• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Waterboarding Rocks!

Dr Adequate said:
From CNN:

In releasing the memos in response to a public records request from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups, the Obama administration informed CIA officials they will not be prosecuted for past waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics.

Attorney General Eric Holder promised in a separate statement that officials who used the controversial interrogation tactics were in the clear if their actions were consistent with the legal advice from the Justice Department under which they were operating at the time.

"My judgment on the content of these memos is a matter of record," President Obama said in a statement released from the White House.

Obama prohibited the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding shortly after taking office in January. Such techniques "undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer," he said Thursday [...] He added that the officials involved in the questionable interrogations would not be subject to prosecution because the intelligence community must be provided "with the confidence" it needs to do its job.​

Got that?

Now, while I am not completely happy with this, the Obama administration has a point. If you can prosecute people in the CIA for doing stuff that the Justice Department at the time said was totally OK, then how would the CIA, or, for that matter, the police, dare to do anything at all?

On the other hand, surely if the lawyers were telling the CIA that it was OK to waterboard when it wasn't, then it would, by contrast, be a good idea to make an example of them.
Click to expand...

Read the memos. It was the CIA initiated asking for an opinion on techniques THEY had devised. Not the other way around. The Water Boarding memo stated that there could be differing interpretations whether it was "torture" and that it could be subject to judicial review.
 
Texas said:
THe UN has no army.
Click to expand...

So you believe in "might makes right" rather than the rule of law?

FWIW, the U.S. does have an army and the U.N. Convention Against Torture, signed and ratified by the U.S., is now U.S. law.
 
applecorped said:
Yes, it would be wrong.
Click to expand...
Why?

Unless strong and irrefutable evidence is found that President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney knowingly and willingly broke the law in their dealings with Yoo’s department, they should not be prosecuted. Even if that’s the finding, the Obama Administration should move with extreme care in bringing charges, because of bad precedents it would set.
Click to expand...
But I think that it would set a good precedent.

Suppose Obama's Justice Department told the CIA that it would be fine to assassinate ... oh, let's say Rush Limbaugh ... and they did. Yeah, I know it's not likely, but imagine it.

Would it be a good precedent that no-one whosoever could be prosecuted for it?
 
Last edited:
Texas said:
Read the memos. It was the CIA initiated asking for an opinion on techniques THEY had devised. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...
And ... ?

No-one, I believe, is claiming that these techniques were invented by the lawyers.
 
Cher said it best:

Do you believe in life after love
I can feel something inside me say
I really don't think you're strong enough now,
 
I agree with Texas. The definition of torture is ridiculous.
Waterboarding is really messed up, but the suspects are in no imminent danger, so governments apparently let it slide. Now you have people bummed out because our government supports exploiting a person's fear for interrogation.
This subject was touched on in the Politics section under the "Torture by Insects" thread. If a suspect is deadly scared of something (drowning, bugs, etc.), and you exploit that fear without them being physically harmed, is it torture? Under the UN definition, yes. So anytime a suspect being questioned gets scared (whatever the tactic), it can be considered torture. Where is the line drawn? And who gets to draw it?
 
MikeSun5 said:
I agree with Texas. The definition of torture is ridiculous.
Waterboarding is really messed up, but the suspects are in no imminent danger, so governments apparently let it slide. Now you have people bummed out because our government supports exploiting a person's fear for interrogation.
This subject was touched on in the Politics section under the "Torture by Insects" thread. If a suspect is deadly scared of something (drowning, bugs, etc.), and you exploit that fear without them being physically harmed, is it torture? Under the UN definition, yes. So anytime a suspect being questioned gets scared (whatever the tactic), it can be considered torture. Where is the line drawn? And who gets to draw it?
Click to expand...
Surely the line would be US law as it obtained at that time.

If waterboarding was illegal, and if it happened, then surely someone has committed a crime.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Surely the line would be US law as it obtained at that time.

If waterboarding was illegal, and if it happened, then surely someone has committed a crime.
Click to expand...

At the time it was used it was not illegal. The congress passed a law years after it had already stopped.

I stand corrected, Bush vetoed it and it was sustained. So there is no law against waterboarding even today.
 
Last edited:
So if it's a question of legality, and supposing waterboarding was considered torture, then the lawyers of those being interrogated can claim torture any time the suspect gets scared. Whatever the reason. It's FEAR that is the main objective in waterboarding, confinement with insects, false flag interrogations, etc.

What I'm getting at is if causing fear is torture, it may eventually get to the point where you can't yell at the person. Yelling can be quite scary sometimes. :eek:

Don't get me wrong: waterboarding sucks. But one thing that's often overlooked is the fact that the suspects are never in any danger.
 
CNSNews? I have a hard time believing the CIA is going to talk to CNSNews and, if so, that the results of the interview would be spun like cotton candy.
 
kallsop said:
CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles

----------
The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.
----------

Awesome! A little water in the nostrils is very effective.

.... and more, in the New York Times ... Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says
Click to expand...

What a load of propagandic nonsense. Anyone who beleives this **** is deluded.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was water boarded over 180 times in a month.


Awesome! A little water in the nostrils is very effective.
Click to expand...

Yeah and after that anyone would confess to 911.



Yeah let's torture people!! "Awsome!!" :rolleyes::rolleyes:

The maturity is killing me!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Tin Foil Timothy said:
What a load of propagandic nonsense. Anyone who beleives this **** is deluded.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was water boarded over 180 times in a month.

Yeah let's torture people!! "Awsome!!" :rolleyes::rolleyes:

The maturity is killing me!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Just to play devil's advocate, how exactly would you get information out of a terrorist? Being polite? Mature? I hear Al-Qaeda really hate sarcasm and hyperbole. ;)

The definition of torture should really be looked at. We're talking FEAR here. Manipulation of FEAR. Scaring people is torture? There goes Halloween. Sorry kids.
 
MikeSun5 said:
Just to play devil's advocate, how exactly would you get information out of a terrorist? Being polite? Mature? I hear Al-Qaeda really hate sarcasm and hyperbole. ;)

The definition of torture should really be looked at. We're talking FEAR here. Manipulation of FEAR. Scaring people is torture? There goes Halloween. Sorry kids.
Click to expand...

You can make that argument, but if you're going to make it - make it. Don't **** around with comparisons to mild stuff like Halloween. If you think making people fear they are going to die doesn't constitute torture, say that you think making people fear they are going to die doesn't constitute torture. Don't try to minimize it and make it sound like a frat prank.
 
quixotecoyote said:
You can make that argument, but if you're going to make it - make it. Don't **** around with comparisons to mild stuff like Halloween. If you think making people fear they are going to die doesn't constitute torture, say that you think making people fear they are going to die doesn't constitute torture. Don't try to minimize it and make it sound like a frat prank.
Click to expand...

My bad, I was fighting sarcasm with sarcasm. But that does beg the question: how far do we push the fear thing? The "Torture by Insect" thread is actually having this exact same debate. A guy with an insect phobia was put in a box with harmless bugs, but he thought he would get stung. That's simply fear. Like the fear of drowning, or the fear of being beaten, shot, etc. IMO fear is not torture, silly comparisons aside.
 
Texas said:
At the time it was used it was not illegal. The congress passed a law years after it had already stopped.

I stand corrected, Bush vetoed it and it was sustained. So there is no law against waterboarding even today.
Click to expand...

It is illegal under treaties we have signed.

It is stuopid and immoral under any religious set of values.

We have a prohition in our constitution aginst it. Go trhink this through before you post any further disinfo here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom