|
|
|
|
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 8:40:18 AM | ^^^ That’s what I thought, a double standard...
Clinton didn't "allegedly" pay off his accusers, and he didn't "allegedly" lie to congress and he wasn't "allegedly" disbarred. Let's not forget when he stood up wagging his finger at the camera and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski...."
The FACT that Bush has had a 90% approval of Congress for the majority of the war effort, to include the initial action, the subsequent funding AND the Patriot Act renewal means absolutely nothing, it's ALL his responsibility, simply amazing....
Waterboarding has not been classified as torture by the governing authority, that being the Democratically held Congress (I think it probably is, but legally it isn't yet), and that's Bush's fault. Even though it's been around hundreds of years longer than the US has existed, it was never used by the CIA prior to Bush authorizing "harsh" methods in 2002..... You are a textbook example of what is destroying the Democratic Party, Bush bashing beyond the limits of rational thought, ignoring facts and claiming innuendo to be truth all along the way, selectively applying a standard of acceptable behavior that you absolve your own representatives from.
I truly hope your efforts can defeat Bush in 08 
| |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 9:23:30 AM | From President to strawman, poor old billy.
After all this you say waterboarding, while illegal, is not illegal because the Democratically held Congress has not said it is illegal.
The complicity of the democrats in the continued funding of the occupation and the Patriot Act could be a theme of another thread, perhaps, examined in the light of which party recieves the most funding from AIPAC. | |
|
edisto
|
Joined: 9/11/2007
Msg: 653 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 9:32:47 AM |
You are a textbook example of what is destroying the Democratic Party, Bush bashing beyond the limits of rational thought, ignoring facts and claiming innuendo to be truth all along the way, selectively applying a standard of acceptable behavior that you absolve your own representatives from.
could and should read....
You are a textbook example of what is destroying the REPUBLICAN Party, CLINTON bashing beyond the limits of rational thought, ignoring facts and claiming innuendo to be truth all along the way, selectively applying a standard of acceptable behavior that you absolve your own representatives from....
again...ALLEDGELY - means the person IS still innocent until proven guilty-
so your quote "IGNORING FACTS AND CLAIMING INNUENDO TO BE TRUTH" sums up IN YOUR OWN WORDS, that your argument against Clinton is bogus and that it is only an "inneundo" that Clinton may have raped, but it is still slander to say that he IS a rapist
when Bush is out of office and people no longer fear for their jobs, we will find out to what extent he AND Cheney SCREWED our country, what with signing statements, wire tapping, pre-emptive wars, no bid contracts, the vanishing of millions of dollars earmarked for reconstruction and on and on and on- IMHO books on the corruption and misuse of government post Bush adminitration will be a VERY lucrative business | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 9:53:56 AM |
After all this you say waterboarding, while illegal, is not illegal because the Democratically held Congress has not said it is illegal. I didn't say it was illegal.... here is what I said:
Waterboarding has not been classified as torture by the governing authority, that being the Democratically held Congress (I think it probably is, but legally it isn't yet)....." According the best and brightest the blue team sent to Washington 362 days ago, the CIA's previous 3 applications of it is NOT illegal....
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/14/house_approves_bill_banning_cia_from_waterboarding/
The complicity of the democrats in the continued funding of the occupation and the Patriot Act could be a theme of another thread, perhaps, examined in the light of which party recieves the most funding from AIPAC. If by complicity of the democrats you mean blatant dishonesty and rampant hypocrisy I would have to agree it would make wonderful fodder for another thread. But since we’re discussing that “complicity” in this context, it’s not only applicable, it’s almost critical that the truth be applied to this argument as well as all others where Bush bashing is the prominent theme used to disrupt the exchange of opinions on the issue intended to be discussed. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 10:06:49 AM | Amnesty International, The Red Cross and international law all agree that water boarding is torture. History has proven time and again, that the ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
The fact that the same people involved in torture deny what it is should come as no surprise. If American methods were legal or ethical then why were tapes of the sessions distroyed ?
The US tortures. Don't believe me, look up the Arar case on the internet. Seems like the despots in the middle east are good enough to do Uncle Sams dirt work. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 10:42:53 AM |
again...ALLEDGELY - means the person IS still innocent until proven guilty- It’s impossible to hold a meaningful discussion with such an irrational mind, even when he admits his misdeeds, you insist that he’s innocent. Amazing the devotion he has from you!
so your quote "IGNORING FACTS AND CLAIMING INNUENDO TO BE TRUTH" sums up IN YOUR OWN WORDS, that your argument against Clinton is bogus and that it is only an "inneundo" that Clinton may have raped, but it is still slander to say that he IS a rapist I give up, you’re right, no woman is ever raped unless the “alleged” rapists is convicted. If no one is ever convicted, then it’s automatically consensual, because if there is no rapist, then there is no rape…..
when Bush is out of office and people no longer fear for their jobs, we will find out to what extent he AND Cheney SCREWED our country, what with signing statements, wire tapping, pre-emptive wars, no bid contracts, the vanishing of millions of dollars earmarked for reconstruction and on and on and on- IMHO books on the corruption and misuse of government post Bush administration will be a VERY lucrative business What vanishing millions? No one has been convicted of stealing, therefore by your own logic, nothing was stolen … taking it had to have been consensual….
 | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 11:09:18 AM |
Amnesty International, The Red Cross and international law all agree that water boarding is torture. History has proven time and again, that the ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS. I'm flipping through the Constitution now, can you point me to the amendment that transfers law making ability from the legislative branch of the US Government to any of those three entities you identified?
The fact that the same people involved in torture deny what it is should come as no surprise. If American methods were legal or ethical then why were tapes of the sessions distroyed ? I agree, to those that feel it's an effective method of interrogation that doesn't meet their understanding of the requirements to classify it as "torture" is absolutely no surprise. As for the legality, that's been covered, according to the Bill passed by the House two weeks ago and currently before the Senate, it is NOT illegal. The tapes are a different story. I didn't see where it was indicated when they were destroyed, could have been immediately after they were reviewed by intelligence agents for information. The fact that they no longer exist is not necessarily an indication of a crime, I mean look at all the papers that disappeared from the Rose Law firm.
The US tortures. Don't believe me, look up the Arar case on the internet. Seems like the despots in the middle east are good enough to do Uncle Sams dirt work. I don't think any rational person would even consider that the CIA doesn't utilize illegal measures to extract intelligence. The agency is specifically designed to operate as a clandestine entity, protecting all of our dirty little secrets, to include the techniques used to maintain that protection. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 11:42:49 AM | ...........president clinton cant be bashed enough ever. a president who traded our rocket secrets to the red chinese, (TREASON), who took money from the red chinese (THIEF, FELON) which violates law, a guy who skipped out on military service only to be pardoned by carter (COWARD), a guy who cornered unsuspecting women in the white house (ADULTERER, ASSAULT) , accused pf raping juanita brodderick against her will (RAPIST), displaying himself to paula jones (LEWD AND LASCIVIOUS BEHAIVOR) a guy who built firewalls between departments of the fbi and cia so everything had to be cleared thru janet reno and jamie gorelick; a guy who let the arab threat grow to huge dimensions (MALINGERER), a guy whose information helped a red chinese sub surface undetected right next to one of our carriers on military exercises (ENEMY SPY, TREASON) how do you ever bash this guy enough?now he earns 40 million a year touring the world and denouncing our present administration (FOREIGN AGENT). he's the first guy we should waterboard. how many clinton bagpeople have died mysteriously (MURDER, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER)? sure, he is a genius at covering his tracks, but not perfectly.
and these people have the GALL to run for office again? if hillary was any kind of woman with character she would have thrown bill out years ago....but no, she/they want power........... they must believe we are fools, that even bad publicity is good publicity, and that there is a sucker born every minute. will we show them that they are right? | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 11:50:13 AM | | No edisto- no help necessary. You do just fine in making my points even clearer in each subsequent post!!!!!! You are just like Hillary in backing and making excuses for Bill- but you don't get to use his last name to run for office!!!! | |
|
edisto
|
Joined: 9/11/2007
Msg: 660 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 12:47:19 PM |
even when he admits his misdeeds, you insist that he’s innocent. Amazing the devotion he has from you!
to have sex with someone other than your spouse is adultery, it's NOT rape
huh, what? it is if you're a Clinton? nope, tim, it doesn't work like that
give up, you’re right, no woman is ever raped unless the “alleged” rapists is convicted
OMG, NEVER said that ....I am talking about CLINTON, hear me, CLINTON!!!!
there is no legal proof that he is a rapist, because it was alledged does not make him a rapist, you have to PROVE he is a rapist
the Duke case should have showed you that there are men who are falsely accused, that is why we do not call people rapists until that charge is proven in court
What vanishing millions?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7737306/
millions are missing in Iraq- is this really the first time you've heard that? | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 1:04:45 PM |
I'm flipping through the Constitution now, can you point me to the amendment that transfers law making ability from the legislative branch of the US Government to any of those three entities you identified?
Well, in terms of international law and international agreements signed, it would be my pleasure :
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
You seem to have skipped over that article in your haste. 
When the Senate ratifies a treaty, it then becomes a binding legal contract.
So what then becomes an American law was perhaps written by a foreigner, indeed giving them the law writing ability you allude to in your quote. The Senate doesn't write the clauses of the treaty, but merely approves them.
It has long been illegal within the United States itself, and, following US ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture in 1994, Congress voted to extend that ban to US citizens wherever they might be found - in other words, interrogators based in other nations.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1216/p03s01-uspo.html
The Convention Against Torture prohibits its signatories from using cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of prisoners, and obliges them to ensure that any detainee is given certain minimum legal rights. President Ronald Reagan signed the treaty, President George H.W. Bush formally sent it to the Senate for approval, and the Senate ratified it in 1994.
Congress also passed legislation turning the treaty's provisions into domestic law, which President Bill Clinton signed.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/20/
monitors_of_torture_treaty_rebuke_us/?page=2
Three different American presidents, of both parties, were part of that ratification process, and the Senate ratified it.
The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
If those treaties comply with the Constitution, they must be considered part of US law. In a few cases this power has been challenged, and confirmed legally.
There has been some debate (and fear) as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country's system of government or Bill of Rights could be affected by an ambitious treaty. Since the constitution states that a treaty has supremacy over "any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding," it has been argued that the potential for abuse is present. In the 1950s a constitutional amendment known as the Bricker Amendment was proposed in response to such fears; it would have mandated that all US treaties not conflict with the existing powers granted to the US government. Subsequent legal precedents, notably, Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955) and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), ultimately established some of the limitations sought by the Bricker Amendment.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (1983) is a Supreme Court case that lays out a variety of tests that may be used to determine if state statutes are superseded or preempted by federal legislation.
- Ibid | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 1:42:44 PM |
Waterboarding has not been classified as torture by the governing authority, that being the Democratically held Congress (I think it probably is, but legally it isn't yet)....."
That would be more or less correct. No prior law was ever passed in the US that specifically named "waterboarding", used to extract information, as a form of torture.
Does that mean it isn't (or at least wasn't)?
Well, there has never been a US law passed which specifically names "hooking someones genitals to a generator and turning on the juice" or "pulling teeth without anesthetic", when used to extract information, as torture either but very few would have the audacity to suggest they aren't illegal on that basis.
The fact of it is, a law that delineates specific techniques as torture is not necessary. The Convention against Torture (which is also the law in the US according to the Constitution) anticipated such frivolous arguments, that is why it determines torture, not by the specific technique used but, by the effect on the victim (and, to a lesser degree, the intent of the perpetrator).
The recent law allowing the US to apply sanctions against it own citizens extra-territorially was passed to deal with the juvenile and specious argument that waterboarding was OK because "no-one specifically said we couldn't" (I'm sure you remember using that argument on your parents when you were 10 or 11 and got in trouble for something you knew better than to do). | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 3:22:35 PM | Mungo, I didn't say it was a great or even valid argument, but you have to admit the approach was apparently effective because it created a bill designed specifically to make it illegal. If there is a law pending to make it illegal, the logical assumption is that neither the executive or legislative branch (currently) feels it is illegal. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator, but I'm pretty sure they would be waving an existing law at him if they were convinced it applied. If you looked back through the thread you'll see that I personally think it may qualify as "torture", and as such all the stuff Monty posts is possibly applicable, but if the legislative branch of the government doesn't seem to think it is, why are we throwing the book at Bush for operating within the parameters of the law? Please no morality issues, we've beaten that to death. Bush doesn't register as magnetic north on my morality compass, and I'm quite sure I don't register on his either.
| |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 3:54:53 PM |
If there is a law pending to make it illegal, the logical assumption is that neither the executive or legislative branch (currently) feels it is illegal. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator, but I'm pretty sure they would be waving an existing law at him if they were convinced it applied.
The problem is exactly that battle of power and interpretation.
One already has a law on the books that covers this topic precisely, and it's been that way since 1994. Congress even made a specific mention of covering people not only within US boarders, but outside of it - when US personnel were involved.
Just look at what happened when Congress passed the bill with McCain Amendment 1977. in it, it was passed (and not vetoed by the President) , but a signing statement was also added to it :
SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
(a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.
(c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.
(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=McCain_Amendment_No._1977
The amendment affected the United States Senate Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, commonly referred to as the Amendment on (1) the Army Field Manual and (2) Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment, amendment #1977 and also known as the McCain Amendment 1977. It became the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 as Title X of the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The amendment prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, by confining interrogations to the techniques in FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation. Also, section 1005, part (e) of the Act prohibits aliens detained in Guantanamo Bay from applying for a writ of habeas corpus.
Amendment 1977 amended the defense appropriations bill for 2005 passed by the United States House of Representatives. The amendment was introduced to the Senate by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) on October 3, 2005 as S.AMDT.1977.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_Act
That passes, 90-9.
Instead of vetoing the bill (which serves little purpose anyone, given the amount of support it had any veto would be overcome quite easily) , Bush simply signs it and adds a signing statement :
The executive branch shall construe [the provision] relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President ... of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.
Which is essentially the Executive branch's version of " Yeah...right....whatever..."
First we had the 2002 Gonzalez memo:
Torture, the memo says, "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
Voila ! A new torture definition that magically makes almost anything we do .....not torture.
Just look back at Alito's memo redefining torture :
"The war against terrorism is a new kind of war. This new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.
So this "new paradigm" winds up meaning that torture is essentially so narrowly defined, that it opens the door to pretty much anything one wants to imagine.
That's the reason for all the abuse that later followed, and some detainee deaths.
"Every flag JAG lodged complaints," said one senior Pentagon official involved in the process, referring to the judge advocate generals who are military lawyers of each service.
"It's really unprecedented. For almost 30 years we've taught the Geneva Convention one way," said a senior military attorney. "Once you start telling people it's okay to break the law, there's no telling where they might stop."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html
It doesn't have any legal base, as one cannot unilaterally redefine a therm already agreed to in such a manner. A treaty is a binding legal contract, and parties are obliged to either follow it - or reenter into negotiations to redefine it's terms.
One cannot simply start to make up "new paradigms" and label existing legal obligations as somehow "quaint".
Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master - that's all.
Welcome to Wonderland... | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/31/2007 7:03:39 PM | Tallirish. In respone to your post 626. Save our asses? Well we and the world could have used your help in 1939... 1940... 1941 (the days before 7 Dec).... what where were you then? Sitting and watching Britain being bombed almost every night? Content to see Europe under the heel a of a brutal dictator, concentration camps going (and a Bush laundering money for the Nazi's and having investments in businesses using concentration camp labour), millions of Chinese being killed. Yep, we coulda used your help then and we waited for years and years and years for you to do your duty to civilization but I guess it wasn't an important issue for America in them thar days. While you sold to both sides! But heck, we sure did appreciate it when you finally came in! Years late but better late than never I guess.
P.S. We, that is Canada, were in it from day ONE! | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 1/1/2008 1:42:43 PM |
Is the United States of America going to let other nations dictate our policies...
And if another nation state adapts that same self interest, and breaks it's covenant with international laws, the US instantly stamps it as a "rogue nation".
The argument here is that waterboarding saves lives. Let's return to that argument, and let's even accept it's premise momentarily.
If it is indeed so beneficial to saving lives, then let's use it in the American criminal justice system. Some of you argue that if it even saves ONE American life, it's valid.
So let's put a waterboarding detachment in every police station, all over America. That would save an INCREDIBLE amount of American lives, FAR more than any terrorist threat. Want to know who's shipping in that crack cocaine , heroin, and other drugs that kill Americans every day ? Want to know where that cute little eight year old girl is being held hostage by some kidnappers ?
Fetch me a faucet.
Let's use it as an official military interrogation practice, due to it's validity. Lot's of lives can be saved there to, if we agree that valid information is sometimes obtained.
What's wonderful about Americans is that they will take a topic like helmet or seatbelt laws, and some will argue that these are restrictions upon their freedom - yet we all know that about 40,000 Americans die every year in traffic accidents, and many of them could be avoided by wearing helmets on motorcycles, or seat belts in cars.
To use your same logic, if even ONE American is saved by strict laws enforcing these ....it's worth it.
We know that cigarettes and alcohol kill untold numbers of Americans, and to use your same logic outlawing them would save many lives, each and every year.
No one ever argues that, especially those here that support the use of torture to save even ONE life.
Why not ? | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 1/1/2008 2:41:06 PM | I am one of those who is against losing all of these freedoms for our own alleged safety.
( Actually, the argument you just made is exactly the one I've tried to make.)
Well, seat belts and helmets DO save American lives.
It looks like Americans don't mind being killed by their own inability to buckle up, wear a helmet, talk on cell phones while driving, speeding , by smoking , drinking, shooting each other, etc...
Just total up the number of Americans killed by those things every single year. That number far exceeds any number of deaths caused by war or terrorism, easily.
But if a FOREIGNER kills just one American, it's time to act NOW !  | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 1/1/2008 5:11:24 PM | Well, one starts off saying that something that goes against international standards of legal interrogation of suspects (one that American's were part of creating, and actually led the world in in the beginning) , and of torture, are all suddenly null and void because you can save even ONE American life. It's a new paradigm, the old ideas are....quaint.
How many people arguing the OP's point have said exactly that , in exactly those words ?
That's your level of justification, for your decision. That would presume that it's so important that it would override everything you stand for, that Americans are safer, and alive.
But yet if an American child is kidnapped, and threatened with death, and you've got one of the suspects in custody, and he's not talking....then it's OK to follow your rules and waterboard him.
If an American drug lord is shipping in deadly drugs, and his actions are resulting in the addiction and death of perhaps thousands of Americans every year - you'll waterboard HIM too right ?
If another American like Tim McVeigh explodes another truck bomb tomorrow morning, and kills almost 200 Americans, you'll strap him down and waterboard him, if he doesn't talk about his co-conspirators, won't you ?
If a Jewish extremist group does the same, you'll waterboard THEM too, right ?
If saving American lives is indeed your intention, as you state, then you will have to agree with the above situations I've given, and how that "valuable technique" you argue for is perhaps the only and realistic way to get some of these people to talk.
It's your logic, not mine.
Saving American lives is important, and torture works (at least sometimes) to get information that will save lives. That's the argument I'm hearing, and please correct me if I'm wrong here.
In all of these cases I'm referencing criminal acts, which endanger American lives.
There's no "freedom of choice" involved, in these cases. Laws are broken by criminals, and Americans are dying (or may die) as a result of not stopping them.
So why don't you do it ? | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 1/1/2008 8:24:39 PM |
Is the United States of America going to let other nations dictate our policies...
WTF?
You helped WRITE the policies...AND you're a signatory!
You can dictate policies to others without have to follow those very same policies yourself????
Like I said......WTF!
___________
...stick to the original topic...
Ok...
the premise of this thread was that waterboarding saved lives, the original article supports this
It does? Where?.....You forgot the operative word "probably".
We don't really *know* do we?
What we do know is that there is a hell of a lot of intelligent "intelligence extractors" who do know a hell of a lot more than us.....and they are saying that you can extract information from anyone regardless of the method(s) used.
But....(and it's a big but)...how reliable is the information?
Coerced confessions don't hold a drop of water in US law....yet this administration wants to enable itself to say...
"Fetch me a faucet."
(Kudos....MG for that line...lets hope it doesn't turn into a mantra...)
 | |
|
| |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 1/3/2008 1:08:07 PM | First let me begin by saying again, I believe waterboarding has saved lives in the past, and I believe it will save lives in the future. I believe it may be "torture", but I also believe the current definition of "torture" is not as all encompassing as some seem to think it is. I submit the current bill before the Senate as proof that the US Legislative body does not at this time consider waterboarding to meet the threshold required for that classification. I also believe that even after the law passes, the CIA will still use whatever methods they deem necessary and efficient to do their jobs, to include waterboarding.
Having said that; the biggest problem with the "humanitarian" or “morally superior” position is the insistence on cherry picking preferred items from the US Constitution and giving them a global application. The Constitution represents the "law of the land", not the "law of the universe". If you want the US Constitution to apply to enemy combatants, then you have to also apply the rest of the Constitution to them as well, to include the all too popular 16th amendment as well as the 1st (which is the whole issue now, trying to prevent the establishment of a “national religion”, specifically one that wants to annihilate the western world) and 2nd, (giving an enemy combatant the right to keep and bear arms is just plain ol stoooooooopid).
We're constantly harangued by liberals and socialists for trying to enforce some sort of “global dominance” by inserting democracy in place of a dictatorship that threatened our national security, and then we get beaten up for not imposing OUR Constitution?!?!?!?!?!?
By the way, as I understand it, the Geneva Convention recognizes spies and uniformed enemy combatants, but does not specifically address terrorists. Did I miss that part?
| |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 1/3/2008 1:52:00 PM | tim, the trouble with only having a right wing is you tend to flap around in circles like your first paragraph.
We get it, you approve of waterboarding and you have to give it a semblance of legality to justify doing it.
The Geneva Convention does not spefifically address terrorists? Probably because war itself is terror. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 1/3/2008 2:57:16 PM |
tim the trouble with only having a right wing...... because war itself is terror.
There is a problem with wrong doing when you have to tell lies to yourself to justify the wrongdoing.
examples "I eat chocolate even though it may make me fat"
" I sin but it's alright God forgives me."
"I was only following orders"
We come with some morality installed and some we learn BUT,it takes a lot of
education for the average person to commit immoral,inhumane,un ethical acts. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 1/3/2008 3:43:12 PM | It seems some fallacies are persisting, in spite of facts showing them to be false.
As far as waterboarding being torture or not, that issue has already been settled in the U.S. legal system. In the military, the U.S. military has charged, tried, and convicted U.S. military personnel for waterboarding enemy combatants. In the two instances of which I am aware, they both happened on foreign soil (one in the Philippines, one in Vietnam), so the argument that it "doesn't count" if it happens in a foreign country falls flat on it's face. And the fact that the U.S. military chose to charge, try, and convict two Soldiers for waterboarding does not in any way imply that they were trying to make the U.S. constitution apply to Filipinos and the Vietnamese. Such statements reflect either a lack of understanding of how/why laws are enforced, or an attempt to spin the debate into something it isn't. For example, it is illegal for U.S. citizens to bribe foreigners, anywhere. A U.S. businessperson can be charged with a crime for, for example, bribing a foreign government official/business person in order to get a lucrative contract, even if the bribery takes place in a foreign country. It has absolutely nothing to do with "giving them Constitutional rights". This is a Red Herring logical fallacy.
As far as the civilian legal system goes, it has been explained ad nauseum already in just the last couple of pages. To sum up, the U.S. government is a signatory to several treaties which expressly forbid torture. And iirc, the federal statute outlawing torture has been cited already as well. Every single expert cited so far has stated unequivocally, unambiguously, that waterboarding is in fact torture. In fact, the current administration has even criticized other governments for doing very similar things.
I can only imagine the outrage by torture apologists if/when we start seeing videos of U.S. citizens being waterboarded. After all, governments should be allowed to do it openly now, right? If we can do it, why can't anybody? A U.S. citizen is accused of breaking the law in Thailand? Put him under the faucet until he talks. It's not torture, after all.... | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 1/3/2008 4:05:30 PM |
.... so the argument that it "doesn't count" if it happens in a foreign country falls flat on it's face.
A US citizen ANYWHERE on the planet, cannot legally smoke a Cuban cigar.
Fines and Penalties Are Not Worth the Risk
Cuban cigars are illegal in the United States, except for pre-embargo cigars which are very rare and extremely expensive. If U.S. citizens attempt to buy, own or bring any Cuban cigars into the U.S., they may be subject to fines and other penalties, depending on the particular circumstances.
Cuban Cigars Are Illegal at Home and Abroad
Technically, although an American citizen cannot even purchase or smoke a Cuban cigar while traveling abroad, there may not be any practical way to enforce the restriction. That being said, a cigar smoker who ever wanted to try a Cuban cigar may want to take the chance while traveling in other countries. Canada and Mexico are not very far from many American cities, and those who are planning a Caribbean cruise will find Cuban cigars for sale on many of the island
Know the Risks
Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515, (Revised September 30, 2004) are administered and enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Criminal penalties for violation of the Regulations can go as high as $1 million for corporations, and $250,000 for individuals plus up to 10 years in prison. In addition, civil penalties of up to $65,000 per violation can be imposed by OFAC.
http://cigars.about.com/od/cubantradeembargo/qt/0062002a.htm
So if you are going to waterboard anyone, anywhere, just make VERY sure you do not smoke a Cuban cigar while doing so.
That could get you in a WORLD of trouble, if anyone finds out.  | |
|
|
| Page 27 of 41
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
