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.

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.

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....

.... so the argument that it "doesn't count" if it happens in a foreign country falls flat on it's face.

The problem with this arguement is that YOU(emph. mine) presume to dictate to the universe what actions are moral,humane and ethical.Quite an undertaking to assume the rights of all others in deciding the positioning for those three legs of the enlightenment tripod.

you are making your definition of torture fit into the mold you want it to

Isn't poster doing the same thing? I am going to the fall back position that I don't define torture society does.

At least the claim of legal or illegal acts hence laws.Poster is missing the broad er point by narrowing the focus.THe opposite of thread title is also true waterboarding has caused death.

"individual life experience" No humanistic inherited tendencies

Many here claim waterboarding saves lives and is worth it if it saves one American life. I therefore anticipate American police forces using it to save even more American lives.

One of the most interesting things which these threads reveal is how very VERY fragile the US constitution actually is. The President, in many ways an almost dictator, can issue an Executive Order which goes completely against the constitution and it becomes law. True it may eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court but that process takes five years or more as witnessed by recent events, in the meantime illegal spying, ilegal imprisonment, illegal torture continues. Were Congress to be able to thwart his efforts on a particular bill and pass one of their own, he can sign it but add signing notes to the fact that he reserves the right not to abide by the provisions of that bill should he feel it necessary. Tada, point set and match!

Simply because you disagree with the application of our laws doesn’t mean they aren’t being applied as the Constitution intended, rather it’s more an indication that you may not understand the Constitution. Your compassion is admirable, but your logic is flawed.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

http://ccrjustice.org/

Dear President Bush:

Enclosed please find a copy of the U.S. Constitution. I wish you'd make some time in your busy schedule to read it.

I would have hoped that you'd be pretty familiar with it already, because you have at least three times in your life taken a solemn oath to uphold, protect and defend it, but all the signs indicate that you either don't know what's in it, or you don't care.

For example, do you recall what the Constitution says about habeas corpus? It's only 26 words, and they are very clear: "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."

So, what were you thinking when you signed the Detainee Treatment Act, which does precisely what the Constitution forbids by suspending habeas corpus?

And while you're at it, why not take a look at Article VI, part of which seems to have escaped your notice: "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."

If you understand that treaties are the law of the land, where do you get the nonsense you put out on a regular basis about torture? Because, as surely someone in the White House must be aware, the U.S. is a signatory to the international Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The convention against torture makes a clear statement, which (according to the Constitution) is the "Law of the Land:" "For the purposes of this Convention, the term 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Just read it, Mr. President. And then uphold, protect and defend it, like you swore you would.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/383/t/4089/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=822

Santa Claus Delivers 37,000+ Copies of Constitution to President Bush

Kringle Hopes President Can Find Time to Read Document, Abide by Its Laws

December 20, 2007, Washington, DC – This morning, Santa Claus (in the person of noted constitutional lawyer Bill Goodman) drove his sleigh to the White House to deliver thousands of copies of the U.S. Constitution to President Bush.

Americans from all over the country – more than 37,000 of them – asked that a copy of the Constitution be delivered to the President in their name and cordially requested that he make time in his busy schedule to read it.

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/santa-claus-delivers
-37,000+-copies-constitution-president-bush

Over 1000 Attorneys Demand Investigation Into Unconstitutional Action By Bush Admin

Over one thousand lawyers - including former Governor Mario Cuomo and former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein - have signed onto the above statement demanding wide-ranging investigative hearings into unconstitutional and potentially criminal activity by the Bush administration.

In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and winner of the 2007 Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship, said: "The majority of lawyers in this country understand that the Bush administration has really gone off the page of constitutional rights and off the page of fundamental rights, and is willing to push the Congress to restore those rights." Ratner said he was "dismayed" that a Democratic majority has failed "to push on key illegalities... the torture program, and now the destruction of the tapes involving the torture program; the warrantless wiretapping, the denial of habeas corpus, the secret sites/rendition program, special trials, and of course what we now know is the firing of US Attorneys scandal.... The minimal that absolutely is needed to get us back on the page of law is to have serious investigative hearings that go up the chain of command and figure out who is responsible for what."

.....you may not understand the Constitution.

Seems some Constitutional lawyers disagree with you, is their logic flawed as well ?

I don’t make or interpret the laws, ...

The problem with this is that you cite cases that were prosecuted under the UCMJ, which is more or less an extension of the US Constitution applicable to US Military Personnel ONLY.

Again, you’re using an “at will” application of a separate set of laws to build your position and laws regarding international commerce are not the same as the UCMJ or those governing acceptable interrogation tactics as applied to terrorists.

I agree you have explained your “OPINION” ad nauseum, and it has been countered ad nauseum with facts, not opinions, ...

The problem with this is that you cite cases that were prosecuted under the UCMJ, which is more or less an extension of the US Constitution applicable to US Military Personnel ONLY.

The “water cure” was applied by uniformed US Military personnel to uniformed enemy combatants and spies, not terrorists.

Interesting that you would select this as an example though, in that it sets up the case for US Constitutional law as applied to a US Citizen, and has absolutely nothing to do with the CIA utilizing interrogation tactics on terrorists, an act which has not yet been declared illegal by the Legislative Branch of the US Government.

I agree you have explained your “OPINION” ad nauseum, and it has been countered ad nauseum with facts, not opinions, yet you continue to assert that only your opinion can be the correct one, but continuously fall short of demonstrating why your opinion should be preferred over facts in the application of your interpretation of US Law.

You are making YOUR definition of torture fit into the mold you want it to.

waterboarding is not (yet) considered torture by US Law. I’m sorry that this disappoints you, but these are facts, not “feelings”.

I don’t make or interpret the laws, ...
How is that interpeting laws? How is that contrary? As a veteran, I am familiar with the UCMJ and am also familiar with the boundaries of it's jurisdiction. The specific acts you alluded to was a simple google search, reporting what I found is not applying or interpreting laws in any way.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2007/10/is-waterboarding-torture-judge-mukasey.php
It refers to the convictions as Courts Martials, the UCMJ term for trial. One doesn’t need to be a lawyer to know that, just a veteran.


Simple semantics. Can you explain the difference between the articles of war and the UCMJ, or is your argument simply that the name change negates the fact that it was a military trial regarding the application of specific military conduct of military personnel regarding uniformed enemy combatants?
Congress ratifies the Constitution and the code of conduct specifically identifying acceptable conduct regarding uniformed enemy combatants to include treatment of prisoners of war and you think because Congress ratified both, they are interchangeable? Never mind the fact that they were courts martialed for imposing the “water cure” which is vastly different from waterboarding.



That’s your opinion, if you ever talk to a Viet Nam Veteran; the prevailing wisdom was black “pajamas” equated to a VC guerilla uniform. Not the mention firing an AK47 at US Troops is kind of a give away….


Fact: Last month there were numerous published accounts of Santa Claus coming to town, doesn’t make it true, just means someone decided to publish it.

I agree you have explained your “OPINION” ad nauseum, and it has been countered ad nauseum with facts, not opinions, yet you continue to assert that only your opinion can be the correct one, but continuously fall short of demonstrating why your opinion should be preferred over facts in the application of your interpretation of US Law.

You are making YOUR definition of torture fit into the mold you want it to.

waterboarding is not (yet) considered torture by US Law. I’m sorry that this disappoints you, but these are facts, not “feelings”.

Fact: Every expert cited so far in this thread has stated that, despite your OPINION to the contrary, waterboarding is in fact torture.

Fact: In 2005 the U.S. State Department criticized Tunisia for engaging in torture. One method specifically mentioned was "dunking the head in water". According to the logic of some people in this thread, if the Tunisians had "only" poured water on their faces instead, it would have been okay.

Care to refute any of the facts that I've listed?

''I do agree,'' Cheney replied, according to a transcript of the interview released Wednesday. ``And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high-value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation.''

Cheney added that Mohammed had provided ``enormously valuable information about how many [al Qaeda members] there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth. We've learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that.''

''Would you agree that a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?'' asked Hennen.

'It's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the vice president `for torture.' We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in,'' Cheney replied. ``We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.'" [Miami Herald]

Q:Tony, your argument that Vice President Cheney didn't know that he was being asked about water boarding or wasn't being asked about water boarding and didn't intend to give an answer that suggested he was saying the United States uses water boarding, it doesn't follow when you read the transcript and it doesn't follow sort of common sense.

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you what he –

Q: How can you really make that argument?

MR. SNOW: I'll tell you what he said. He was asked the question, "You dunk somebody's head in the water to save a life, is it a no-brainer?" And also, if you read the rest of the answer, he also — the Vice President, who earlier had also been asked about torture, he said, "We don't torture."

Let me give you the no-brainers here. No-brainer number one is, we don't torture. No-brainer number two: We don't break the law, our own or international law. No-brainer number three: The Vice President doesn't give away questioning techniques. And number four, the administration does believe in legal questioning techniques of known killers whose questioning can, in fact, be used to save American lives. The Vice President says he was talking in general terms about a questioning program that is legal to save American lives, and he was not referring to water boarding.

Would you agree that a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?''

It's a no-brainer for me...

n his four-page letter, Mukasey said he would try to balance constitutionality with "our shared obligation to ensure that our nation has the tools it needs, within the law, to protect the American people." But he declined to take a stand on waterboarding because, he said, the question is hypothetical.

It's not known, Mukasey said, whether waterboarding or any other specific harsh interrogation technique is being used, or in what circumstances.

"Legal opinions should treat real issues," Mukasey wrote.

"I have not been briefed on techniques used in any classified interrogation program conducted by any government agency," he added. "For me, then, there is a real issue as to whether the techniques presented and discussed at the hearing and in your letter are even part of any program of questioning detainees."

Waterboarding cannot be used by the military under the Army field manual and a 2005 law on detainee treatment. But Congress has not passed additional legislation banning certain harsh interrogation techniques in all circumstances, Mukasey noted, and he also placed some onus for the uncertainty on Congress.

Mukasey said that after being briefed on current practices as attorney general, he would evaluate whether they would violate the Constitution or U.S. or international law.

Specifically, he said, he would decide whether a technique is torture based on two factors in the U.S. criminal code: whether it was intended to cause severe physical pain or suffering or prolonged mental harm.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1193735029174

Mr. Mukasey noted that Congress had not explicitly banned the use of waterboarding by the Central Intelligence Agency, though the method was outlawed for use by the military in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. That left room for interpretation as to whether waterboarding or any other technique is prohibited as “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment, he wrote.

“As a judge,” he wrote, he would “put aside even strongly held personal beliefs,” because “legal questions must be answered based solely on the actual facts, circumstances, and legal standards presented.” In the absence of knowing exactly how specific classified interrogation techniques have been used, he said, he did not want to offer legal opinions on “hypotheticals.”

So, it would seem that any American civilian could presumably use the same methods on another American citizen , without being charged with any crime - since he is reviewing if it's based on the US criminal code.

If that is indeed his logic, and he is indeed Attorney General of the land, then I'd say any good defense lawyer in the land could present a rather compelling argument that his client (charged with waterboarding anyone) was certainly not torturing them to any jury.

If the Attorney General himself cannot legally decide waterboarding's legality (with years of very high profile legal experience) without referring back to the Criminal Code for additional review, then I'd say one certainly could not convict anyone for thinking it was illegal.

All he said was that it was that it "“seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me”,

Congress ratifies the Constitution and the code of conduct specifically identifying acceptable conduct regarding uniformed enemy combatants to include treatment of prisoners of war and you think because Congress ratified both, they are interchangeable?

Never mind the fact that they were courts martialed for imposing the “water cure” which is vastly different from waterboarding.

That’s your opinion, if you ever talk to a Viet Nam Veteran; the prevailing wisdom was black “pajamas” equated to a VC guerilla uniform.

Viet Cong "Black Pajamas".
These "pajamas" became the trademark of the guerrilla fighters in the war in Vietnam. They were the traditional peasant dress of the area. This mannequin also carries two stick grenades and an entrenching tool.

Fact: Last month there were numerous published accounts of Santa Claus coming to town, doesn’t make it true, just means someone decided to publish it.

Ummmmm no they don’t. Certain ones, yes, all of them, no.

(a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to
any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Nice try. Of course the US does not endorse or condone the use of torture! But then again that isn’t the issue. The issue is that in this instance, waterboarding is not considered by the US to breach the threshold of torture, here is the citation of that fact:

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.

Critics say that this misstates the law, and that it ignores key legal decisions, such as the landmark 1952 Supreme Court ruling in Youngstown Steel and Tube Co v. Sawyer, which said that the president, even in wartime, must abide by established U.S. laws.

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

and here is an example of where your argument falls apart. To begin not “every” expert cited classifies it as torture.

Facts can’t be refuted, they are unchallengeable truths. You mistakenly identify opinions as fact, and that’s why your argument fails.

This is a Straw Man logical fallacy. That's not what I said. You made the claim that the UCMJ was "an extension of the Constitution". I merely pointed out that it (the UCMJ) is no more an "extension of the Constitution" than any other law that Congress passes. In other words, that your assertion is nothing more than a non-sequitur.

Once again, we are confronted with a situation of, when the facts don't go your way, just make them up. The fact is that, in the 1968 incident in Vietnam, the U.S. Soldiers (aided by their Vietnamese interpreters) held the man down, placed a cloth over his face, and poured water over the cloth, which is extremely similar to the description of it's modern use by our country.

lol So you're arguing that it's only "an opinion" that Vietnamese peasants wore the same type of clothing. Maybe you should make the Army aware of your little insight:

Now you're trying to equate actual reporting with a child's fairy-tale and the Christmas Holiday season? You can't/won't address the actual issue, so you resort to a sarcastic non-sequitur. I think that's a pretty clear indication that your argument has run out of gas.

Fact: U.S. laws apply to U.S. citizens, even if they are not located within the United States.

Nice try. Of course the US does not endorse or condone the use of torture! But then again that isn’t the issue. The issue is that in this instance, waterboarding is not considered by the US to breach the threshold of torture, here is the citation of that fact:

The fact is that historically, the U.S. has considered waterboarding torture. This is proven by the fact that U.S. citizens have been charged, tried, and convicted of it. The waterboarding procedure used in the 1968 incident is almost identical to what is being discussed now. Your attempt to make a false distinction that it somehow doesn't count because it was a military court is meaningless.

and here is an example of where your argument falls apart. To begin not “every” expert cited classifies it as torture.

Then please, point out the interrrogation experts who say that waterboarding is not torture.

Care to refute any of the facts that I've listed?

I think that part of the problem is that you have reversed the definitions of 'fact' and 'opinion'....

Tim, thanks for the information and thank you for the lesson. I had always thought that the right to privacy was guaranteed and that included privacy when speaking on a telephone. I had thought that tapping telephones without a warrant was illegal in the US, all the TV shows indicate that there must be a warrant granted for that but thank you for setting me straight - an American has no right to the expectation of privacy when using a phone! Wow, who would have known. Much different here of course, unlike the in "Land of the free" our government simply can't do that.

Oh and regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Tsk tsk. Please be advised that every Canadian has the right to keep and bear arms. We however differ from the "land of the free" in that we believe:
1. People should not be allowed to purchase a gun without registering it (although many illegal handguns are being smuggled in from the US since they are readily available everywhere).
2. People should not be allowed to carry a concealed firearm (and get into gunfights over parking spaces like in the US or take potshots at someone who cut you off in traffic etc).
3. Here guns are not allowed in schools (you will be aware of dozens of school massacres happening in the US - we have had two unfortunately). This is an economy since we don't need scanners not security guards in schools unlike the US, it saves us a lot of money.
4. Banks don't give out guns for opening an account, in fact you don't even get a toaster. We also ban guns from workplaces. We have also had a couple of workplace killings while you have had hundreds and hundreds.
5. We have restrictions on the kinds of guns people can own unless there is a special reason such as a club or collector then there are special restrictions on their transportation and storage. I know you see that as a proof that we are not free but we Canadians simply see no need for people to have a machine gun or an assault rifle such as an AK-47 for a hunting rifle, nor a .50 calibre automatic sniper rifle for that matter. Nor do we see any need for people to own, and bear, a sub-machine gun.

I, an ordinary citizen, certainly have owned hunting rifles, shotguns and even pistols. I read recently that a 14 year old kid in the US who had made threats against fellow students owned ten, repeat ten (thats 10) fully functional assault rifles, and with his parents knowledge and blessing. Again, I know you consider it not being free but like most of the rest of the world we don't see that as being smart.

Canadians simply don't need guns for protection like you do. Our crime rate, per capita, is far far below yours, people don't feel the need to carry guns to protect themselves, we have police departments to do that. And they do it well. We here all wonder why you are so murderous? You are one of the most murderous societies on the planet, but inside your own borders thats strictly your business!

Back onto topic. Canada is a tolerent society.

Its quite OK by me, and probably most Canadians, if you want to waterboard American citizens, its OK by me that Americans own and carry concealed pistols, have assault rifles in the trunk, if kids carry guns to school to protect themselves. Canadians understand that it is your right as a free American to have all the guns you wish, to carry them as you wish, to sell them to children as you wish, we are a tolerant society. But what concerns us and the rest of the world is when you think its OK to impose your countries standards on the rest of us. Don't get a pouter on but we take your guns away when you cross the border - the last thing we want is a hail of lead because someone ticked you off in the McDonalds line. Waterboarding is OK in the US? Fine by me but its not OK here nor in the rest of the civilized world.

Still insisting on referring to opinion as fact.

WRONG. The UCMJ is a separate set of rules that apply ONLY to the military. Civilians cannot be prosecuted and jailed for not being in bed at lights out, nor can they be jailed for skipping out on work to make a long weekend.

Ignorance of the applications of the UCMJ does not strengthen your argument, it weakens it.

The convictions in 1902 of US Troops in the Philippines was incorrectly identified by YOU as waterboarding, it was I who corrected your "factual" error.

The incident in Vietnam was in fact a crudely applied form of waterboarding, and in accordance with the UCMJ, the soldier was tried. I am finding conflicting reports on the outcome of that courts-martial though, one source indicated he was "drummed out of the military" while another indicated he was "reprimanded".

how do you equate the UCMJ or the Army Field Manual to the CIA? The CIA is NOT a military faction; therefore they are neither subject to the UCMJ nor bound by the regulations of the field manual.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight…. I think I see your point, the actual guerrilla fighters (VC) were the ones in the black pajamas, with two stick grenades, an entrenching tool AND an AK47, while the peasants only carried the stick grenades and entrenching tool as fashion accessories.

You are again erroneously elevating your personal opinion to the status of indisputable fact. Read my lips, Waterboarding, as defined by all three branches of the federal government at this time, does not meet the threshold THEY recognize as necessary to be classified as torture. This is not my opinion, this is fact.

Of course the US does not endorse or condone the use of torture!

All one has to do is research a little and suddenly it’s very obvious that you aren’t able or at least are unwilling to distinguish between the two.

Still insisting on referring to opinion as fact.

WRONG. The UCMJ is a separate set of rules that apply ONLY to the military. Civilians cannot be prosecuted and jailed for not being in bed at lights out, nor can they be jailed for skipping out on work to make a long weekend.

Ignorance of the applications of the UCMJ does not strengthen your argument, it weakens it.

The bottomline is that you claimed that the UCMJ was "an extension of the Constitution", when in fact it is another set of laws passed by Congress. The main difference between the UCMJ and the rest of the federal laws is applicability; federal laws apply to everybody, and the UCMJ is usually only applied to military personnel.

The convictions in 1902 of US Troops in the Philippines was incorrectly identified by YOU as waterboarding, it was I who corrected your "factual" error.

While I understand the difference between the two and believe them to be distinct techniques, they are sufficiently similar that the difference doesn't really change the fundamental argument. It reminds me of the people who try to make a distinction between "mild" and "severe" forms of waterboarding.

The incident in Vietnam was in fact a crudely applied form of waterboarding, and in accordance with the UCMJ, the soldier was tried. I am finding conflicting reports on the outcome of that courts-martial though, one source indicated he was "drummed out of the military" while another indicated he was "reprimanded".

how do you equate the UCMJ or the Army Field Manual to the CIA? The CIA is NOT a military faction; therefore they are neither subject to the UCMJ nor bound by the regulations of the field manual.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight…. I think I see your point, the actual guerrilla fighters (VC) were the ones in the black pajamas, with two stick grenades, an entrenching tool AND an AK47, while the peasants only carried the stick grenades and entrenching tool as fashion accessories.

You are again erroneously elevating your personal opinion to the status of indisputable fact. Read my lips, Waterboarding, as defined by all three branches of the federal government at this time, does not meet the threshold THEY recognize as necessary to be classified as torture. This is not my opinion, this is fact.

You may be partially correct, in that the Executive branch doesn't consider waterboarding torture.

Personally, I think it's more accurate to say that they don't care one way or the other.

This is evidenced by the fact that a year ago Bush signed yet another signing statement implying that he would still use torture whenever he felt it necessary, even though Congress had just passed yet another law outlawing it:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

But as far as the Legislative and Judicial branch not believing that waterboarding is torture, can you show anything from either/both of these branches which says something like, "waterboarding is not torture, and has not historically been considered torture"?

The bottomline is that you claimed that the US doesn't condone torture, when the fact of the matter is that this administration has both authorized and condoned it.

All one has to do is research a little and suddenly it’s very obvious that you aren’t able or at least are unwilling to distinguish between the two.

The issues of gun laws, privacy rights, etc, are all topics for another thread. But I will point out that gun registration is NOT a requirement in "the U.S.". Gun laws vary state-by-state; some may require it, but others definitely don't. That isn't an opinion, either.

[quote I’ll wager we have fewer clubbing and stabbings per capita than you do.

But getting back to you and your "opinions".Your responses/arguements lack substance, I note all of your posts and responses are wagers, beliefs and opinion.

I further note that you are skilled at turning from the evidence provided by others to yet another opinion you hold.

Like the black pajama'd Vietnamese..... saying they were terrorists.

And suggesting that since they might have been carrying an AK-47 it was ok to waterboard or torture them.

You seem to speak proudly of your status as a vereran. How many years? I did 39.

I note that only 30% of Americans support the President. By your logic all the rest ( that is 70%) must be un-American...... probably terrorist supporters.... or maybe even Commies (remember when in the land of the free Commies were hounded from their jobs) .... or worst (God forbid) they even might think Castro (another Commie I admit) is no longer a threat.

And speaking about Cuba. Are you aware that since the botched CIA invasion of Cuba 40 years ago, in the land of the free it is illegal to smoke a cuban cigar! Wow, how free is that!

I for one give up. I see your mind is made up so there is no point in trying to confuse you with facts.

I’m as human as the next person and make my fair share of mistakes … when I do make one I have no issue admitting when I’m wrong,...

Hardly, but nice to know you have an alternate approach to debate, when facts fail, insult, when that fails insist your opinion represents indisputable fact, and when that fails revert to pseudo-psychology.... I'm sorry, it's just so laughable!

I notice you did a little pasting, but as always you left out the all important clause….
802.1.12.C.1 Submitted voluntarily to military authority; Now who’s obfuscating?

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

DUH…. That’s precisely what I have been saying in every post and you have been arguing against!

Your initial claim was that US Citizens were convicted under US Law in 1902 and 1968 for waterboarding and indicated that was precedence for waterboarding to be classified as torture.

The only problem is as I described in painful detail in hopes you would understand, fortunately it now appears you have, and it looks like you’re “projecting” the notion that you discovered this.
1.) In 1902 the infraction was in the application of the “water cure” to POW’s, not waterboarding. It’s kind of like the difference between going swimming and going fishing … sure they both involve water, but that’s pretty much where the similarity ends.

Waterboarding actually refers to two different interrogation techniques. One involves pumping water directly into the stomach. "This creates intense pain. It feels like your organs are on fire," says Darius Rejali, a professor at Reed College in Oregon and author of a new book, Torture and Democracy.

The other technique — the one more widely used today — involves choking the victim by filling their throat with a steady stream of water — a sort of "slow-motion drowning" that was perfected by Dutch traders in the 17th century. They used it against their British rivals in the East Indies.

At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

No argument there, the UCMJ was applied as intended. I did notice that in this post you failed to mention you previously colored the trial and conviction as civilian …

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.

Just to refresh your memory, the Executive Branch of the US Government does not consider waterboarding as torture, and insists there is no current law preventing its use.

The Legislative Branch of the US Government does not consider waterboarding as torture, and insists there is no current law preventing its use.
http://cbs5.com/national/waterboarding.torture.CIA.2.610644.html

There you have it, two demonstrations of FACTS, neither has my opinion inserted....

I did not erroneously assert anything; I made a statement of fact. All the Vietnam veterans I know equate the “black pajamas” to VC.

The “first-hand” experiences you speak of with regard to the Persian Wars was a reference by me to an assertion in a post that claimed resolve can withstand far superior numbers to which I referenced the 300 Spartans of Thermopylae when Xerxes attacked. If memory serves, you then attempted to hijack the thread to make it about the Persian war…

Now who’s obfuscating? We’ve covered this ad nauseum. In fact, you acknowledged the difference in the laws governing waterboarding in this very post!

FACT 2.) The Administration, Department of Justice and the Legislative Branch of the US Government do not currently hold that waterboarding equates to torture

Read my lips, Waterboarding, as defined by all three branches of the federal government at this time, does not meet the threshold THEY recognize as necessary to be classified as torture. This is not my opinion, this is fact.

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

You seem to forget that the President, no matter what team he plays for also has a Constitutional obligation to protect our citizens as further stated in the article you quoted:

Critics say that this misstates the law, and that it ignores key legal decisions, such as the landmark 1952 Supreme Court ruling in Youngstown Steel and Tube Co v. Sawyer, which said that the president, even in wartime, must abide by established U.S. laws.

The Supreme Court has never upheld warrantless domestic wiretapping, and has never held that a President acting as Commander in Chief can violate a criminal statute limiting his conduct.

Every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander-in-Chief's authority, it has upheld the statute.

Curtis Bradley, Duke Law School, former Counselor on International Law in the State Department Legal Adviser's Office [14]

David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center

Walter Dellinger, Duke Law School, former Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Counsel and Acting Solicitor General

Ronald Dworkin, NYU Law School

Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School, Senior Fellow,
Hoover Institution

Philip B. Heymann, Harvard Law School, former Deputy Attorney
General

Harold Hongju Koh, Dean, Yale Law School, former Assistant Secretary
of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ

Martin Lederman, Georgetown University Law Center, former
Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ

Beth Nolan, former Counsel to the President and Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel

William S. Sessions, former Director, FBI, former Chief United States District Judge

Geoffrey Stone, Professor of Law and former Provost, University of
Chicago

Kathleen Sullivan, Professor and former Dean, Stanford Law School

Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law School

William Van Alstyne, William & Mary Law School, former Justice
Department attorney

If it was easy being Commander in Chief, even you could do it….

For the god only knows how many times, the US does not condone torture;

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.

I believe you’re wrong on this one too, but as you said, another thread…..

back to your opinion substituted as facts I see….

You have been making this accusation for awhile now, but this particular instance is very telling. I clearly started my sentence with the phrase, "Personally, I think...", which to anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of English means that what follows is an opinion. The fact that you would characterize my statement the way you did shows the degree to which your assessments don't match the facts. I don't know if it's a question of reading comprehension (though I doubt it), a question of you being willing to say anything to "prove" your point, or if your emotions have so clouded your judgment that you honestly believe what you say. Regardless, with this single accusation you have clearly shown to any objective observer just how meritless all of your accusations are, and have been.

You've also made it clear that it's pointless to continue, especially considering that just about everybody else has already left the discussion. Honestly, I don't expect you to admit to any of the factual errors you have made and I have shown; you've painted yourself so thoroughly into a corner and dialed up the sarcasm so much that to admit you have been wrong about things would be just too much to bear. Frankly, I don't think you're capable of eating that much humble-pie, because it would be a lot. So I'll leave you to stand in an empty room and declare yourself "the victor". Once you're done patting yourself on the back, it may be instructive to look at one more thing: http://tinyurl.com/33c7qg