Yes, I speak of facts, and the realistic fact of killing is murder
and mayhem during war, where there are legalities that justify it,
it's still murder, and it doesn't get any more real than that, and
it's the truth of the fact, therefore, deriding your accusation that
I'm lacking facts, it doesn't get any more factual than what I state.

In reference to my opinion, yes, it is MY opinion that killing even
during combat is murder, no where did you ever see me argue the fact
that our nation along with other nations legally justify killing
during combat, and even upon stating that I feel it's murder in my
opinion I was in a war, therefore supporting killing during combat,
but I will not deny that its not murder, and you being the liberal Nazi
that you are, should appreciate the honesty.

You can not tell me that my opinion is wrong solely because you disagree with it, it is MY opinion therefore in my eyes, factual that murder is murder.

Even within our court system, "cooerced information" is allowed,
therefore, meaning, if the information is useful intelligence and
the judge deems it was fitting to save lives, then torture is allowed.
You forgot to add that one :)

By the way, that is fact, not an opinion.

One more thing here, you keep bringing up the Constitution, military tribunals are not subjected to the US Constitution, they are subjected to military law

the fact of the earth being round, flat, rectangular or even horizontal has absolutely nothing
to do with this topic, what are you going to bring up next? Does
Santa Claus really exist? Please stay on topic,thank you.

Things in my eyes can definitely be factual, according to me, meaning
I am entitled to my opinion, and where I agree that killing during
combat is justified according to the legal means, it is still in
my eyes murder, due to "killing", which makes sense to most, except
for yourself of course.

You can not sit and tell me my opinion is wrong, for I take a true
stance

So I'm assuming you think even down to our homicide detectives within
our country never hit a suspect within interrogations? If you believe this, then I want what you are smoking, because you are evidently high my friend :)

And I
stand strong that "coerced information" is allowed even within
the laws of the United States for obvious reasons.

Actually, yes we ARE talking of military tribunals, due to the fact
that terrorists are prosecuted within this particular arena, and
since the topic of this thread is "waterboarding" and last time I checked,
is "torture" which is performed on noted enemy terrorists, therefore, it is
the topic which you are avoiding.

why do you speak of MG? Is he incapable of speaking
for himself? I suggest you let him do it, otherwise, it looks like you
may want to date him, but I'm sure MG appreciates your chivalrous
act for him .

Under "cooerced information", the judge can deem acts such as this
legal as long as the ends justify the means, therefore, yes it can
be legal, it's according to the judge.

Beat the messenger? Actually your form of debating only entails cutting and pasting,
and you have the gall to state that I present lazy forms of argument?

Once again, an act of torture is NOT illegal if the President
does not recognize it as torture, in other words, it's up to the president.
As I stated earlier with "coerced information", that is up to the
individual judge in charge of the case.

you can state what you want, it's YOUR opinion but it is not fact, remember?

It is not a legal fact but in my opinion it is factual according
to my morals and honesty.

I didnt say anything about torture, I said they could be waterboarded. After all not all of us believe that waterboarding ( the full spectrum of activities) is torture. Now throwing out the unlikely situations really doesnt make for a good argument. What are you going to ask next, if a 2 year old child might know something. And who said anything about breaking fingers? I sure did not. Trying to lump me in with people who advocate no rules is absolutely dispicable. Go ahead you might as well accuse me of being like Stalin while your at it.

MG: You still have not proved your point from earlier how murder is ok,
but torture is not ok?

no, that pesky little document
that governs the power of the president is not utilized within
tribunals, it's called military law and YES< within this arena, the
president has the discretion to determine what is torture and what
it not.

On December 13, 2006, Salim Ahmed Hamdan tried to challenge the MCA's declination of habeas corpus to "alien unlawful enemy combatants" in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge James Robertson, who ruled in favor of Hamdan in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, refused to rule in favor of Hamdan in this case regarding habeas corpus, writing:

"The Constitution does not provide alien enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay with the constitutional right to file a petition for habeas corpus in our civilian courts, and thus Congress may regulate those combatants' access to the courts". [45]

In April 2007, the Supreme Court declined to hear two cases challenging the MCA: Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. U.S. On June 29, 2007, the court reversed that decision, releasing an order that expressed their intent to hear the challenge. The two cases have been consolidated into one. Oral arguments were heard on December 5, 2007; a decision is expected during summer 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act#Court_challenge

U.S. Code 2340. Definitions

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

The Constitution mandates that habeas corpus "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion.". Since neither definition fits the current situation, then this is a valid Constitutional challenge.

So waterboarding , under those definitions, is technically legal.

At the same time, it's use has been banned by both the CIA and US Army.

So , returning one again to the topic of the thread, if it is such a valid tactic, and saves lives, and is indeed technically legal - why have only three people ever been waterboarded, and then the process banned by the both the CIA and US Army ?

To me that speaks volumes as to it's validity as an interrogation technique.

"Secret Tribunals" which actually can be authorized

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

- US Constitution

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.".

While reluctant to do so, Lincoln eventually took the advice of his staff and wrote a letter to General Winfield Scott on April 27, 1861. In it, he allowed Scott (or an empowered subordinate) to suspend habeas corpus within the vicinity of the "military line" (Lincoln). This suspension was not announced, and was in fact carefully kept secret at first. By May, however, numerous delegates of the Maryland legislature had been arrested without grounds or even stated charges. Still, the suspension was not explicitly acknowledged. Merryman was at about this time also arrested and imprisoned at Fort McHenry. He swiftly protested this imprisonment and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to release him from arbitrary imprisonment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman

These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.

- Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.

Lincoln, citing Andrew Jackson before him, simply disregarded the ruling. Relying upon an 1880's manuscript from Lincoln's close friend Ward Hill Lamon, some scholars have contended that the President authorized then quickly aborted an arrest warrant against Taney in retaliation for the Merryman ruling. The manuscript and evidence are a relatively new discovery in the historical literature and the story's authenticity is hotly contested and controversial (see the Taney Arrest Warrant controversy).

Lincoln responded to the Merryman decision by asking his Attorney General Edward Bates for an opinion supporting his suspension. He characterized the argument as one that is convincing only to a "true believer." It nevertheless formed the basis for Lincoln's July 4 speech to Congress in which he rhetorically asked "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Lincoln subsequently expanded the zone within which the writ was suspended. After reconvening on July 4th Congress rejected a bill favored by Lincoln to sanction his suspensions. Between 1861 and 1863 several additional federal district and circuit court rulings affirmed Taney's opinion. Lincoln nevertheless continued making unauthorized suspensions for another two years until the Habeas Corpus Act of March 3, 1863 formally suspended the writ for him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman

Why am I going into all this? Because there seems to be an inordinate amount of pontificating and posturing by the critics of US policy in the war on terror that I see conspicuously missing when talking about the terrorists? I’ve also read a bunch of silly nonsense equating US actions with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia that has no basis in fact or reality.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.

- Thomas Jefferson

So waterboarding , under those definitions, is technically legal.

"Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, told me that he had treated a number of people who had been subjected to such forms of near-asphyxiation, and he argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said." (Mayer, Jane. "Outsourcing Torture", The New Yorker, 2005-02-14)

"Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse." (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing on U.S. Interrogation Policy and Executive Order 13440, September 25, 2007, Statement by Allen S. Keller, M.D.)

Actually, if the Judge deems that the information gained was
useful or aided in saving a life, one would think that the act
was justified as well, don't you think? The information gained
during coereced information would be due to the "act", therefore,
if the information gained is proved admissible, then the act which
was performed to gain the information would be considered just as well. It does not seem
feasible that a judge would consider information from an act considered unjust, therefore meaning, if a judge accepts information from the method, then he/she is indeed justifying the act.

This is called staying on
topic, you should try it.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with my opinion that murder is murder,
it also has nothing to do with the topic at hand

I do not know what you are talking about, especially since I am speaking
of enemy combatants, and in dealing with enemy combatants who are
dealt with in military tribunals, no, that pesky little document
that governs the power of the president is not utilized within
tribunals, it's called military law and YES< within this arena, the
president has the discretion to determine what is torture and what
it not.

"clear prohibition of evidence obtained by torture"

Brig. Gen. Thomas Hemingway, a legal adviser to the Office of Military Commissions, speaking about the rules of procedure for the Commisions)

.........hey i know. why dont we get all you liberals together, and use YOUR money to start a fund? with that money we can put the captured terrorists up in a hyatt or hilton, with a pool, lounge chairs, towels vending machines, internet access and all tv/cable services for their stay with us. room service can be included. would they like one egg or two for breakfast? eggs shirred, boiled, scrambled, poached, fried? would they like sausage, bacon or ham with that? home fries or pancakes? syrup or butter? choice of orange or tomato juice? how about melon or other fresh fruit for dessert?

Why am I going into all this? Because there seems to be an inordinate amount of pontificating and posturing by the critics of US policy in the war on terror that I see conspicuously missing when talking about the terrorists? I’ve also read a bunch of silly nonsense equating US actions with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia that has no basis in fact or reality.

I'm just trying to get a handle on where some people's bias lies and make a clear distinction regarding their fairness to debate any topic regarding the US.

Say what you will about Bush, he’s one of the very few elected officials whose actions actually reflect the principals he identified prior to taking office. Like him, don’t like him, no matter, at least you can’t honestly claim that he waffles on every controversial issue or caves under political pressure.