military operator of a crypo-machine and the passcode to enter the machine and make it operational is: 16A245B-!T. Unfortunately, you’re captured an the enemy takes you to dank, musty room deep in a concrete basement. There you are stripped naked and shoved inside what looks like a 3-X4- metal box inserted into the brick wall. The door closes on you. It’s pitch black and now you are laying on a metal grill kind of like you might find on a floor furnace. Below you, there is a light, it’s about 6 feet away and you can see what looks like two gas pilot-lights flickering in the darkness. They are reflecting on two large oven burners! You’re told by your captors that you have 30 seconds to give up the code or the burners will come on and you will die. If you lie they will put you back in and you will burn to death. The seconds tick by, you feel claustrophobic, panic sets, you resist every instinct to talk. Then the burners light up and flames slowly rise until your skin is starting to burn, the pain is excruciating… do you bravely burn slowly to your death or doing you break and scream out the secret code?
90% of us will confess, others make take two or three more attempts like this, but 99.9% crack. This was a tactic employed by the SAVAK, the Iranian Secret Police. I got to know these guys back in the early 70-s and this was one of their methods. If you would like to know a bit more about the SAVAK, let me quote from a book ROGUE STATE by William Blum ( http://williamblum.org/about )
“Physical abuse or other degrading treatment was rejected, not only because it is wrong, but because it has historically proven to be ineffective,” said Richard Stolz, Deputy Director of Operations of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1988. ( LIE )
The CIA likes to say things like this because they think it sounds like good plausible denial. But who can believe that torture does not loosen up tongues, that for such purpose it is not exceedingly effective? … Torture’s effectiveness extends yet further, for its purpose is frequently not so much to elicit information as it is to punish, to coerce the victims from any further dissident activity by gouging out the idealism from their very being, and as a warning to their comrades.
For these ends, the CIA has co-existed with torture for decades….” END
Blum is not a conservative voice, he’s often in the far left camp and in this respect he ought to carry some credibility with those are trying to decide if torture works based on their political perspective and who they want to trust as sources.
- Of course torture works and of course torture is wrong!
Now lets take this to one more level and I will leave it alone: Imagine for the moment that you’re the President and you have authorized the killing of Kalid Sheik Mohammed, aka KSM, because he masterminded the 9/11 plot. But, he’s not killed, instead he is captured and credible sources now say he has in play a follow-on attack on the City of Los Angeles, a germ warfare attack! The deadly attack could come in a matter of days and thousands of American lives will be lost and it could be your own Mother and Father who also live there.
The guidance by your Dept. of Justice says enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding or sleep depravation do not “technically” rise to the level of torture. They assure you they could be used to extract information to stop this new terrorist attack. Some in your cabinet disagree, they say this is wrong and that any pain inflicted on another human being is torture. They warn, its illegal and its not the American way.
It’s your call, stand on your principles or let your parents and thousands of others die for those principles?
Time is limited, and you wrestle with the decision knowing that either way you will be held accountable. One one hand you have already issued a warrant to kill this man, and logically speaking death is a lot more severe than any temporary pain from “enhanced interrogation.” Heck, even the Bible says you can exact torturous punishment for transgressions against others. Hammurabi’s Law, an eye for an eye. But, there’s also more, “And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten. Deuteronomy 25:2 “A fool’s lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes. Proverbs 18:6 Judgments are prepared for scorners, and stripes for the back of fools. Proverbs 19:29 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back. Proverbs 26:3 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Exodus 21:20-21 (I am not a Bible expert, I just discovered how helpful the internet can be for clever quotes! )
Your Justice Dept. admits they are making a very fine distinction on what is, and is not torture, but they believe you would be acting within legal parameters if you did, A, B and C, but not D.
What do you do? I know what I would do and I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. By the way, my own Grandson went through similar “enhanced interrogation” tactics aka torture in his SERE school, as do all front line government employees with a top secret clearance must. Hey, if it was good enough for him, it’s good enough for KSM. My instructions would be, start filling the buckets and get the towel ready. I’ll take the blame and if my country wants to try me for a war crime later then I’ll take that risk too, if it will save American lives verses risking one terrorist life. To me that guy was as good as dead anyway from the first time he signed on to kill women and children. And until you can show me a better way… this would be my final decision. I’m fairly convinced that most all of us would rather have that kind of President than one willing err on the side caution and personal sensibilities.
I wonder how we can justify a drone strike if we are so willing restrict injury upon a captive terrorist?
Jack: “You seem like the voice of reason on so many issues near and dear, especially your thought on offering a pardon to those in the Bush Admin. to prevent the possibility of being tried for war crimes. See like if we are going to back date the rules, then absolutely, its only fair to do that.”
But no one is talking about “backdating the rules.” The legal definition of torture has not changed. The tactics employed under the Bush administration were legally torture at the time they were permitted, and they are legally torture now. John Yoo’s unconvincing legal wrangling doesn’t change that.
“People like that are not subject to any rules of the Geneva Convention, but I digress.”
That’s not true. They are not subject to ALL the rules of the Geneva Convention, but the ones regarding torture apply to everyone, not just uniformed soldiers.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/dec/14/dick-cheney/wake-senate-report-dick-cheney-says-terrorists-not/
“This is why when people, mostly liberals, with no background or poor information on this subject of torture come up with the idea that torture doesn’t work…”
The conclusion that torture provided no actionable intelligence was provided by CIA analysts with direct knowledge of the torture program. The only example of torture working to prevent an attack forwarded by the Bush administration was debunked by a simple look at the dates:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2009/04/waterbored.html
The LA attack was prevented long before KSM was even captured. Your hypothetical situations have little to do with what actually transpired.
“I wonder how we can justify a drone strike if we are so willing restrict injury upon a captive terrorist?”
We can’t, and we shouldn’t.
Chris: But no one is talking about “backdating the rules.” The legal definition of torture has not changed. The tactics employed under the Bush administration were legally torture at the time they were permitted, and they are legally torture now. John Yoo’s unconvincing legal wrangling doesn’t change that.”
That is your opinion, but it is far from the final word.
Chris: “The conclusion that torture provided no actionable intelligence was provided by CIA analysts with direct knowledge of the torture program. The only example of torture working to prevent an attack forwarded by the Bush administration was debunked by a simple look at the dates:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2009/04/waterbored.html
The LA attack was prevented long before KSM was even captured. Your hypothetical situations have little to do with what actually transpired.”
My hypothetical was not meant to portray actual events, that’s what hypothetical means. And I try to keep an open mind on many things, but nothing you could say will ever convince me torture doesn’t work to extract information.
Chris as Rush once said, “I am the Mayor of Realville,” for me it’s a matter of seeing things – not reading about them, its about knowing things first hand no hearsay, its about doing things and not… to people who may have been in my control or custody. I’ve always had pretty good luck in my interviews with people in my care. How about you? How many interviews with killers have you done?
I have a classified book in my office, its called “Informant Development and Maintenance” and there is another right next to it, called “Interrogation Tactics”. They have numbers drilled into each page and they are just for internal use. Good reading, if you are cleared to read them – are you?
Based on your comments there is little doubt that I know from personal experience more about this subject than you, but I realize it will never stop you from telling me how misinformed I am. lol Bottom line: I know that nothing I say now will convince you of the truth… so I just quit. Believe what you will. Lets move on. You feel free to have the last word.
“That is your opinion, but it is far from the final word.”
Wha? No, it’s a fact that the legal definition of torture is the same now as when the program began. The Bush torture memos attempted to change the definition by executive fiat–something Republicans are seemingly OK with when Republican presidents do it–but that did not make it any more legal, because the president has no actual power to do that.
I am not arguing that torture never provides accurate information. I am arguing that it is no more reliable than traditional interrogation tactics–certainly not to the point that it justifies its use. I think it is very significant that the only instance Republicans can point to of an attack that was foiled by waterboarding was not, in fact, foiled by waterboarding. This shows that these practices were unnecessary and didn’t need to be done.
But I do appreciate your willingness to call torture what it is. That’s…weirdly refreshing. It’s much more honest than those who continue to deny that what we did was torture, with not even an attempt to explain how it doesn’t fit the legal definition.
Want the truth? Here’s Megan Kelly interviewing one of the CIA interrogators.
CIA interrogation ‘architect’ reacts to interrogation report: James Mitchell speaks out – Dec. 15, 2014 – 13:46 –
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com
What the Democrats did by releasing this report is no different than what Snowden has been accused of doing to harm America and the those who serve to protect us.
Chris you think you’re right, I get it.
I find it incredibly arrogant of you to think that the legal experts you rely on are automatically right. It’s a very rigid way to think. There are equally qualified legal experts with opposing opinions about what constitutes torture and whether or not enemy combatants fall under the Geneva Conventions.
Regarding torture and the report, in the end we are not just talking about a definition which by itself conjures up everything from a scratch to a badly burned, broken, and starved human being. We are talking about decisions and circumstances. We are talking about professional people whose work is risky and dangerous and who put their butts on the line every day for us. We are talking about people tasked with determining what actions, necessary actions, could be taken in a dangerous time. If we just look at a definition and do not also look at and consider the care taken, the intent, safety controls, and oversight as we compare then we are simply attempting to lynch CIA/Bush/Cheney in the court of public opinion as morally equivalent to Dr. Mengele. We are attempting to paint them as equal to Saddam’s sons as they walked through the streets lopping off the hands of citizens and children at random, inciting fear for control and the absolute sense of power it gave them. Distinctions matter in this issue, as do the intentions of those who wrote the report.
Our laws do allow for varying degrees and are subject to interpretation or we wouldn’t need courts or the lawyers who argue cases in them.
No matter what your rigid little mind insists, the Bush attorneys and advisers did what they believed was right and they placed limits on procedures they believed made them fall within the boundaries of the law.
You can make an argument against their position, you can even draw a conclusion, but you cannot claim to be the final or ultimate authority…that would be Gods job.
The following is part of an interview with John Rizzo, the CIA’s former acting general counsel at NPR:
Legal people disagree, Chris.
I sure hope you are not judged by your own rigid standards as your career in teaching plays out. I imagine after thirty or forty years you could easily find yourself in a similar position and be judged by someone who holds hard and fast to definitions.
In my opinion those who wrote and released this report and have taken aim at the CIA, Bush and Cheney and do so for political reasons. Some might even have as an ultimate goal to undermine our Constitutional “inalienable rights”, preferring instead that we all be governed under the UN model of control and designated human rights. These rights are granted by men, not god, which means they can be changed on a whim and offer no guarantees of justice at all. God forbid we ever let the radical left push us that far but we all need to be aware that beneath all of the things they do lies this ultimate, final goal. To them peace will come with a single central body. That’s why so many of them refer to the UN conventions so often. Whether intended or not the Senate report falls in line with this goal.
I will resist that kind of thinking to my dying breath.
Tina, please explain why you believe that waterboarding does not fall under the following legal definition of torture:
“(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”
“Legal people disagree” is not an answer, it is a dodge. You are doing nothing but making an appeal to authority, and you have not offered a real logical explanation for your beliefs on this subject.
“In my opinion those who wrote and released this report and have taken aim at the CIA, Bush and Cheney and do so for political reasons. Some might even have as an ultimate goal to undermine our Constitutional “inalienable rights”, preferring instead that we all be governed under the UN model of control and designated human rights.”
That you can say all this with a straight face while defending a program that ACTUALLY violates Constitutional inalienable rights is unbelievable. You are a master at projection.
Hey don’t preach to me about Constitutional violations. You support and defend the party (and president) that has worked against the Constitution at least since Wilson at the turn of the last century. The current occupant of the WH is in abject defiance of Constitutional restraints on his authority.
I am not a legal authority but you seem to want me to act like one.
I can tell you that in my opinion, after reading what CIA agents have said and after watching and the thoughts of Mr. Rodrigues who defend the procedures as conducted by the US, I am willing to make the distinction between what we did and what Dr. Mengele did. Words are the only tool at my disposal. Unlike the disloyal partisan hacks that wrote and released a bias report putting party before the safety of Americans, I care about the image that the lack of distinction places on those serving our nation.
I refuse to call what we did torture, in part, because of the witch hunt Democrats have been on to harm their political opponents. The word is used as a sledge hammer, not as a means to better policy or as a helpful tool in the war we are forced to engage.
Unfortunately I have to go…
Tina, just be thankful Chris was ****NOT**** our President when the attack was being plotted on Los Angeles by KSM and Al Qaeda. There is no doubt without our enhanced interrogation tactics hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent people would have died in order to preserve his delicate sensibilities. I would rather take the risk of traumatizing the scumbag terrorists if it would stop the attack on us. I would gladly face the consequences, if the pinhead liberals demanded I be punished, but I doubt that any court in America would convict me. I just saved thousands of innocent lives by pouring water on a terrorist…I can live with that.
Tina, please explain why you believe that waterboarding does not fall under the following legal definition of torture:
“(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”
Jack:
“Tina, just be thankful Chris was ****NOT**** our President when the attack was being plotted on Los Angeles by KSM and Al Qaeda. There is no doubt without our enhanced interrogation tactics hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent people would have died in order to preserve his delicate sensibilities. I would rather take the risk of traumatizing the scumbag terrorists if it would stop the attack on us.”
You must have missed my earlier rebuttal to this canard. Care to explain, Jack, how waterboarding KSM in 2003 helped us stop a plot that was, by the Bush administration’s own admission, foiled in 2002? Was the enhanced interrogation program held in tandem with the Bush administration’s lesser known time travel program? If KSM was water boarded 183 more times, would we have been able to go back and stop 9/11?
“If KSM was water boarded 183 more times, would we have been able to go back and stop 9/11?”
And I too await, with bated breath, the answer to this question.
KSM didn’t “spill the beans” while being waterboarded. The interrogator said he knew how long it would last and mocked the interrogators by counting the time off with his fingers.
Also, to be specific the 183 times stated above were mostly 10 seconds long.
All of this information is available in the Dr. James Mithell, one of the interrogators, interview with Megan Kelly I posted in an above comment.
Legal definitions, compliance with the intent of the Constitution, Judicial overrides of voted in propositions. All subject to veto of the voters wishes by our elected maneuvering.
“We the people” are facing an ever expanding Government that’s seems to function at will by rewriting laws as needed to support their issue of favor.
Voters are asked to vote and send messages that contain direction to legislators through the ballot box. And if those votes don’t find favor with said elected they override our votes. So by my definition Government has expanded beyond its intention, and slowly like frogs boiling to death in tepid water to a rolling boil, we voters are fed entitlements and dependency to keep us in place in the pot of no return.
Based on information as released by the same people who voted in favor of war time torture, who now want to distance themselves from it prior to next election, we argue who has the high ground, well right now it’s the current political party, still in charge continuing to pit us against one another.
Off topic.
Very disturbing news on the preparedness of our teachers to teach. Calif. got a D+.
http://www.nctq.org/statePolicy/2014/statePolicyNationalSummary.do
California got a D+??? Well, we’re improving…
Libby: “And I too await, with bated breath, the answer to this question.”
I wouldn’t hold your breath; answering direct questions isn’t usually done here.
Peggy: “KSM didn’t “spill the beans” while being waterboarded. The interrogator said he knew how long it would last and mocked the interrogators by counting the time off with his fingers.”
I’m not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. Are you admitting that waterboarding KSM did not help foil the LA terror plot, which was averted the year before KSM was arrested?
How quickly Libby and Chris forget that after 911 the big question was, “Why did our intelligence officials (Under Clinton) fail to connect the dots?” Especially when Bill Clinton too was engaging in rendition and harsh interrogation.
According to the 2009 report from Stratfor, Obama continued the practice of rendition. Americans have only his word that “torture” is not being engaged in these secret interrogations.
The difference is if you’re a lefty like Clinton or Obama your word is not questioned and you do not become the target of Alinsky #12 style ridicule.
Chris how about you tell me what constitutes “severe physical or mental pain” first. You are such a smart a$$ on the subject, I’m really curious to see how you will define the terms specifically!
Tina, I have no problem answering your reasonable question. Waterboarding clearly causes “severe mental or physical pain,” even by the CIA’s own admission:
Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue Hospital/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated “a number of people” who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including waterboarding. In an interview for The New Yorker, he argued that “it was indeed torture. ‘Some victims were still traumatized years later’, he said. One patient couldn’t take showers, and panicked when it rained. ‘The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience’, he said”.[2] Keller also gave a full description in 2007 in testimony before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the practice:[31]
The CIA’s Office of Medical Services noted in a 2003 memo that “for reasons of physical fatigue or psychological resignation, the subject may simply give up, allowing excessive filling of the airways and loss of consciousness”.[32]
In an open letter in 2007 to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Human Rights Watch asserted that waterboarding can cause the sort of “severe pain” prohibited by 18 USC 2340 (the implementation in the United States of the United Nations Convention Against Torture), that the psychological effects can last long after waterboarding ends (another of the criteria under 18 USC 2340), and that uninterrupted waterboarding can ultimately cause death.[1]
I hope you will respond by answering my question: Why do you think waterboarding does not meet that definition? You seem to keep comparing the practice to things like beheadings and the like, but that doesn’t answer the question; there are degrees of severity, but that doesn’t change the fact that waterboarding does cause severe physical or mental pain.
Ramirez–
http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/michaelramirez/2014/12/16/125882
It used to amaze me how stupid people could be, doesn’t any more. You can put facts in front of people but depending on what the current liberal, progressive/communist message is, facts don’t matter. Jonathan Gruber already proved this to be true. When he spoke of the stupid Americans he was referring to the Obozo supporters, the people that think waterboarding is torture and we didn’t get Bin Laden or other key muslims using it. You can do your own fact checking or you can sit there and suck in the kool-aid. Waterboarding makes you think and feel like you’re drowning when you are only getting wet. Do NOT claim it is torture. I know people that if you tickle their feet they think they are being tortured. Thinking is one thing, stretching a person on a rack is another. I would torture and kill 3000 muslim terrorists if it was a method of getting my child back or preventing my child’s death. If you don’t like torture, quit being a terrorist.
“I would torture and kill 3000 muslim terrorists if it was a method of getting my child back or preventing my child’s death. If you don’t like torture, quit being a terrorist.” Victor Lawson
Heck, I would like kill 3000 Muslim terrorists for any reason. Buy me cup of coffee and we’ll call it close enough. Every terrorist on the face of the earth deserves to be put to death. They are baby killers, I have no sympathy for baby killers.
My favorite line from Victors comments was this, “If you don’t like torture, quit being a terrorist.”
Excellent link. Love the cartoons!
Sorry Chris but you still have not answered the question I am asking.
I don’t want generic psychological evaluation because those opinions can be countered with other opposing expert opinions. Also they do not apply specifically to what was actually done.
The opinions you cite are about what could happen, not what DID happen, which gets to the crux of the problem for me. Tje radical political accusation that we “torture” people is a generic accusation that makes no distinction between what was done in a controlled environment to get information and save lives and the evil experiments done by Dr. Mengele or the horrendous things done to our servicemen on the Baatan Death March. In my opinion that makes the accusation a deceit…a lie.
I was asking where you think the line should be drawn. That is what the Bush administration had to grapple with in an atmosphere in which they could not know whether something as terrible as 911, or worse, could be about to happen.
Your question is deceitful to me for the same reason, Chris. It asks for an answer that could include anything from the acted out waterboarding we’ve seen in movies to the harshest of conditions imaginable.
You have assumed waterboarding always causes damage and demanded that I defend my approval of that. that’s what’s known as a set up; a gotcha question.
I don’t agree with your premise. The care that was taken in drawing the line is what makes America different from our enemies who have no rules and would stoop to anything.
We are talking about civility and respect for life.
You and your radical lefty buddies see no difference between American practices under Bush and the deeds of our enemies past and present, at least you don’t when Bush/Cheney can be condemned as evil on an international stage.
Have I made it clear that I do not trust the motives, or the loyalty, of radicals in your party? They have made themselves untrustworthy by their actions. This is just one of many such instances I have witnessed through the years. Obama is simply the latest figurehead and this report simply another salvo meant to damage the America I know and love.
Pie, Ramirez is the most talented political cartoonist I’ve ever seen. Both his artwork and his mind are perfection…this one is right on the money!
#15 Chris: “I’m not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. Are you admitting that waterboarding KSM did not help foil the LA terror plot, which was averted the year before KSM was arrested?”
No, I’m saying according to one of the interrogators who waterboarded KSM it had no affect on him, therefore, it is not torture. It’s all in the video interview I posted that you obviously haven’t watched. See comment #4.
Instead of relying on what other people, who were NOT there, THINK happened how about listening to someone who was actually there and took part in the KSM interrogation.
“Sorry Chris but you still have not answered the question I am asking.”
You asked “what constitutes severe physical or mental pain.” I offered many sources, including the CIA’s own medical office, explaining that waterboarding constitutes severe mental and physical pain. What more do you want from me? Are you just trying to avoid answering the question I asked you?
This is all so disingenuous– the entire point of enhanced interrogation is to make the subject suffer until they break. If waterboarding didn’t cause severe physical or mental pain, it wouldn’t be used.
“The opinions you cite are about what could happen, not what DID happen,”
That’s simply not true.
“which gets to the crux of the problem for me. Tje radical political accusation that we “torture” people”
It’s not a political accusation. It is a fact based on legal definitions. You have still provided nothing to counter the fact that waterboarding clearly conforms to the legal definition of torture. At least Jack has acknowledged that.
“is a generic accusation that makes no distinction between what was done in a controlled environment to get information and save lives and the evil experiments done by Dr. Mengele or the horrendous things done to our servicemen on the Baatan Death March. In my opinion that makes the accusation a deceit…a lie”
That makes no sense. Are you actually saying there cannot be degrees of torture?
When people shoplift, should we not call that “stealing” because it isn’t as bad as committing an armed bank robbery?
You have argued previously that we should not change the definition of words in order to accommodate the feelings of special interest groups, but that’s exactly what you are asking others to do here. The tactics you are endorsing fit the legal definition of torture. The fact that the Bataan Death March and Dr. Mengele’s experiments also fall under that definition does nothing to change that fact.
“I was asking where you think the line should be drawn.”
Well that’s not what you said, so I’m not sure how you expected me to know that.
The ethical dilemma of the ticking time bomb scenario is bandied about a lot by conservatives. What do you do if you know a bomb is about to go off in a major city, and you have a terrorist in custody who has information critical to stopping the plot? Do you refuse to torture the info out of him and let thousands die?
In such a situation, even I would acknowledge that if other options don’t work, one would be justified in doing whatever they can to get the information out of the guy. That includes waterboarding and worse. But those are extremely unlikely circumstances, and we don’t need to broadly legalize waterboarding or similar means of interrogation in order to account for that minute possibility–any agent who found themselves in that position would obviously be pardoned and even the most ardent liberal would, faced with the evidence, have to concede that the agent did the right thing.
But nothing like that ever happened. There was never any ticking time bomb situation. Instead, we waterboarded KSM 183 times, and the most conservatives can say we got out of him was info on how to stop a terror plot that was prevented a year before; we tortured 26 innocent people, including two of our own informants, by mistake; we tortured people for information on how to best plan the war in Iraq; and we let one prisoner die of hypothermia while he was chained naked to the floor. None of this is justified under any ethical framework I’ve ever heard of.
“Your question is deceitful to me for the same reason, Chris. It asks for an answer that could include anything from the acted out waterboarding we’ve seen in movies to the harshest of conditions imaginable.”
No, it was a perfectly clear question. You’ve claimed that waterboarding doesn’t fall under the legal definition of torture, and I asked you to explain why. If you find it deceitful for people to ask you why you hold the political beliefs you do, then I think you’ve picked the wrong hobby.
“You have assumed waterboarding always causes damage”
No, my question does not rest on that assumption. It rests on the assumption that waterboarding always causes severe pain. That is a fact.
“that’s what’s known as a set up; a gotcha question.”
Sometimes a gotcha question is justified because the person being asked the question is too easily got. I understand that you don’t have a real answer to my question, but that’s not a problem with the question, it’s a problem with your belief.
“I don’t agree with your premise.”
Which premise? That waterboarding does not cause severe physical or mental pain? WHY don’t you disagree with this? What evidence do you have that it does not cause such pain? See are not unfair
The care that was taken in drawing the line is what makes America different from our enemies who have no rules and would stoop to anything
We are talking about civility and respect for life.
You and your radical lefty buddies see no difference between American practices under Bush and the deeds of our enemies past and present, at least you don’t when Bush/Cheney can be condemned as evil on an international stage.
Have I made it clear that I do not trust the motives, or the loyalty, of radicals in your party? They have made themselves untrustworthy by their actions. This is just one of many such instances I have witnessed through the years. Obama is simply the latest figurehead and this report simply another salvo meant to damage the America I know and love.
Sorry, hit submit too early.
“I don’t agree with your premise.”
Which premise? That waterboarding does not cause severe physical or mental pain? WHY don’t you disagree with this? What evidence do you have that it does not cause such pain? These are not unfair questions. They are crucial to supporting your claim that waterboarding is not torture.
“The care that was taken in drawing the line”
If so much care was taken, why were 26 innocent people subjected to these tactics? Why were the subcontractors who were hired to do this people with no interrogation training, histories of anger management problem and sexual offenses? Why were they hired to assess their own effectiveness? Why were they able to get away with lying to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress for so long? Why do we have no evidence that anything was even gained from these practices?
You have yet to even acknowledge any of these serious bureaucratic failings with this big government program.
“We are talking about civility and respect for life.”
*snort* Tina, how can someone with civility and respect for life (or liberty) support a program which completely violates the right to due process, then subjects innocent people to enhanced interrogation techniques, and lets one suspect (charged with no crime) die of hypothermia while chained to a floor naked? Is this some kind of sick joke?
“Have I made it clear that I do not trust the motives, or the loyalty, of radicals in your party?”
Abundantly. That has NOTHING to do with this conversation.
“They have made themselves untrustworthy by their actions.”
“I support torture because liberals are mean” is not a valid argument. It would make a funny bumper sticker though.
Peggy: “No, I’m saying according to one of the interrogators who waterboarded KSM it had no affect on him, therefore, it is not torture. It’s all in the video interview I posted that you obviously haven’t watched. See comment #4.”
Your link simply takes me to the latest video posted by Fox News, which is now a story about Cuba. I will have to Google your claim.
But the argument is fallacious anyway. Even if waterboarding had no effect on this particular man (and I find that highly unlikely), that wouldn’t justify its legalization or it’s broad use, since it does have a strong effect on most subjects.
And if it “had no effect on him,” then obviously the claim that he gave up valuable information under waterboarding is a lie; why would he do this if the waterboarding had no effect?
So which is it, Peggy: did waterboarding have no effect on him, or did he give in and reveal critical intel under the pressure of this extremely effective interrogation technique? Both of those claims can not possibly be true.
If waterboarding had no effect on KSM, why did it take us 183 times to figure that out?
“Instead of relying on what other people, who were NOT there, THINK happened”
You are woefully uninformed about the contents of the torture report. It contains testimony from many CIA agents who personally observed the tactics documented and expressed their discomfort with what was going on. They were pressured to keep their mouths shut and not rock the boat. Not everyone in the CIA believed that what they were doing was right or even that it was working.
But I guess by right wing extremist logic, that makes them traitors.
Shorter Victor: “What we did wasn’t torture, and also torture works and we should keep doing it.”
Thank you for summing up the GOP’s inherently contradictory and dishonest stance on this issue in one short comment.
Chris I know exactly what he was saying, he disagrees that waterboarding is the kind of thing we normally think of as torture, but if that “torture” as you and yours call it, works, then he’s all for it. Why do we have to play these games all the time?
Victor: “Waterboarding makes you think and feel like you’re drowning when you are only getting wet. Do NOT claim it is torture.”
Did you miss the part where I showed everyone that mental suffering falls under the legal definition of torture?
Or do conservatives now believe that their own personal definitions of words override the law?
(As a side note, my eighth graders are currently constructing a debate over whether the narrator from “The Tell-Tale Heart” should be found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. Some of them were arguing that he doesn’t fit their personal definition of insane, to which I explained that because we are talking about a legal verdict, they have to use the legal definition, not their own personal one. They understood this after one day. Why are grown adults having such trouble with the same basic concept?)
CHRIS, CHRIS, OMG….I’ve been tortured! I lost my job once… it caused me mental suffering. My boss was a criminal because he laid me off…I had no idea until you explained what torture is! I wonder how many others out here have been tortured? ANYONE… have you ever been subjected to mental suffering? I think we have a whole new class of victims according to Chris’ definition of torture.
Q. If we put somebody in jail isn’t that torture? Causes a lot of mental suffering, right?
Jack, I’m not trying to play games; I think your version of what Victor said is a lot more intellectually honest than what he (and most others here) actually wrote.
I am glad you acknowledge waterboarding as torture (as anyone who can read the legal definition must), but I think you’re neglecting the fact that under US law as well as our legally binding treaties, torture is illegal. Bush worked his way around this by arguing that waterboarding wasn’t torture, which was dishonest. Doesn’t it bother you that the executive branch broke the law and acted with unrestrained power in this matter? If they wanted to legalize it they should have gone about it the right way, through Congressional action. Isn’t that what you demand of Obama? Why not hold his predecessor to the same standard? And yes, I believe Obama has been guilty of this as well through his legalization of indefinite detention, which really should be protested more by conservatives and liberals, but both sides have partisan motivations not to go after him on this.
Then there’s your statement “if it works,” but we have no evidence that it did in any case. The LA example was debunked by Bush’s own timeline. And we have a ton of evidence that it backfired, as we ended up torturing 26 innocent people (at least!) and the entire program was incompetently run as I have previously documented. And all for the purpose of punishing people before they are charged with any crime, which is a gross violation of our Constitution, and as huge an intrusion by big government that could possibly be imagined. The most sacred rights of people are our rights to life and liberty, and both were compromised by is program for no demonstrably good purpose.
All of this is a violation of the values conservatives claim to hold dear, but only John McCain is speaking out against it. He is called a RINO and on many issues he may not be considered conservative enough, but on this one he is the only notable voice speaking for conservative values of preserving the Constitution and holding the government accountable for incompetence and wrongdoing. In this case conservative values happen to correspond with what I believe are shared American values. It is a shame to see so many on the right turn their back on both at a time when the year most needed.
Jack: “If we put somebody in jail isn’t that torture? Causes a lot of mental suffering, right?”
Well, that’ll teach me to call you intellectually honest.
Again, here is the definition:
(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
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340
So no, putting someone in jail doesn’t count, because that obviously qualifies as “pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions,” and losing your job or other facts of life certainly don’t count, because they are not “committed by a person acting under the color of law,” nor is it committed “against another person within his custody or physical control,” and it’s very unlikely that such events would count as “severe” pain or suffering under the law.
I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you seriously didn’t get what this definition meant. I hope it’s the former; I shudder to think that a cop could be thisbad at reading a law.
Here Chris, I found the full interview.
Dr James Mitchell Full Interview with Megyn Kelly: The Man Who Waterboarded and Interviewed KSM – 12/15/14
http://uneditedpolitics.com/dr-james-mitchell-full-interview-with-megyn-kelly-the-man-who-waterboarded-and-interviewed-ksm-121514/
Here is a short video of the waterboarding not working.
Dr. James Mitchell: Waterboarding didn’t work on KSM but we got the info out of him with the other EITs:
http://nomorecocktails.com/post/2014/12/15/Dr-James-Mitchell-Waterboarding-didnt-work-on-KSM-but-we-got-the-info-out-of-him-with-the-other-EITs.aspx
No Chris, I am not woefully uninformed. My information came from the man who actually did the interrogation of KSM and not on political members of a committee who have an agenda to promote.
This man was a reluctant participant in the KSM interrogation. He says he did so only after realizing the brave men and women who died on the plane that went down in the field to save those in the WH or Capital. He is a very humble, mild-mannered man who feels he did what he had to do to help save American lives, after the DOJ approved all of the techniques they used.
Give up trying to convince people the report is the truth source. People with agendas don’t write the truth.
I really wish you would stop talking down to me, like I’m some kind of idiot. I may not have achieved your level of education, but I’m not stupid and I resent being treated like I am.
Degrees aren’t awarded for common sense or experience of which Democrats seem to be lacking in both.
Think Chris, think! Stop letting others do your thinking for you.
Sorry Chris but you still have not answered the question. I did not ask you for “source” material. I want you to set the limits so we know what you are opposing exactly.
Of course you don’t have to answer but as long as you don’t or won’t, and as long as you’re willing to insinuate that what was done is equal to what Dr. Mengele did with your vague generic definition, I cannot and will not support the use of the word torture.
Jack is speaking about reality from a professional perspective.
I’m talking politics and there is a very big difference.
I’m addressing the fact that radical Democrats chose to use this word and in doing so accuse the Bush administration of engaging in intolerable acts the equal of Mengele. They knew the images it would conjure up, despicable images, and they didn’t care that those images did not match the truth. They did not care that their accusations could put our troops and allies in danger. It was pure Alinsky #12, a political hit job!
As to the definition, severe is a subjective word, so are pain and suffering. Your definition and “facts” mean different things in different contexts and to different people. Radicals in the Dem Party know that.
I am asking, where would you draw the line if you were under the same stress conditions as our president and the CIA following 911. Where would you draw the line with respect to pain if you had to make vital decisions that might mean the difference between saving thousands of lives or seeing them murdered in a hellish manner like we all witnessed on live TV on September 11, 2001? What is severe? What is lasting pain? If you had to define them and create the parameters for those who would execute your orders what would you allow them to do?
Intellectuals hide behind definitions. They bring them out when they want to do damage or look superior. Rarely would you see them put their own asses on the line.
Obama, the so-called intellectual, has chosen to appear detached from the messy decisions, the tough decisions, of a commander-in-chief. Drones afford him that pretense; his party affiliation has given him cover so far.
Readers might be interested in excerpts from GWB’s memoir, “Decision Points,” posted at CNN:
I cannot imagine Obama ever assuming that level of responsibility and certainty. He’s a finger pointer and an excuse maker.
The members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, that were briefed in specific detail by Rodriguez told him they agreed with the use of the techniques he described. You can’t tell me they expected he would play patty cake. They knew exactly what they were agreeing to and they wanted it done…until they didn’t.
Talking with Jack I’d have no problem using the word torture because I know he has experience and training, I know what he means when he uses the word, and I know where his loyalties lie.
Radical leftists are liars and deceivers against our nation. They prefer the kind of power and control we can observe in regimes like Cuba, Venezuela, and even Iran and as the dictators of those nations do, the radical leftists will do or say anything to undermine the opposition party and take America in that direction.
Jack at #33…YES!!!!
Jack: “Q. If we put somebody in jail isn’t that torture? Causes a lot of mental suffering, right?
Not only mental but physical if the prison stories are even remotely accurate!
People endure some pretty hairy therapies when they have cancer or paralysis. I’m pretty sure that by that definition, the nurses that help them are torturers! It doesn;t matter that their intentions are good or that they might save lives!
What about boxers…they “torture” each other unmercifully!
Re Post #38
All very well, if all out victims were terrorists, but that’s not the case, is it.
And you just don’t care, do you?
So … should you ever happen to be on the receiving end (and we can only hope), you will have reaped what you’ve sown … won’t you?
Tina, if I can piggy back on your examples here are two I’ve heard this week.
Two kidnappers take your child. You are able to capture one of them who knows where the other is taking your child. How far would you go to get the kidnapper to tell you where your child was taken?
Terrorist have planted a nuclear bomb somewhere in LA. You have in custody one of the terrorist who knows where the bomb is hidden. What would you do to save the lives of millions who are trapped in the city and can’t get out before the bomb is set to go off?
The above examples are similar to the situation that existed after 911. Don’t judge others for their actions until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes.
Talk is cheap. Saying what one thinks they’d do in a situation they’d never been in before is not founded in fact. Hearing from people who lived the actual experience is the foundation for the truth and should be the starting point for all discussions.
There are two sides to this discussion, and no middle ground. So is this a moral stand or just more political positioning.
I am on the side that serves Americas needs best during times of war.
This link to Judge Jeanine which Slams Sen. Feinstein is more to the side I favor.
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/judge-jeanine-slams-sen-feinstein-you-support-killings-americans-without-due-process#tB2HNT:StD
Here’s Sharyl Attkisson’s interview with Dr. Mitchell where he discloses it was sleep deprivation that got KSM to talk and that OSHA industrial guides were used for the volume level.
‘We Had to Do Our Duty’: Raw Video of Sharyl Attkisson’s Interview With the Man Who Waterboarded the 9/11 Mastermind:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/12/17/duty-raw-video-sharyl-attkissons-interview-man-waterboarded-911-mastermind/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRolu6jOZKXonjHpfsX57%2BoqUKK1gIkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMSMZmPK%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm
Libby: “All very well, if all out victims were terrorists, but that’s not the case, is it.”
What source tells you that even suspects were totally uninvolved, knew nothing, AND still they were treated under HARSH interrogation?
Now you really are running into the weeds, accusing the US of randomly subjecting people to harsh interrogation.
“And you just don’t care, do you?”
No Libby, I don’t care about the fantasies concocted by the Saul Alinsky, Che Guevera loving left! That bunch is up to no good.
“So … should you ever happen to be on the receiving end (and we can only hope), you will have reaped what you’ve sown … won’t you?”
Yeah, I love you too, Sweetheart. And I’m as concerned about that happening as much as I am certain that you will become a rational (Awake!!!) human being.
Peggy at #41. As log as they’re on the sidelines they claim to hold to the highest impossible standard so they can use Alinsky # 4 against those with the responsibility.
Alinsky #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
First of all we on the right are “the enemy,” second when the standard is defined as perfection ain’t nobody that can live up to it and they know that but still do it.
I have also observed that often when liberals are walking in those shoes, being ill-equipped and ill-prepared, they hit out wildly or seek safety and hide.
Bill Clinton’s factory hit is one example. Obama’s drone hits and turning his back on taking prisoners give him cover.
Tina: “Sorry Chris but you still have not answered the question.”
You have GOT to be kidding me.
“I did not ask you for “source” material. I want you to set the limits so we know what you are opposing exactly.”
I already made my limits very clear. In a ticking time-bomb scenario, torture would be justified as a last resort. Other than that, our government should not break the law by intentionally inflicting severe mental and/or physical pain on subjects in order to gain information. Interrogators should stick to traditional methods of interrogation that have served our country well for decades.
There. Question asked and answered. Now please, answer mine.
“as long as you’re willing to insinuate that what was done is equal to what Dr. Mengele did”
Dear God, woman–I ALREADY EXPLAINED to you that I do not think they are equal! I explained that there are degrees of torture. I even used the example of how both shoplifting and armed bank robbery are forms of stealing to help you understand this. Just because there are worse forms of torture than waterboarding does not mean that waterboarding is not torture. Your argument is completely fallacious.
“with your vague generic definition”
It’s not MY definition, you bloody liar, it is the LAW’s.
But I’ll remember this next time you claim to be in favor of “the rule of law.”
“I cannot and will not support the use of the word torture.”
So you won’t acknowledge the existence of a legal definition until your opponent stops making an argument that they’ve never actually made? WTF? How is that even remotely a rational or intellectually honest position?
You do not argue in good faith.
“Jack is speaking about reality from a professional perspective.”
Given his utter failure at reading and understanding the legal definition of torture, which is written in very plain language, you’ll have to forgive me for not taking his “professional perspective” very seriously. Either he is genuinely bad at reading laws, or he is pretending to be; neither reflects well on his arguments.
“I’m talking politics and there is a very big difference.”
Of course. All you care about is politics. It doesn’t matter whether something is factual or moral to you, all that matters is if it helps Republicans and hurts Democrats.
“I’m addressing the fact that radical Democrats chose to use this word”
BECAUSE IT FITS THE LEGAL DEFINITION.
“and in doing so accuse the Bush administration of engaging in intolerable acts the equal of Mengele.”
Nope. The only person making that comparison is you.
“They knew the images it would conjure up, despicable images, and they didn’t care that those images did not match the truth.”
Read the report. Despicable images, such as rectal feeding and chaining naked prisoners to the floor to let them die, ARE THE TRUTH. Every single accusation in the report is backed up with primary source documents such as the CIA’s own internal e-mails.
“They did not care that their accusations could put our troops and allies in danger.”
In what way have they put our troops and allies in danger?
“As to the definition, severe is a subjective word, so are pain and suffering. Your definition and “facts” mean different things in different contexts and to different people.”
Then why don’t you go get waterboarded and then come back and tell us whether or not what you experienced counted as severe pain and suffering. I remember Hannity offered to do this once for charity, nearly five years ago, and has never fulfilled his promise; I wonder why that is?
SCOTT KEYES: Before we get started I wanted to say one quick thing. Back in April 2009, you’d made a very generous offer. To prove that it’s not torture, you agreed on your television show to be waterboarded for charity and to donate the proceeds to the troops’ families.
HANNITY: I said Charles Grodin could do it.
KEYES: Now I know you’re an honorable guy Sean, when are you planning to hold the event?
HANNITY: You’re obviously taping this. I’m not getting into your five-year-old issue. Here I am bringing you on the program and give you an opportunity to give your pretty radical left-wing point of view, that’s kind of the way you treat me. But that’s all right.
KEYES: Sean, I’m just curious because you don’t think this is torture.
HANNITY: Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. I get to ask the questions on the program.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/31/1518741/sean-hannity-waterboard/
Comedy gold.
“Intellectuals hide behind definitions.”
lolololololol
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
–Isaac Asimov
What Bush had been told worked is irrelevant since we now know that the CIA lied to Bush about the effectiveness of the program. (Read the report.)
“Talking with Jack I’d have no problem using the word torture because I know he has experience and training, I know what he means when he uses the word, and I know where his loyalties lie.”
So it’s fine for conservatives to call it torture, but not OK for liberals to call it torture. Got it. We have now reached peak idiocy; everyone can go home now, the Internet’s over.
Tina: “Not only mental but physical if the prison stories are even remotely accurate!
People endure some pretty hairy therapies when they have cancer or paralysis. I’m pretty sure that by that definition, the nurses that help them are torturers! It doesn;t matter that their intentions are good or that they might save lives!”
I see that you are just as bad at reading laws as Jack.
Once more, with feeling:
“(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”
Do you know what “incidental to lawful sanctions” means? Do you know what “color of law” means? Do you know what “specifically intended” means? Do you know what “within his custody or physical control” means?
You cannot argue that waterboarding does not fit this definition so you are simply ignoring the text of the law. You believe that the executive branch has the right to ignore laws they don’t like when the head of that branch happens to be a Republican.
“What about boxers…they “torture” each other unmercifully!”
What could you possibly stand to gain from pretending to be this stupid?
Peggy: “Two kidnappers take your child. You are able to capture one of them who knows where the other is taking your child. How far would you go to get the kidnapper to tell you where your child was taken?
Terrorist have planted a nuclear bomb somewhere in LA. You have in custody one of the terrorist who knows where the bomb is hidden. What would you do to save the lives of millions who are trapped in the city and can’t get out before the bomb is set to go off?
The above examples are similar to the situation that existed after 911.”
No, there was no situation that happened that was remotely similar to the hypotheticals you just described.
I’ve already said that in a ticking time bomb situation torture would be justified. But there never was such a situation, so there is no justification for what was done. And we certainly don’t need to legalize torture across the board in order to justify torture in a ticking time bomb situation.
What actually happened was absolutely not a last resort. Again: We tortured people simply for information on how to best plan the Iraq War! We waterboarded KSM 183 times before figuring out it didn’t work. That isn’t justified under any ethical philosophy.
“Here’s Sharyl Attkisson’s interview with Dr. Mitchell where he discloses it was sleep deprivation that got KSM to talk and that OSHA industrial guides were used for the volume level.”
Interesting. I’m not sure I would consider sleep deprivation or the playing of loud, constant music extreme enough to be considered “torture”–I know that even many human rights groups don’t call it that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Interrogation
So I can’t say for sure whether this particular method was unjustified. But clearly, KSM’s ordeal can no longer be used to justify the practice of waterboarding, since even those defending the CIA from the Senate report now admit it didn’t work.
Tina: “What source tells you that even suspects were totally uninvolved, knew nothing, AND still they were treated under HARSH interrogation?”
Remember, subjects: It is your responsibility to prove your innocence.
Second answer: The goddamn torture report which you still haven’t freaking read. ALL of it is backed up by the CIA’s own internal documents.
And really–why do you have such a hard time believing that the CIA may have subjected innocent people to this treatment? Do you think the Founding Fathers just put the eighth amendment in there for shits and gigs?
Damnit Chris I have told you I am talking from a political perspective. I have questioned the use of the word torture as used by Democrats because I see it being used as a political tool. they could give a rip about truth or the eighth amendment!
I have explained that the Bush administration did what any administration in similar circumstances would do IF they had any integrity. They sought the advice of legal council, medical professionals, AND the members of Congress that served in an oversight capacity and all three gave the green light for the described procedures falling within the parameters of the law.
I have explained that I think it is really SH!**y that Democrats, when it became politically advantageous to them, shoved Americans serving in harms way and our allies off a cliff just to deliver a big black eye to GWB/Cheney.
The political use of the word has nothing to do with the eighth amendment. The dam* report is incomplete and partisan. I do not accept your position and have no desire to try to move you from it.
War is a different animal. Drone strikes also do not pass muster under the eighth amendment…soldier shooting people; that doesn’t pass muster either…grow the he&& up!
You aren’t communicating. You are playing teacher, which means you do not listen you just talk.
I am done!
Tina: “Damnit Chris I have told you I am talking from a political perspective. I have questioned the use of the word torture as used by Democrats because I see it being used as a political tool. they could give a rip about truth or the eighth amendment!”
And because you believe they don’t, you don’t have to either. Anything you do is justified by anything they do.
“I have explained that the Bush administration did what any administration in similar circumstances would do IF they had any integrity.”
So why are you not at least angry that the CIA LIED to the Bush administration about the effectiveness of this program and the extent of the tactics used?
“I have explained that I think it is really SH!**y that Democrats, when it became politically advantageous to them, shoved Americans serving in harms way and our allies off a cliff”
You haven’t explained it, you’ve asserted it. I asked you to explain HOW this report harmed Americans and allies, and you chose not to respond. Do you understand the difference between making an assertion and explaining that assertion?
“The political use of the word has nothing to do with the eighth amendment.”
But detaining people and subjecting them to harsh interrogation with no due process does.
“The dam* report is incomplete and partisan.”
You’ve provided absolutely zero evidence of this. You seem to believe that simply asserting things makes them true.
“I do not accept your position”
I’ve not asked you to accept my position. I’ve asked you to acknowledge the law. You have refused to do so.
“War is a different animal. Drone strikes also do not pass muster under the eighth amendment…”
I know, I’ve said that multiple times.
“soldier shooting people; that doesn’t pass muster either…”
Yes, it does. Thank you for once again showing that you have absolutely zero knowledge of the law.
“You aren’t communicating. You are playing teacher, which means you do not listen you just talk.”
I’ve asked you multiple times to answer direct questions and you took me in circles. Don’t blame me for your lack of ability to defend your position.
If you have to resort to playing a fool in order to defend your position, your position is not worth defending.
Chris you ask a question that doesn’t apply in the context of my position. Your question is meaningless. You don’t live in the real world but some fantasy of liberal stringent perfection. And since you insist on defending and approving of a witch hunt report you are not, in my estimation, even qualified to discuss the use of harsh interrogation or whether what was done was legal. You don’t care about the truth, you don’t care about the safety of our troops and agents in the field or our allies, you don’t care that the Feinstein stunt report empowers our enemies! You don;t care that the people you give your support to put politics before the safety of the American people and the strength of the allied position in this fight against ruthless, barbarian, murdering zealots.
Your “knowledge of the law is the same as mine. You rely on legal opinion just as I do. The legal advice given to the Bush administration AND the Democrats that gave the okay was that what we did fell within the parameters of the law. I am not a lawyer and I am certainly no expert in this field…NOR ARE YOU! The difference between us is that I am willing to acknowledge there are differing legal opinions and you insist that you are right. (Only an arrogant narcissist would have such cheek)
Being called a fool by you is an extreme compliment.
Tina: “Your question is meaningless.”
You’ve reached a new low of dishonesty.
I asked you how waterboarding fails to meet the legal definition of torture. The idea that this question is not relevant in the current debate is simply absurd.
The reason you cannot answer that question–the ONLY reason–is that waterboarding clearly meets the legal definition of torture. If it did not, surely you could come up with SOME argument for why it doesn’t. But it does, so you can’t.
Please stop blaming me for your own failures to back up your argument. Take some personal responsibility.
“you don’t care that the Feinstein stunt report empowers our enemies!”
I asked you to explain how the report empowers our enemies. You could not do that either. The reason for that is because the report does not empower our enemies. If it did, this question would not be difficult for you to answer.
“Your “knowledge of the law is the same as mine.”
Please. Earlier you claimed not to understand why waterboarding fits the legal definition of torture while chemotherapy and boxing matches don’t. You also said that a soldier shooting an enemy during combat is a violation of the eighth amendment, which is egregiously untrue. Your knowledge of the law is abysmal. Either that, or you are pretending to have less knowledge than you really do in order to make your point. Which, again, makes your point not worth making.
“The difference between us is that I am willing to acknowledge there are differing legal opinions and you insist that you are right.”
No, the difference is that I am willing to back up my opinion with evidence, logic, and straight answers–NOT just appeals to authority–and you are not.
Chris, it’s Christmas…don’t you feel the least little bit charitable? Why do you rail on Tina so much?
Jack I will do my best not to engage Chris in future. It’s difficult for me since I enjoy responding to people with alternate views. It’s unfortunate but I think it’s best for all concerned.
“No Libby, I don’t care about the fantasies concocted by the Saul Alinsky, Che Guevera loving left! That bunch is up to no good.”
What the eff are you talking about?
This subject has got you completely unhinged.
Jack, why should I be charitable to people who don’t argue with anything approaching honesty? Tina very strongly implied that once I answered her questions, she would answer mine. So I answered her questions, even though I asked first, and she responded by ludicrously claiming my question wasn’t relevant! Note: She said waterboarding wasn’t legally torture, so I asked how that can be possible given the legal definition. The notion that this question is irrelevant is completely absurd. It is central to her argument. But since she can’t answer it honestly and still hold onto her position, she pretends it away.
Meanwhile both of you are making ridiculous comparisons between waterboarding and things like chemotherapy and losing one’s job, in defiance of all common sense and reason. You asked me how those things didn’t fit the legal definition of torture even though it clearly says that the suffering has to be intentional, has to be against a person in custody, and has to be done “under the color of law.” I hardly see how either of you have behaved in a “charitable” manner in this debate. Especially when you’ve accused the authors of this report of lying, with absolutely no evidence to support such a claim, while all of the accusations in the report–most of which you have refused to respond to–are backed up with hard evidence from primary sources within the CIA.
Maybe Santa will feel more charitable than I do right now and bring you some honesty and a dictionary for Christmas.
Libby, I almost envy them. It must be nice to be able to yell “Saul Alinksy!” every time someone brings up a fact you’d rather ignore. If only this tactic worked in areas of life other than conservative blogs.
Cop gives you a ticket? “Saul Alinksy!”
Want to get out of jury duty? “Saul Alinsky!”
Caught for tax evasion? “Saul Alinsky!”
But remember, Republicans are totes the party of personal responsibility.
Chris I see you’re doing another Saul Alinksy with Libby!! Shame, shame…you Saul and now Libby, what strange bedfellows. I hope you have not been reading too much Saul Alinksy; you’ve got to get over your crush on Saul. Have you memorized the Saul Alinksy play book yet? Almost? Saul Alinksy would be proud, they should issue a red ribbon or some such thing…the Saul Alinksy award, yeah, that’s the ticket. But, if you think Saul Alinksy is good, wait till you start reading Karl Marx, Groucho’s half brother…
“Jack I will do my best not to engage Chris in future”
You haven’t “engaged” with anything, Tina. You’ve dodged, in comical fashion.