I think it is important to prevent barbarians from turning our society into a copy of theirs. They murder and torture, we do not.

Waterboarding does not torture make. Enhanced interrogation techniques does not a barbaric society make.

Decapitation, wood-chippers, rape rooms, electrocution, yanking fingernails and teeth, being buried alive, human experimentation, sun treatment, or in the case of Japan's Unit 731 during WW2, dissection organ by organ of American POW's (while still alive and in front of other POW's awaiting the same fate). And let's not forget how many unarmed civilians were also subjected to these types of treatments in the Phillipines, Japan and the Middle East.

I have zero problem with the waterboarding techniques *our* military uses to gain necessary information from non-uniformed military combatants who are gleefully plotting the mass murder of Americans. In fact, I sleep better at night knowing we are prepared to use it against these despicable excuses for human beings.

I've read similiar [sic] things about preserving life under Islam (like how lying and pretending to be an apostate to save one's life is permitted), but never this specifically.

I suspect that is because Thiessen is (and this is a technical term) "a lying douchebag."

So, you think waterboarding isn't torture? Or you are ok with torturing?

Have you seen the video of yer pal Christopher Hitchens being waterboarded?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58
He concluded that it is definitively torture.

I'm not, personally, good with the whole allowing my government to torture in my name thing.

You don't trust the government to run an insurance racket and decide who should get to see a glaucoma specialist, but you're okay with them deciding who it is okay to drown?

I don't get it.

A dirty little secret -- most special forces have been trained to resist water boarding during survival school.

Take a guess how?

Sorry, Amy, but we do not get to change our stance on the issue when it's convenient for us. The U.S. has considered waterboarding to be torture at least since 1947, when we sentenced Yukio Asano to fifteen years hard labor for practicing this technique. We called it a war crime then, and it's still a war crime today.

Special forces training to resist waterboarding have the key distinction of volunteering for it and retaining the option to end it when they want.

As for whether or not the government should be waterboarding terrorists, how many of these individuals have been convicted before they're waterboarded? I'm not comfortable with any government assurance that, "oh, don't worry, we only waterboard terrorists." Bullshit.

None of that should matter, anyway. Patrick's right. "They want us to waterboard them" is pathetic. It doesn't mean we have to comply or that there are no other options for getting information.

My favorite argument against "torture" is that it doesn't work because you'll supposedly say anything just to get it to stop.

Like the interrigators will immediately launch another D-Day invasion based on the first thing that comes out of a prisoners mouth. With all these Al-Queda dirtbags they asked them questions they knew the answers to so they could tell when they stopped lying and started telling the truth. And if they didn't know the answers they kept investigating and came back and asked them again based on other intel.

Even Allan Dershowitz is in favor of torture in some instances. And every anti-torture person reading this would be too if it would save his/her own life or the life of a loved one.

Franko wrote:

Have you seen the video of yer pal Christopher Hitchens being waterboarded?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58
He concluded that it is definitively torture.

****
I like Christopher Hitchens but I'm pretty sure that he's led a very pampered life.

To him, drinking house booze instead of top shelf is probably torture too. Subject him to that for more than a weekend and he'll probably sing like a canary.

Al-Queda murdering scumbags though ... you might have to use a different technique.

"In short, there is nothing "repugnant" about waterboarding"

Amen. I think it is our duty to prevent the barbarians from ending our society. In fact, it's one of the few Constitutionally given duties of the federal government. Health care is not. That we die "gentlemanly" is not important to me. That we live is.

So - a lifetime of kind and considerate treatment is what a suicide bomber should get?

Say that out loud. Say what to do with these people.

And then remember that we are NOT at war, because it is Congress' job to declare war and they have not done that. This duty does not change because we have no single governmental body to combat.

And your obligation to determine what to do with these people might be diluted, but it is not eliminated, by your membership in a democracy.

Hannibal Lechter Islam has killed before, and will kill you with enthusiasm if he is allowed to reach you. Does he get released because his Miranda rights weren't explained on the airplane before the passengers subdued him? Does he get air-conditioning and color TV and a lawyer at your expense?

"Knock, knock."

Have you seen the video of yer pal Christopher Hitchens being waterboarded?

What a pussy! He lasted all of 2 seconds. But what can you expect out of a overweight middle age reporter? If you want to see a real demonstration of waterboarding check out this link: http://current.com/items/76347282_getting-waterboarded.htm

It's an ex-navy seal volunteering to be water boarded by Army ex-sere instructors. He never gave up. It lasted for 24 minutes until the producer to told the sere team to stop.

Would any of the people here claiming that water boarding isn't torture actually volunteer to be water boarded? I didn't think so.

See, the "franko" types would have us simply sacrifice ourselves to the Morlocks in exchange for the appearance of peace. Pitiful little Eloi....

Like lambs to the slaughter, these "progressives".

So what would you do, franko? Mirandize KSM and get no information and watch thousands more Americans die? Ask nicely?

I prefer the Vic Mackey approach. Beat it out of him. And then bury him in a pit of rotting pork.

Why do they always use Carmina Burana?

The problem I have with this is that our founding fathers wanted war to not be what it is today- the status quo. Congress was supposed to give the President the authority through a declaration of war. After that declaration, all bets are off the table and new rules begin. But now with the military, backed up by the even larger private security industry, all the divisions and laws are blurry. We're kinda at war, kinda not.

I gotta say though, I'm pretty disapponted in Hitch. Under those controlled conditions? Geez.

"Would any of the people here claiming that water boarding isn't torture actually volunteer to be water boarded? I didn't think so"

yes. Fuck yes, if it means we can continue to use it against terrorists. I can take one for the team.

Mo4 is the best.

In all likelihood, those who are displaying this bravado about willing to be waterboarded would cave within the first few seconds, and would never agree to it again.

Our country sentenced an enemy combatant to 15 years of hard labor for waterboarding. By this standard, Bush and Cheney should be doing hard labor. But to these two pansies, hard labor probably is along the lines of sharpening pencils with a manually operated sharpener.

Sorry, Amy, but we do not get to change our stance on the issue when it's convenient for us. The U.S. has considered waterboarding to be torture at least since 1947, when we sentenced Yukio Asano to fifteen years hard labor for practicing this technique. We called it a war crime then, and it's still a war crime today.

Sorry, Patrick. It's not the same. Yusio Asano's case was a little more complex than that.

The charges cited by Ted Kennedy (and who knows more about water torture than he) and others included:

“Charge: That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 August, 1944, , at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Yukio Asana, then a civilian serving as an interpreter with the Armed Forces of Japan, a nation then at war with the United States of America and its Allies, did violate the Laws and Customs of War.

“Specification 1: That in or about July or August, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Morris O. Killough, an American Prisoner of War, by beating and kicking him; by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring water up his nostrils.

“Specification 2: That on or about 15 May, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O. Cash, and Munroe Dave Woodall, American Prisoners of War by beating and kicking them, by forcing water into their mouths and noses; and by pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies.

“Specification 5: That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 December, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture John Henry Burton, an American Prisoner of War, by beating him; and by fastening him head downward on a stretcher and forcing water into his nose.”

So, the charges included beating (with a sword, belt, bamboo pole, etc.), kicking, forcing them to stand naked outside in the cold, and burning with lit cigarettes.

Also of note, in the Japanese method of waterboarding, after the water was forced into the prisoner's mouth and nose, a soldier would sometimes jump on the prisoner's stomach. I'm betting a medical doctor was not present either.

In addition, the Japanese practice was to pour water directly into the nose and mouth, sometimes using a hose. The CIA blocks the nose and mouth with a cloth to prevent water from entering.

Finally, a declared state of war existed between the United States and Japan at that time, making the Geneva Conventions applicable to prisoners.

Scott Horton from Harper's makes Mark Thiessen look like the chump he is.

The biggest inconsistency exhibited by the small-government war-hawks is that they fail to apply their government skepticism to military organizations or civilian intelligence agencies. There is nothing about these organizations that makes them wholly different from their mundane counterparts at, say, the Department of Education or the Department of the Interior. They are all burdened by red-tape, incentivized by non-market forces, and subject to sedimentized routines. But they are different in one respect--romanticism.

Romance can be a powerful thing. When the small-government war-hawk is faced with thinking about the military or the CIA critically, romance will short-circuit the rational parts of his brain.

I think it's wrongheaded to get into a pissing match about who is toughest because they can endure torture longer. The question ought to be about whether the U.S. should use torture. I say emphatically no.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/not-three-suicides-at-gitmo-three-homocides-in-a-gitmo-black-site.html

And who was sentenced to 15 years Patrick? Link?

yes. Fuck yes, if it means we can continue to use it against terrorists. I can take one for the team.

I never said anything about allowing the government to use it again. I don't have that authority, obviously. But if you're willing to be water boarded to prove that it isn't torture; let's set up a time and a place. I'm game.

Cody, this is an important obligation the US Constitution tasks our government with... to protect *US Citizens* from enemies foreign and domestic. Your analysis is less than forthright. These enemy combatants are not US Citizens. They have information that if extracted will save hundreds if not thousands of lives.

Comparing this to the Department of Education/Interior is absent of logic.

I will leave the critical perspective of our military and CIA to other areas, but this isn't one of them.

The problem with dismissing such logic can be described beautifully in this SCOTUS opinion written by Justice Burton:

TERMINIELLO V. CITY OF CHICAGO , 337 U.S. 1 (1949)

"This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." - Justice BURTON

Just as we need not be so quixotic with these terrorist that aim to kill us by affording them the same protection we would give to one of our citizens. To not make a logical distinction between the two is nothing less than a suicide pact.

RE: Above court case, I misapplied the quote to Burton. It was Jackson, Burton affirmed Jackson's opinion in the case.

Mea culpa.

"If terrorists suffer long-term nightmares about waterboarding, better that than more Americans crying themselves to sleep after their loved ones have been shredded by bombs or baked in skyscrapers."

This emotionally satisfying revenge fails to take into account blowback, namely that this is a huge recruiting tool for terrorists. I would prefer our government take the high ground.

"This emotionally satisfying revenge fails to take into account blowback, namely that this is a huge recruiting tool for terrorists."

Myth.

And how about false confessions tortured out of one of these innocent terrorist dirtbags?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-worthington/a-truly-shocking-guantana_b_305227.html

No one approves of torture. The problem comes in defining it.

Torture to me is digging out another's eye with a spoon, shoving needles under one's fingernails, cutting off the soles of one's feet, and the like. Waterboarding is not torture. it may be rough, but there is no permanent physical damage.

And I sleep better at night knowing there are tough Jack Bauer-types who will do whatever it takes to keep us safe. The President's decision to prosecute those who engaged in tough interrogation techniques is a tragic mistake and will come back to bite him.

I call bullshit on the myth.

http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/blog/6793

Patrick, did you call someone a "pansy"? Is it supposed to be derogatory? I always thought it meant "homosexual".

You torture enthusiasts are pathetic fucking cowards.

I am curious ... why do we condone actions by our own government (ie - torture) that we would otherwise condemn individuals for?

I am sure we could replace the word "torture" in the question above with a myriad of other items, such as theft, harassment, and assault, and we would be faced with a similar dilema of trying to answer that one.

As such, I am not in favor of granting power of this magnitude to anyone or anything, especially with the poor track record of our very own government for over-abusing any sort of power thrown their way. Pyromaniacs with matches, anyone?

Do you really want American citizens safe from explosions? Then bring them all home, away from flying bullets, exploding vests, and nut-job jihadists. Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity.

Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity.

What kinda dumbass comment is that? So in your view, England would have been better off letting Hitler invade. Hey, they would have had peace! The peace of the dead.

You torture enthusiasts are pathetic fucking cowards.

Torture is the whip and the knife, thumbscrews and the rack. Not waterboarding.

In any case, I don't see what's cowardly or pathetic about wanting to save people from being murdered by terrorists.

Conan: Sorry, Patrick. It's not the same. Yusio [sic] Asano's case was a little more complex than that.

Sorry, Conan. Obfuscating doesn't help your argument. Waterboarding was included in those charges, and none of the things you allege that could have accompanied the waterboarding were treated as separate issues. We found waterboarding in and of itself torture, lacking the extra charges and all the supposed "embellishments" that you claim "sometimes" happened, and what you're "betting" didn't happen.

Waterboarding was ruled to be a war crime. Otherwise, it would have been dropped and the other charges against Yukio Asano would have been left to stand on their own. The fact that waterboarding was included in the charges shows that the U.S. decided that waterboarding was a war crime. A pile a red herrings on top of a weak argument is still a weak argument, Conan.

Robin: Patrick, did you call someone a "pansy"? Is it supposed to be derogatory? I always thought it meant "homosexual".

I've always thought of "pansy" to mean effeminate boy or man. And that description fits Bush and Cheney to the "T."

"This emotionally satisfying revenge fails to take into account blowback, namely that this is a huge recruiting tool for terrorists"

Bullshit. Islamists have hated us since the verse of the sword was written. No shortage-ever-of muslims willing to die to kill nonmuslims. Our reaction to them matters not a whit-their religion is what has always mattered. It's the only recruiting tool they've ever needed.

One, enemy combatants do not retain the same privileges as uniformed soldiers.

Two, waterboarding, as it is performed by the US, is not the same in any way shape or form as waterboarding performed by fanatical, religious shit-heads some people insist on comparing it to.

We work within reasonable parameters... they do not.

The anti-waterboarding crowd wishes to have peace at any price. It is a mysterious logic. Denying ones instincts for self preservation not only for themselves but trying to force everyone else to do the same, less they be barbarians.

I would only hope if your appeasement to these degenerates doesn't work, that you would happily offer to be the first in line to suffer the consequences.

"I call bullshit on the myth."

I'll see your BS, and raise you one M4 post!

Oh, and myth.

"Two, waterboarding, as it is performed by the US, is not the same in any way shape or form as waterboarding performed by fanatical, religious shit-heads some people insist on comparing it to.

We work within reasonable parameters... they do not."

I get it. So, if the terrorists waterboard anyone using the U.S. standard, it is no longer a crime any more. I am so glad we are setting up the new standards, which every other nations should aspire up to.

Someone told me this. "If I had an affair behind my wife's back, it is the romance story of the century. But if my wife did it, it is cheating."

I am so glad we are setting up the new standards, which every other nations should aspire up to.

It's not about standards and aspirations. It's about keeping the murderers from killing us.

"I get it. So, if the terrorists waterboard anyone using the U.S. standard, it is no longer a crime any more. I am so glad we are setting up the new standards, which every other nations should aspire up to."

Anyone? No, since we don't waterboard just ANYONE. We waterboard enemy combatants (non-military, non-citizen, crazy jihadi mofo's). This is not a war crime. (How many times does this need to be said before it finally sinks in?)

But you must be joking about these jihadi's even considering such standards. Do you remember a US citizen by the name of Nick Berg?

"Anyone? No, since we don't waterboard just ANYONE. We waterboard enemy combatants (non-military, non-citizen, crazy jihadi mofo's). This is not a war crime. (How many times does this need to be said before it finally sinks in?)"

My bad. So, as long as the terrorists waterboard their enemy combatants using the U.S. standards, it is no longer a crime any more.

Why we stop there? Let's show them how we rape and humiliate the enemy combatants using the U.S. standards. According to you, as long as they follow the U.S. standards, suddenly, they are no longer crimes any more.

Let's show them how we rape and humiliate the enemy combatants

Typical third-worldism. What's next, rage? Listen, again, it's not about rape or humiliation, it's about keeping the murderers from killing us.

I suppose no one is talking about what to do with these people because they want to blow off steam about torture.

When are you going to address proper penalties for people who attempt mass murder?

It's so much more comfortable to argue without offering a solution...

Hey, get this: did you know that if you shoot at somebody in the US Army carrying an M-16, they can shoot back?

Are you OK with that?

-----

I'm just trying to get some sense here. Name the action and reaction.

And if there is any nonsense on the Internet, it is titled in the name of people who claim that they wouldn't do the thing they call heinous if it meant saving their own family.

What kinda dumbass comment is that? So in your view, England would have been better off letting Hitler invade. Hey, they would have had peace! The peace of the dead.

Interesting analogy. I don't remember Afghanistan or Iraq invading us, so I am not sure how it applies here. Should one take the stance of an aggressor/invader nation (be it Hitler's Germany or Obama's US of A), expect the retaliation that comes back and do not whine of it.

When fists continually swing, may I ask where there is peace in that?

Your technical term of "dumbass" is a little more vauge to fit into the context of the rest of your, um .... response. I'll let it stand for it is.

Sorry, Conan. Obfuscating doesn't help your argument. Waterboarding was included in those charges, and none of the things you allege that could have accompanied the waterboarding were treated as separate issues.

Patrick, read the charges. Beating, kicking, and burning with cigarettes were not things that could have accompanied the waterboarding. They were things that did accompany the waterboarding. They were included in the charges.

According to the U.C. Berkeley War Crimes center:

Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications: beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

====================

The context was also different. The US and Japan were nation-states in a declared state of war. Japan was not a signatory to the Third Geneva Convention (1929) and did not feel it was bound by that convention in its treatment of POWs. Nonetheless, the war crimes trials held the Japanese to the Convention standard.

Waterboarding of protected POWs runs afoul of the standards of treatment mandated by the Third Geneva Convention.

I don't remember Afghanistan or Iraq invading us

9/11. Or have you forgotten?

When fists continually swing, may I ask where there is peace in that?

Yeah, right. Let's just roll over for them. Kumbaya.

You know how to secure peace and keep our military out of wars? Get the bad guys with information to talk - and prevent the escalation of situations that lead us into wars....

Are you saying that if we could go back in time and were in a position to waterboard one of the 9-11 hijackers for information that could have prevented that attack, we shouldn't have done it?

Waterboarding one evil human as opposed to how many deaths now as a result of 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq? Peace only works if both parties agree to keep it. What are you prepared to do if they don't? Bring flowers and peace signs to a gun fight?

Good luck with that!!!

I don't remember Afghanistan...invading us....

The Afghan government (the Taliban) gave sanctuary and material support to al Qaeda and refused to turn its leader, Osama bin Laden, over to the US or to an international tribunal after he and his organization openly claimed responsibility for attacking the US on September 11, 2001.

Look, let these pussies argue that it is a stain on our national soul to rough up a few terrorist dirtbags to get them to rat out their buddies so they're more efficiently dispatched.

After the next 9/11, no politician in America will be able to vote against the blanket annihilation of the Islamic world.

Patrick, you can keep trying your line of argument. It's bullshit and you know it.

There's no moral high ground in war. There is a winner and a loser. And the loser does not get to dictate terms.

Given the choice, I'll take "winner". And I'm not terribly concerned with the methods used against the enemy leaders.

You think we wouldn't have beat the living fuck out of Goebbels if we caught him?

Fret not, everyone. It is all going to end soon. Probably because our monetary system says it will end soon:

"Quit Buying Bombs or We're Done"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWBhgAjPGhw&feature=player_embedded

G'night

Ian

The Afghan government (the Taliban) gave sanctuary and material support to al Qaeda and refused to turn its leader, Osama bin Laden, over to the US or to an international tribunal after he and his organization openly claimed responsibility for attacking the US on September 11, 2001.

Ah yes, the "Taliban". Wasn't that the same Taliban that the U.S. government trained during the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan? Wasn't that the same Taliban that the U.S. turned a blind-eye to when their began carrying out their genocide policies between 1996-1998? Wasn't this the same Taliban that the Clinton Administration praised for their victory, arguing that it would weaken Russian and Iranian influence in the region?

Even at the expense of their "atrocities".

Might want to look into the Afghan/Taliban/U.S./Caspian Sea connection. You may find interest in some of that.

Ian

p.s. - the 9/11 attackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia. Why did we not invade them?

Conan:

Specifications: beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

Conan, you're making my case for me. See? Water torture is in the list of those charges. Since water torture (presumably a reference to waterboarding) was included in those charges, it follows that waterboarding is a chargeable offense.

If we did not rule that waterboarding was a war crime, we wouldn't have included it in the list of charges. Since we did see fit to include this among the crimes Asano was accused of, it follows that we consider waterboarding a war crime.

Case closed.

Case closed.

Shut up, he explained.

Ian -

Either get a clue about the real world, or stop talking. The Taliban did not exist as such when we were supplying the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion. Bin Laden wasn't there either, and he wasn't a CIA employee.

And if you had a clue about the arrangement of things in the Middle East you'd understand why we couldn't invade Saudi Arabia. But since you'll no doubt accuse me of being a marginal thinker for not doing your work for you, I'll educate your ignorant ass - oil, and the continued flow thereof is a requirement to keep the world working. Invade Saudi Arabia, a good chunk of that oil stops flowing.

Better to topple the neighboring regimes and get the Saudis to clean house themselves, no?

Of course, since you don't play chess, you don't think beyond the immediate effect of your current move.

the 9/11 attackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia. Why did we not invade them?

B/c their government was not behind the terrorism, as it was in the case of Afghanistan. B/c the masterminds of the attacks were not located in SA, nor was the government of SA protecting them.

Since we did see fit to include this among the crimes Asano was accused of, it follows that we consider waterboarding a war crime.

Patrick, as I have explained more times than I should have to by now, waterboarding a POW is not allowed under the Third Geneva Convention which requires the capturing party to respect the dignity, person, and customs of the captured soldier.

However, the Third Geneva Convention does not apply to irregular combatants who are not organized in service of a nation-state at war, do not have a clearly delineated hierarchy, and do not openly display their weapons or military purpose at all times - such as those al Qaeda terrorists transferred to Gitmo.

The war crime wasn't what was done, it was to whom it was done.

Asano was convicted of a war crime because a state of war existed between Japan and the US at the time of his actions. In a state of war, prisoners are entitled to POW status (and treatment) if they meet the standards of the Third Geneva Convention. The prisoners Asano was convicted of waterboarding, kicking, burning, and beating were uniformed combatants and civilian support personnel - all of whom are entitled to POW status.

Japan's defense was that it was not obligated to treat prisoners of war according to the Conventions because Japan was not a signatory to the Conventions. The US held Japan to the standards of the Conventions in the post-war trials anyway - since the alternative would have been to sanction the systematic mistreatment of Allied prisoners who were entitled to POW status.

>> I don't remember Afghanistan or Iraq invading us

> 9/11. Or have you forgotten?

Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian. Afghanistan may have provided a base of operations, but Iraq certainly did not.

I find the pro-waterboarding arguments above to be specious. Something does not have to leave physical marks to be torture, and there really is no questions that waterboarding is a form of torture.

The real question being so adroitly dodged is this: how far do we allow our government to go in pursuit of information? Recall that, in pursuit of terrorists, the US government has arrested and held people within the domestic USA without filing charges. Six years solitary confinement, no charges filed.

Sure, the guy was a slimeball, so what? The point is: the "special rules" for terrorism have already been used to violate our most basic rights. This is a very slippery slope - the next time or the time after it will be someone innocent. From the Wikipedia article

Attorney General Gonzales asserted in Senate testimony that while habeas corpus is "one of our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens.

That's the direction the government wants to go: give it the power to arrest, detain and even torture with no legal restraints. You can trust the government never to abuse this power...and if you believe that, you deserve the government you are going to get.

Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian. Afghanistan may have provided a base of operations, but Iraq certainly did not.

The nationality of the 9/11 terrorists is an issue, but not the only issue. Yes, Afghanistan was invaded b/c it was a base for terrorism, and b/c it was protecting the masterminds of 9/11. Iraq was invaded for other reasons, most of which seemed perfectly valid at the time (to Dems too, of course), even if doubt has now been cast upon them.

Excellent story. It's okay to NEARLY torture Muslims because they have a different religion and they NEED it.

LOL damn, we're spending $1.6 Billion a year on domestic disinformation and this is as good as it gets?

This is almost as bad as the old "Iraqi army throws babies out of hospital windows" story they were floating during Gulf War One!

"Sure, the guy was a slimeball, so what? The point is: the "special rules" for terrorism have already been used to violate our most basic rights. This is a very slippery slope - the next time or the time after it will be someone innocent. From the Wikipedia article"

Then you must really be concerned that KSM et al are being tried and dealt with in civil courts, not military tribunals? Any thoughts?

Yep. Trying KSM in a civilian court will result in his walking.

If not because all the evidence against him is classified, or because his confession was coerced, or he was subjected to "police brutality", then because there's no way to seat an impartial jury.

But let's assume that it actually gets into a court room. What do you think is going to happen? I'll give you a hint - KSM is going to put Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the US, and Israel on trial.

And that's the reason why Holder and Obama went along with it - it's their way of giving their mouth-frothing imbeciles on the far left their "war crimes tribunal" against Bush without setting the legal precedent that all political decisions come with the potential for prosecution at the end of a term.

and there really is no questions that waterboarding is a form of torture.

Like hell there isn't. It is not torture. Your wish to define it so, doesn't automatically make it so.

Recall that, in pursuit of terrorists, the US government has arrested and held people within the domestic USA without filing charges. Six years solitary confinement, no charges filed.

Too bad he isn't an U.S. citizen, protected under the Constitution.

That's the direction the government wants to go: give it the power to arrest, detain and even torture with no legal restraints. You can trust the government never to abuse this power...and if you believe that, you deserve the government you are going to get.

You should visit my website. That happens every day of every week, already. You alredy had that government before 9/11. IRS anyone?

Finally some happy news from Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8479115.stm

Bon voyage!

That happens every day of every week, already. You alredy had that government before 9/11. IRS anyone?

What's always stunned me about people who rail against the Patriot act is that they seem completely ignorant of RICO.

I mean, the abuses of RICO are a strong argument against adding PATRIOT, but the fact that most people are cool with RICO ought to give PATRIOT a pass, since it's really just RICO for terrorists.

In any case, I don't see what's cowardly or pathetic about wanting to save people from being murdered by terrorists.

It is rank cowardice when you are willing to throw away our status as a humane and decent people because a militarily and socially and economically inferior people who are reviled across the globe succeeded in an attack against us. One success and you wet your pants and run toward the shelter of authoritarian tactics. How can you be proud of what our country has done when the same tactics you condone are exhibits in the Khmer Rouge torture museum, a monument to the barbaric practices of that awful stain on human history. You are goddamn right, torture proponents are all fucking cowards. In the light of the challenges posed by Islamic terrorism, you show no faith in us and the values that make our civilization better than theirs. Bitches.

Torture enthusiasts - just FYI, Jack Bauer is not a real person. Watch a little less 24 and spend a little more time outside or with your kids or pets or whatever. It's so creepy when people just drool in anticipation of someone else's pain.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/19/070219fa_fact_mayer

Conan, as I have explained more times than I should have had to, the U.S. has ruled that waterboarding is a war crime. Regardless of the number of crimes Yukio Asano was charged with in addition to waterboarding, waterboarding remained among the charges.

Had waterboarding been dropped from the charges, you would have an argument that waterboarding is not a war crime. It was not dropped however. It stayed. Therefore the U.S. has determined that waterboarding is a war crime.

Case closed.

you are willing to throw away our status as a humane and decent people

I think saving lives trumps concern over our "status." A willingness to sacrifice innocent lives to murderers in order to preserve our view of ourselves as humane and decent is an immoral position.

momof3: "I think it is our duty to prevent the barbarians from ending our society."

And here's my problem with that line of argument: How bloody fragile is your society? No offence, but if cave-dwelling guerillas can bring down the foundations of state, you aren't much of a state to begin with. How many greater threats have you faced in the past 230 years? How many more significant catastrophes have loomed and been repelled? How many more sacrifices have been made by generations before you to safeguard the kind of country that doesn't abide this type of practice? Sacrifices that you aren't prepared to make yourself because it's so much easier to countenance torture and extra-judicial practices, renditions and the like. Turning a blind eye so other people can protect you isn't going to make anyone call this the greatest generation.

You're hurting yourselves so much more than the bad guys ever could.

"I think saving lives trumps concern over our "status." A willingness to sacrifice innocent lives to murderers in order to preserve our view of ourselves as humane and decent is an immoral position."

Why are you convinced that torture saves lives?

I'm not convinced. I can hear an argument each way. I'm also not convinced that waterboarding is torture. What I'm against is taking waterboarding off the table on account of high-falutin' talk of ideals.

Therefore the U.S. has determined that waterboarding is a war crime.

Here we go again.

When done against those entitle to POW status and the attendant protections that accompany that status, it is. When done against those not entitled to POW status, it falls into a gray area.

Case forever open because situations like this are never as black and white as you seem to thing they are.

The CIA now admits that they flat out lied about getting useful information from waterboarding:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/26/cia_man_retracts_claim_on_waterboarding

>>The CIA now admits that they flat out lied about getting useful information from waterboarding:

JoJo,

I WISH your linked story had broken in time for the top of this thread!

Ive generally beloved you for this web site, the best way would you will get involved with authoring this particular?

We mention your link on 'waterboarding'
in our NOTES today. If we had your eMail
address, we could send you a copy. (FREE)