Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Los Angeles or Waterboarding?
by Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


After 9/11, Americans wanted one thing from Washington: to prevent future terrorist attacks. President George W. Bush, the CIA and other hard-working officials delivered. For their trouble, a handful of those individuals now have reason to fear that they may be ruined.

My guess is that President Obama realizes it was a big mistake for his administration to release four memos written by Bush administration lawyers sanctioning enhanced interrogation techniques. Already, rage on the left has prompted Obama to go squishy on his once-insistent opposition to prosecuting any Bush administration officials. Now he says he might let his attorney general prosecute Bush lawyers.

That would be criminalizing the politics of 2002. George Tenet wrote in his book "At the Center of the Storm," "After 9/11, gripped by the same emotions and fears, Congress exhorted the intelligence community to take more risks to protect the country." Civil rights? Then-Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., noted at a 2002 Senate intelligence committee that "we are not living in times in which lawyers can say no to an operation just to play it safe." Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz defended the use of rough treatment -- "the third degree" -- in order "to elicit information from terrorists about continuing threats." The Bush administration authorized techniques that the ACLU calls torture.

Seven years later, Obama banned those techniques, as he promised. But in releasing the memos last week, Obama unwittingly reinforced Osama bin Laden's view of America as a country of pantywaists. Now America's enemies know they have nothing to fear but bad lawyering if U.S. forces catch them.

The memos describe "enhanced" techniques used on 28 high-value detainees. Protocol called for operatives to begin with tamer methods. To wit: the "attention grasp," the "facial slap" and "dietary manipulation -- that is, "presenting detainees with a bland, unappetizing but nutritionally complete diet." Read: Ensure Plus. Really.

"Walling" involved pushing a detainee into a wall -- but a phony wall to prevent injury. The CIA was going to try to scare al-Qaida biggie Abu Zubaydah with insects, but the bugs had to be harmless and not cause an allergic reaction. I can see the al-Qaida boys chortling in their cave over the very idea that these techniques would even be controversial -- not to mention out of bounds under the Obama administration.

If the tamer methods did not work, operatives could ask CIA headquarters for permission to use more daunting techniques -- such as sleep deprivation and waterboarding. Three detainees were waterboarded before the last waterboarding in March 2003. The memos revealed that two detainees -- Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (aka KSM) -- were water boarded a total of 266 times.

Some maintain that the CIA might have learned what it needed to know without waterboarding. But as one memo reported, before the questioning got tough, "KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will know.'"

The questioning got tougher. As the memo noted, the CIA believes that "the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001."

And: Once "enhanced techniques" were used on KSM, interrogations "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' … to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner' into a building in Los Angeles."

Do I like waterboarding? No, but it is not life threatening; in extreme cases, I can live with it. And I'll take waterboarding over a 9/11 in Los Angeles any day.

One last point: The Navy has used waterboarding in training. Obama put a stop to the "enhanced" techniques because he believes they have tarnished America's image abroad, which makes Americans less safe. People of goodwill can disagree on that point.

But when Obama opened the door for his attorney general to prosecute Bush lawyers, that flip-flop told U.S. intelligence and law enforcement operatives that Obama's assurances cannot be trusted. That can't be good for America's safety.

Former California Gov. Pete Wilson, who served on the Bush Defense Policy Board, was appalled. "If they try to prosecute that, that should spark mass resignations in the government," he told me Tuesday.

As for Obama, Wilson said, "This is a guy who was teaching law. Good God."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Show and tell
Show and tell witch hunts from the Democrats will begin soon and will tear apart the frabic of our Country that is facing enormous challenges internally and externally. What is to gained? It has already made us less safe!

Generally ...
In the past, each party has refused to implicate members of the other party for past misdeeds because they know that sooner or later the other party will return the favor.

But now it seems as if the Democrats don't believe that they will ever again loose the power of office. They are threatening to indite several Bush officals; they are also listing anyone who falls into the Republican party as "extremists".


PAYING A HIGH PRICE.
When a nation turns its back on God,
this is exactly what you get.A wicked people ruling the nation.

The Debate is Deliberately Misleading
Because of the word "torture", the debate has gotten skewed.

One of the problems is that some folks are confusing interrogators with torturers. An interrogator doesn't make his living inflicting pain on someone, but rather by extracting information. But because the word "torture" keeps being used, some people have a movie image of evil sadists enjoying their victim's pain and suffering in some secret and sweaty location somewhere.

Most information that is obtained from a subject is obtained from various lines of questioning -- not physical interrogation tactics. But when specific information is needed, like certain dates, times or locations that the subject is refusing and where time is of essence -- a direct fear tactic is often the best means of extracting the specific information.

The bottom line, is that we are not "torturers". And when the water-boarding or similar tactic is complete -- the subject still has all his fingers, toes, arms, legs and has not been physically injured in any way.

Water-boarding is not torture -- it's used as an alternative to torture.

terry
if waterboarding is not torture why has the united states prosecuted others for using it.

In 1983, the Justice Department prosecuted a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies for waterboarding prisoners to get them to confess to crimes. The deputies were sentenced to four years in prison and the sheriff got a 10-year sentence. Yet that case is not cited in the “torture” memos DOJ released that authorized the CIA to waterboard detainees


The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war.

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."


as steve chapman points out
The Bush administration claimed that the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammad helped foil a planned 2002 attack on Los Angeles -- forgetting that he wasn't captured until 2003. Maybe we'll get a better answer if the administration grants Cheney his request that it declassify material supporting his case, as it should.

Shocking
I knew conservatives generally fear for their security enough to compromise their morals, as well as the law, but I had no idea just how insecure they were! These articles on TH.com applauding the use of a method that we prosecuted others for, domestically and internationally, is just beyond comprehension. Can one of you brilliant conservatives explain how something that we accused others of war crimes of, is somehow ok for us to do?

Christianlib
Good comment, I agree completely. Put it out on the table.

jeffrey
yes it is, why some conservatives and republicans want to be known as the party of torture makes no sense to me.

you'd think they at least would listen to john mccain who has more experience with it than 99.9% of americans.


Another TH wacked out article
“After 9/11, Americans wanted one thing from Washington: to prevent future terrorist attacks.”

And BEFORE 9/11, Americans wanted the government to prevent any terrorist attacks. Not being attacked was not a new assignment after 9/11; American citizens have always wanted to be safe from attack. But evidently that assignment was not a very high priority for President Bush and his crack National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice. And over 3,000 Americans in New York, and so far, over 4,200 Americans in Iraq, have paid with their lives.

But don’t worry, torturing detainees will make it all better!

christianlib
That was a nice try.

No, Sheriffs were not prosecuted for "water-boarding", they were prosecuted for breaking the law. If I snatched you up, tied you down and water-boarded you, I would not be prosecuted for "water-boarding", I would be prosecuted for breaking the law in unlawfully abducting you, holding you against your will and assault. Sheriffs are not legally entitled to subject an American citizen to that kind of treatment, regardless of the used "water-boarding" or forced them to listen to Rosie O'Donnell all day.

After World War II, we did not convict any Japanese Soldiers for "water-boarding". We convicted Japanese soldiers for "torture". To say that the torture included "water-boarding" is no different than saying the torture included wearing shoes, going to the bathroom and sweating.

BTW...you little spiel has been floating around the Internet for years.

Disgusting
Here, on a website where most, if not all, writers and posters claim to be Christians (Medved, Prager and Shapiro excepted), we have another column defending torture. It's simply mind boggling. Torture, folks. That's what is being defended here. Torture. Torture of people found guilty of nothing in a court of law. That's what conservatism is about these days? Another person wholly opposed to torture was Winston Churchill, despite Britain eing subjected to a 9/11 a week for six years. Investigate, prosecute and jail the lot of them, including Cheney and Rice.

If tortured is defined internationally

as the infliction of severe pain or suffering, I do not see how waterboarding or sleep deprivation or stress positions qualify as toture.

Perhaps the leftist genuises christianfib and jefferery can explain how they become torture even though they do not inflict severe pain or suffering.

christiianfib,

the federal government prosecutes people unjustly all the time. Why should it prosecuting its enemies for waterboading be conclusive in calling it torture?

terry
it is you who are badly misinformed.

A U.S. Military Commission at Yokohama, Japan. tried four Japanese defendants for
torture and mistreatment of American and Allied prisoners at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch
Camp Number 3, in Kyushu. Water torture was among the acts alleged in the specifications
Water Boarding Article
Page 18
56United States of America v. Hideji Nakamura, Yukio Asano, Seitara Hata, and Takeo
Kita, U.S. Military Commission, Yokohama, 1-28 May, 1947. NARA Records, NND 735027
RG 153, Entry 143 Box 1025
57The charge and specifications against Hata were:
Charge: That the following member of the Imperial Japanese Army with his then known title:
Seitaro Hata, Surgeon First Lieutenant,, at the times and places set forth in the specifications
hereto attached, and during a time of war between the United States of America and its Allies
and Dependencies, and Japan, did violate the Laws and Customs of War.
Specification 3. That in or about July or August, 1943, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp
Number Three, Fukuoka ken, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Seitaro Hata, did willfully and
unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Morris O. Killough, an American Prisoner of War, by
beating and kicking him; by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring water up his nostrils.
Specification 5. That on or about 15 May, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp
Number Three, Fukuoka ken, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Seitaro Hata, did, willfully and
unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O Cash and Munroe
Dave Woodall, American Prisoners of War by beating and kicking them; by forcing water into
their mouths and noses; camp

Good reminder
I think this is a good reminder for conservatives and/or Christians on this website:

Politicalaffairs.net
October, 2007

“We can effectively protect the country without sacrificing our morals. The rhetoric espoused in every speech the President [Bush] delivers is specially contrived to promote fear. Whereas a great President once reminded us that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, this President would have us be so fearful that we give up every freedom we have in exchange for physical protection, and a false peace of mind.

Any credit that could once be claimed by George Bush for deposing a ruthless dictator and getting rid of Saddam's torture rooms has been negated by the building of his own. In his zeal to win his "war on terror" by any means, he has taken on the visage of a terrorist.

The record of Japanese war crimes trials demonstrates how far we have strayed from the paths of righteousness. Then, U.S. tribunals exacted harsh punishments, even for comparatively minor infractions. If that was Justice then, what has changed now? Many crimes which so shocked the American conscience after World War II, are now advocated as "essential tools" in combating terrorism. What was torture in 1947 is still torture in 2007. The definition of torture has not changed - America has. We must ask ourselves who we are, and compare that to who we were. And after we have taken a long, reflective look at ourselves, we must decide who we want to be.”

christianlib
One big difference, which makes all the difference in the world, between Japan waterboarding our troops in WW2 and America waterboarding those we've captured in our anti-terror efforts:

America's soldiers in WW2 fully met the qualifications of the Geneva Conventions: they were wearing the uniform of a recognizable army with a recognizable command structure fighting for a recognizable flag. Of course, I don't know if at the time the nation of Japan was an actual signatory to those accords.

I defy you to tell me ONE qualification for Geneva Convention protection those that America has waterboarded since 9/11 have satisfied. I say you can't do it.

My attitude is, if these terrorists want to fight as irregular combatants, then part of the price they'll pay for it is if captured, they will not automatically be regarded as eligible for Geneva Convention protections.

And don't try to give me the "moral equivalence" argument, either: the forces we fight today did not and do not need any excuses to be barbarians. I think they proved THAT beyond any possible doubt on 9/11 - well BEFORE the first one of their number was ever subjected to waterboarding. And I also won't buy the argument that our policy on waterboarding increases terrorist recruitment nubmers, either: these recruits come from cultures where if the WORST thing they were subjected to was waterboarding, it would be a far more civilized practice than what is actually practiced in their cultures. Nor do I believe that if the U.S. stops coercive interrogation methods, which now that Obama is president is probably likely anyway, these jihadi forces will reciprocate in kind with any of OUR soldiers they may happen to get their hands on. To believe differently is a denial of reality.


terry here is more
The officers were charged with violations of the prisoners’ civil rights. Count One
of the Indictment asserted that the defendants 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.113
The Sheriff and his deputies were all convicted by a jury under Count One,114 (as well as
under other counts alleging constitutional violations for the same conduct),115 resulting in at least
a four year sentence on that Count.116 The trial included testimony of another former deputy that
the Sheriff and the other Defendants “gave [a prisoner] the water treatment:”
A towel was draped over his head. He was pulled back in the chair and water was
poured over the towel.
Ex-Deputy Tells Jury of Jail Water Torture, New York Times, 1 September, 1983.
The victims’ testimony was strikingly familiar to other instances of water torture at other
times and places :
Q: Were you frightened?
A: Yes.
Q: What were you afraid of?
A: Afraid of drowning; it was hard to breath.
Testimony of former inmate Kevin Coffman.117
...My hands was handcuffed up under the table and water was poured into the face of the
towel until I started suffering a state of suffocation and I felt that my life was in danger.

eddie too and terry
here is the link to the research on waterboarding.


http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_dr aft_20061016.pdf

Eddie Two brain cells
Waterboarding, stress positions, sleep depravation are not suffering?? Are not painful? Tell you what, you take ten minutes sleep in total over the next week, while crouched in a cell that is so small that you can't sit down or lie down. Then come back and tell us how it felt. If your brain is functioning well enough to do so, which I suspect it won't be given the stupidity of your comment...

standhisground
how are you doing?
well i hope.

you say this

Nor do I believe that if the U.S. stops coercive interrogation methods, which now that Obama is president is probably likely anyway, these jihadi forces will reciprocate in kind with any of OUR soldiers they may happen to get their hands on. To believe differently is a denial of reality.


i happen to agree with your conclusion but that doesn't change my mind.

it is immoral to torture and waterboarding is torture.
the abuse at abu gharib was also part of this as was shown by the senate report.

attaching electrodes to a man's testicals hooked up to batteries that send current to his genitals while the man is blindfolded and standing on one leg for hours at a time is also torture.

i respect you alot as a Christian and i can't believe you find these actions morally acceptable.

False Dichotomy
"And: Once "enhanced techniques" were used on KSM, interrogations "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' … to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner' into a building in Los Angeles."

Do I like waterboarding? No, but it is not life threatening; in extreme cases, I can live with it. And I'll take waterboarding over a 9/11 in Los Angeles any day."
-------------------------------------------------------
Except the 'second wave' plot was foiled in 2002 and KSM wasn't captured until 2003. Nobody had to choose between waterboarding and Los Angeles.

What would Reagan Do?
WWRD?

According to international law, torture is never allowable, not even in an extreme emergency. The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment--which was negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the US Senate--is clear on this. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

The Bush administration argued that the war on terror justified its use of extreme interrogation techniques. The two democracies that have faced the most terrorism within their own borders are Great Britain and Israel. The UK had to deal for decades with IRA attacks and more recently with Islamist terror cells. Israel has faced terrorist attacks on its civilians on-and-off for over 60 years. What do these countries have to say about torture? Rulings by their independent judiciaries are instructive.

Torture has long been illegal in Britain, even against terrorists. A few years ago the Law Lords, Britain's highest court, went further and declared that any evidence obtained through torture in a foreign country, via "rendition," is inadmissible in British courts. As one of the Lords declared, "Statements obtained by torture are unacceptable. To rely on them is inconsistent with the notion of justice as administered by our courts."

In Israel in the late 1980s, the security services declared that mild forms of torture, what they called "moderate physical pressure," were permitted when it was believed that a detainee had knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack. This was known as the "ticking bomb scenario." But this changed with a landmark ruling by Israel's High Court of Justice in 1999. The court declared that torture techniques were illegal, even under extreme circumstances.

Saunders Is In Error
Saunders has made a simple but important mistake. She writes: "the CIA believes that "the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001."

In doing so, she attributes the quote to the CIA. It was never uttered or written by the CIA. The quote is from a Bush admin justice dept official who was intentionally trying to justify Bush admin policy.

There is no CIA memo that makes that claim. It is exceedingly hard to discuss such matters iunless there is some expectation that people are reporting information accurately.

In regard to water boarding. The wrong question has been asked. Leading a captive to believe he is going to be killed, when in fact he is not, is considered torture. That is why captors cannot take a prisoner out, tie him to a tree, point a rifle at him, and then fire a blank cartridge.

This is why waterboarding is torture. It's simply an upside down version of taking a guy and shoving his head in a tub of water and pretending to drown him, even though you really aren't going to.




christianlib
If those America had captured DID satisfy the Geneva Convention stipulations - let's say that some of those who at Abu Ghraib had been treated in a way that could be reasonably called torture, and my threshhold of what should be considered torture I very doubt corresponds to that of liberals, had been captured wearing the recognized uniform of, say, the Iraqi army - THEN I'd have been against waterboarding them.

Here's my standard regarding whether I'd accept coercive interrogation methods on those who do not qualify for Geneva Convention protections:

if some terrorists grabbed members of my family, or YOURS, and were holding them hostage, and the government came to me and said it had a captured suspected terrorist in custody that it thought could have information that would aid in a rescue attempt but he wouldn't give it up voluntarily but might just be induced to through coercive interrogation techniques (nothing permanently physically or mentally imparing, let's make it clear) - no guarantees made here about their effectiveness, mind you - and the government said unless I gave my permission such techniques would not be used, would I say "yes" to them?

DARN RIGHT I WOULD!

Because I don't value sparing these bad guys some TEMPORARY discomfort more than I value the lives of innocents.

If you can tell me you value the lives of your loved ones less than inflicting temporary discomfort on some bad guys, well, then, you're at least true to your beliefs. But if so, I dare you to tell your loved ones that you'd rather see them dead rather than see Osama Bin Laden waterboarded. Let's see what they'd think of you then.

To Jeffrey Regarding WWRD
The first four words of your post disqualified the rest of your post from being worth even a glance.

To Jeffrey Re: WWRD
The first four words of your post render anything else you have to say useless.

michelle malkin wrote this 4 years ago
The president looked into the audience and singled out Jeremiah Denton, an American pilot shot down by North Vietnamese troops and imprisoned for eight brutal years. He was beaten, starved and thrown into solitary confinement.

In 1966, during a televised propaganda interview with a pro-Commie journalist arranged by his captors, Denton was pressured to condemn American wartime "atrocities." Instead, Denton stood by his country: "(W)hatever the position of my government is, I believe in it, I support it, and I will support it as long as I live." Denton pretended the camera lighting bothered his eyes. With his clueless jailers surrounding him, Denton looked into the lens, blinked his eyes in Morse Code, and covertly broadcast the truth to the world -- Jane Fonda be damned -- by spelling out "T-O-R-T-U-R-E."
-michelle malkin

The torture Denton endured was very similar to that used against John McCain. He was not waterboarded, and not 183 times. He was forced into stress positions, thrown into solitary, isolated, beaten and had his diet manipulated - all things authorized by George W. Bush. For me, the most telling moment was when president Bush gave his convention speech by satellite for John McCain. Bush had to avoid using the word "torture" to describe what the Vietnamese had once done to McCain. Because if the Vietnamese were torturers, so was Bush.

michelle malkin wrote 4 years ago
The president looked into the audience and singled out Jeremiah Denton, an American pilot shot down by North Vietnamese troops and imprisoned for eight brutal years. He was beaten, starved and thrown into solitary confinement.

In 1966, during a televised propaganda interview with a pro-Commie journalist arranged by his captors, Denton was pressured to condemn American wartime "atrocities." Instead, Denton stood by his country: "(W)hatever the position of my government is, I believe in it, I support it, and I will support it as long as I live." Denton pretended the camera lighting bothered his eyes. With his clueless jailers surrounding him, Denton looked into the lens, blinked his eyes in Morse Code, and covertly broadcast the truth to the world -- Jane Fonda be damned -- by spelling out "T-O-R-T-U-R-E."
-MICHELLE MALKIN
The torture Denton endured was very similar to that used against John McCain. He was not waterboarded, and not 183 times. He was forced into stress positions, thrown into solitary, isolated, beaten and had his diet manipulated - all things authorized by George W. Bush. For me, the most telling moment was when president Bush gave his convention speech by satellite for John McCain. Bush had to avoid using the word "torture" to describe what the Vietnamese had once done to McCain. Because if the Vietnamese were torturers, so was Bush.

The Clinton Years
Clinton just sent them elsewhere to be tortured!


The following is written by Michael F. Scheuer, Adjunct Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

The question's core -- to investigate activities under the Bush administration -- and the use of the term "Truth Commission," as if America is some half-baked Third World country, are telling signs of the question’s partisan political purpose. Because I put together the rendition program against al-Qaeda in August, 1995 -- under President Clinton -- and then ran it for 40 months -- during which period all those rendered were taken to Arab prisons under Mr. Clinton's orders -- I can only say that America is far safer today because of the brains and bravery of the CIA officers who successfully executed their orders regarding rendition under both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush.

Standhisground
Do you feel strongly enough about your views to go to jail for a long time for it? Do you love your country enough to risk your liberty in her defense?

There’s really two issues here. Is torture ever legal? Clearly it is not. US and International laws make that easy. The second is, is it ever moral to break the law in pursuit of some goal? Clearly it is. Exceeding the speed limit to get a woman in labor to a hospital surely is such a case. But even then, you might get a speeding ticket, but reason that it was worth it.

Instead of straining any kind of reasonable legal logic to get its lawyers to carve out a circumstance where torture is legal, Bush should have had the balls to say, it’s illegal, but we’re gonna do it anyway because I think it will get us something. He and his minions didn’t have those cajones, didn’t have the guts to put themselves in any legal jeopardy (the way they put our troops in physical danger) so they made it up. I mean, why expect soldiers to die for their country if you’re not willing to go to jail to keep your country out of harm’s way?

I think we know the answer. Bush and pals don’t have much stomach for jail. They didn’t have the stomach for combat when they were young, either.

standhisground
Excellent points in all your posts!!! You are right on the money!

Melissa
Your attempt to compare POW's in N. Korea and Vietnam to what prisoners at GITMO undergo is laughable.

1. Your example is comparing a situation where a man was tortured, not be because his captors were trying to gather information, but because they intentionally wanted him to lie for propaganda purposes.

2. To call the starvation that our POW's were subjected to the same as dietary manipulation that the CIA has used for years is ridiculous. I'm quite sure that the N. Koreans and the N. Vietnamese did not have doctors and nutritionists present to ensure that prisoners got a diet with all the essential nutrients. Comparing bland, yet nutritional food to starvation is dishonest.

3. POW's returned from East Asia with broken limbs and irreparable injuries, caused by their captors. To compare this to the temporary distress of the interrogation techniques that were used again is dishonest.

WE ARE NOW STARTING TO UNDERSTAND LIBS
Talk about threats to national security! Clinton's botches opened the way for the 9-11 attacks. OneBigAssMistakeAmerica has taken it to a higher level of recklessness. Waterboard a few dregs is humane. They weren't beheaded! Libs probably blame the rape victims too. Perhaps "understanding liberals" is an oximoron.

Do you understand the concept of time?
"Once "enhanced techniques" were used on KSM, interrogations "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' … to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner' into a building in Los Angeles.""

KSM was not captured until March of 2003.
The Los Angeles attack was foiled in February of 2002.

You guys are absolutely crazy? Don't you even check a time line or the dates of the incidents? I can't believe conservatives get news here.

standhisground
i will respect your position but am disturbed that you have to call torture discomfort.

here is a link from a former military officer who went through the training at sere.


The military should close its torture school. I know because I graduated from it.
By David J. Morris


http://www.slate.com/id/2216709

christianlib
I'm disturbed that you have to call discomfort torture.

NOTICE
KSM was not captured until March of 2003.

The Los Angeles attack was foiled in February of 2002.

bporter
It is considered torture to place prisoners in an apparent execution or death dealing situation. For example, one cannot place prisoners in front of a wall, line up a firing squad and have them shoot blanks.

Waterboarding is torture for the same reason. It makes the victim think he is being killed. It's really just an upside down version of dunking a guys head in a tub of water until he thinks he is going to drown.

Jeffrey
You said, "Bush and pals don’t have much stomach for jail. They didn’t have the stomach for combat when they were young, either".

If the latter sentence is intended to imply that because George W. Bush and those around him never wore the uniform of this country's armed forces, they had no moral standing to send those that DID when he was president into harm's way, don't go there - because the exact same is true of Obama and HIS people, also. Which means that if you're going to make THAT argument, then Obama has no business as Commander-in-Chief having our forces ANYWHERE in harm's way - and therefore ought to immediately withdraw them from all combat theaters and declare unilaterally that he will NEVER employ our armed forces in potential combat situations, even in pure self-defense of America.

I also do NOT agree that what you liberals call "torture" is IN FACT torture. You libs have a very vaguely defined standard there: in fact, you frequently refuse to define it AT ALL. I also question whether U.S. law prohibited the "torture", as you call it, of those we waterboarded, given that they weren't U.S. citizens or on U.S. soil. And whether international law prohibited it? I've already said that those we waterboarded did NOT meet Geneva Convention qualifications - and no one here has told me I'm wrong about that.

Nothing, of course, is stopping Obama from indicting/jailing Bush and/or his people for their anti-terrorism efforts - or even forcibly extradicting them to a non-U.S. jurisdiction if IT indicts them, like The Hague. But if Obama does so, and America is hit again with another major terrorist attack during his presidency, I wouldn't want to be HIM when he has to go before the American people to defend himself.


The definition of torture
"You libs have a very vaguely defined standard there: in fact, you frequently refuse to define it AT ALL"

Here is a link to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment that Ronald "Senile" Reagan signed.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

From Article 1:
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.

That is the USA's and the UN's definition of torture

A liberal alternative to "torturing"
I would be willing to bet that NO LIBERAL would have complained if "teabagging" would have been used as an enhanced interrogation technique.

Standhisground
You had to get a dig in on Obama, didn’t you? What is WRONG with you conservatives? It’s always about the actor, never the act. How on earth do you navigate life with such a fluid definition of ethics and morality: “I have to know WHO did it before I can know if it’s wrong or not!” Bush triggers a civil war in Iraq, killings hundreds of thousands, and you guys shrug, because he’s a Republican, and therefore can’t be wrong. Clinton lies about getting a blowjob and you howl! I’ll never understand you people.

My concern about Bush’s cowardice is that he got out of serving in Vietnam. Son of a rich guy, go figure. Although other rich guys DO serve their country, risking their lives. Whatever. The point is, he’s gutless to cover his tracks with fake legal memoranda to keep his own butt out of harm’s way but all too happy to preside over the killing of US soldiers and innocent Iraqis.

It’s not torture to simulate a painful death to someone? So if I hold a pistol to your head, and pull the trigger every 15 seconds but claim there are no bullets in the gun that I know of, you’re ok with that? Would you call that torture? I mean, I’ve told you up front I don’t intend to kill you, even though it might feel different to you on your side of the gun.

Again, it’s not torture if it’s done to a bad guy, right? More of your moral relativism. What if we found out we did it to a 12 year old girl? Would you feel differently?

Jeffrey
You said, "You had to get a dig in on Obama, didn’t you?"

What "dig" exactly did I get in at Obama? That, like George W. Bush, he became Commander-in-Chief without ever wearing the uniform of the armed forces he's now CinC of? I took from your 2:46 pm post that you were questioning Bush's moral authority, given that fact, to send our troops into harm's way. And in fact, in your 3:28 pm post, you CONFIRMED that my interpretation of your post was EXACTLY CORRECT when you said of Bush, "he’s gutless to cover his tracks with fake legal memoranda to keep his own butt out of harm’s way but all too happy to preside over the killing of US soldiers".

Well, isn't OBAMA'S butt right now out of harm's way while HE "presides over the killing of US soldiers" in Iraq and Afghanistan? And let's remember something ELSE; since Obama took the oath of office, attacks by American personnel/weaponry have killed civilians on PAKISTAN'S soil. So, Jeffrey, isn't Obama therefore presiding over the killing of "innocent" Pakistanis? Got anything to say to or about Obama about THAT?

You said of Bush, "My concern about Bush’s cowardice is that he got out of serving in Vietnam". So, isn't the EXACT same true of BILL CLINTON as well? Or is what's sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander?

sdf
Water-boarding does not cause severe pain or suffering. That's why we do it -- because it does not fit the description of torture but is effective.

If we were interested in inflicting severe pain and suffering, we might better a cigarette in the ear than water-boarding.

Standhisground
You’re nuts. You’re every bit as nutsy as most other conservatives on this horrible, hateful website. WTF do Obama and Clinton have to do with torture conducted under the BUSH administration? Again, recalibrate your moral compass to “action” not “actor.”

I don’t know if you noticed but Obama is trying to get the USA the hell OUT of Iraq. Hopefully, when the troops actually leave, he won’t stand on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit with a banner hanging behind him saying, “Mission Accomplished! Over 4,200 Americans dead! Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead Have a nice day!”

I know you conservatives are obedient souls, once Rush gives you your marching orders, it’s tough to stop you from walking off the cliff. Ok, here’s one: even REAGAN wanted torture outlawed, without exception, in any circumstance. See my earlier posts, WWRD? There, I gave you a Republican to be obedient to. Can you join the normal sane people now? Torture is ILLEGAL, IMMORAL and INEFFECTIVE!

Only in Cheney’s dark, corroded mind is torture a good thing.

Reread
"Water-boarding does not cause severe pain or suffering. That's why we do it -- because it does not fit the description of torture but is effective"

Reread the posting on the US's and the UN's definition of torture which was posted below.
Then check on Hitchens and Playboy's editor getting water boarded and the mental issues they encountered thereafter. It really is simple. But for the TH crowd which thought the water boarding of KSM led to intel that prevented an attack in LA, despite the discrepancy in dates which would require a time machine to make the intel useful, I'm sure its a bit too complex. Poor conservatives...

Jeffrey
The banner stated: "Mission Accomplished" -- it did not state: "War on Terror is over"

Jeffrey...Wars have many missions. The mission of the Lincoln was "accomplished" -- that's why they were returning home.

Have you all gotten some deranged from Bush Syndrome, that you don't understand the difference between "mission" and "war"...?

Terry
If you had any decency, any morsel of patriotism, you, too, might be a little pissed off at Mr. Bush.

Even the White House admitted that the banner was a bad idea, as the White House staff ran for cover when they were asked who was responsible.

I guess it wasn't quite time for a victory lap, was it?

Jeffrey
You said, "I don’t know if you noticed but Obama is trying to get the USA the hell OUT of Iraq".

Then why doesn't he do so IMMEDIATELY if he is as intent on getting us out of Iraq as you would have us believe? He's president now and has full power to do so: all he has to do is give the order, and he can have all of our forces out of Iraq in a week, a month tops - IF he's as serious about doing so as you posit.

So since he DOES have full power to get our forces out of Iraq IMMEDIATELY and apparently isn't doing so, then isn't he just as "immoral" in your eyes as George Bush? And don't try to sell the "Bush started it, Obama only inherited it" argument. Yes, Obama DID inherit the Iraq War, but George Bush right now has no authority whatsoever to withdraw a single U.S. serviceman from Iraq; Obama has FULL authority to do so. So any U.S. forces that die in Iraq now die as a result of OBAMA'S decisions - NOT Bush's.

I noticed you didn't even TOUCH my point about Obama's culpability in the death of Pakistani civilians on their own soil since he became president - and unlike with Iraq, America has NEVER had any acknowledged state of hostilities with the government of THAT country. So if the killing of "innocent Iraqis" under Bush was such a monstrous crime, why isn't the killing of "innocent Pakistanis" under Obama even MORE so?

By the way, if this website is so "hateful" and "horrible" as you claim, then WHY ARE YOU HERE?!

Terry, Once Again
Making people think they are going to be killed has been and is considered torture.

That's what waterboarding is.

Debra, just stop.
This is not a left-right issue.

This is an issue between those who have the courage of their convictions and those who are cowards.

Put me in the first camp. I believe America will survive and prosper in the face of ongoing terrorism without sacrificing our moral compass and the ideals that make us a great nation.

This is an issue between those who believe in the moral absolute that torture is wrong adn those who have a moral relativist belief that it is only wrong until it becomes useful.

Put me in the first camp.

This is an issue between those who think that human rights apply to all humans and those who think that it's okay to do anything we want to those we don't like or who have harmed us or might harm us sometime.

Put me in the first camp. The reason we have constitutional protections for minorities and the disfavored is for exactly this reason. To protect them from people like you, who are in the second camp.

This is an issue between people who understand that torture cannot be effective by its very nature and those who are so fearful they will sell their soul and abdicate their intelligence and common sense in the hope that torture may be effective in some contrived doomsday scenario to buy a little security and out of a misplaced sense of political loyalty.

I am absolutely in the first camp.

This is an issue between those who understand that America's survival means nothing if we sacrifice everything that makes us America and those who will clutch desperately at life and survival like insects in the dirt, sacrificing their convictions and debasing themselves by their own pathetic and fearful brutality.

allen
I am just waiting for you to be in the first camp when someone threatens to kill your family. I wonder what you would do then. Lets see now letting a mass murderer kill thousands more is real being on the moral side of the issue isn't it. I am glad you didn't make the decision whether to drop the bombs on Japan during world war 2. I wonder how high and mighty and moral you would have felt day in and day out seeing hundreds of thousands of people dying as the war drug on. They did not torture them they scared the hell out of them. They used techniques not nearly as bad as Obama uses now on the people of the United States every day.

Standhisground
You’re right, you got me. A president who inherits an illegal war and tries to extricate his country from it is totally as guilty as the president who created that war under false pretenses by lying to the citizens of the country that have to fight it. I am so busted!

Now that we’ve created a civil war in Iraq, we can’t just walk away. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Except, probably, in conservative ethicsland, where torture is the preferred method.

If Obama is killing civilians in Pakistan, then he is guilty of war crimes. However, comparing Obama’s actions, however, to Bush’s eight-year crime spree is laughable. Looks like Bush, or at least some of his underlings, might actually be held to account. I know that conservatives and Republicans are very big on personal responsibility and accountability so I’m sure they’ll be leading the effort to bring torturers to justice. Right?

Why do I come to Townhall.com? It’s better than space travel. It’s like visiting an exotic foreign country, only you want to go take a shower after you visit. Seriously I just want to make you conservatives/Christians uncomfortable if I can. Your regressive, violent, hate-fueled, counter-Biblical viewpoints are both startling and repugnant. I know you won’t change your minds, but I can at least embarrass you online. Works for me.

mellisa and allen
Where is your outrage over Obama ordering the use of lethal force if necessary on the pirates. Bush called for the interrogations to save thousands of people's lives. No one died. Obama had three people executed to save one. And don't start your well how can we believe that the terrorists were going to actually do anything. After all Obama was doing something that had to be done because they were going to kill the captain. Well guess what idiots 9/11 happened and it hasn't happened again yet. Obama is already making sure that it will now.

"All that is required
for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

What do liberals suggest we do: Talk nice to the terrorists and say "Hey Mr. Terrorist, who are you planning on terrorizing, torturing and killing next, please tell me, we promise to treat you better than we do our own citizens, your such a good person you would never deserve to expierence any kind of punishment".

When will it get old?
Will the "Bush lied" crap ever stop? Repeating it over again and again doesn't make it so, nor does it qualify for reasonable debate.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Ranger29
What seems to be true is that you are more pathetic by the day. Now let's see LA was just a fantasy. And of course everyone that has ever heard of you sure trusts you for saying the truth about anything. Where is your sudden outrage over Obama using lethal force on those three pirates to save one person. And wouldn't it have been nice is Clinton had not made it so easy for the terrorists to carry out 9/11. Maybe with some better intel, anyway we had to get it, that would be just a fantasy also. While you are at it, look at yourself in a mirror if you want to see what a nightmare fantasy looks like.

Ranger'sIq's-29:
Haven't you figured out that no-one here gives a rat's as* what you allegedly think? You are about as dumb as a sack of hammers, and as dense as a Galleria post oak.

Jeffrey
I could perfectly understand why the White House might think the banner "Mission Accomplished" was a bad idea.

One of the biggest problems I think the Bush White House had, was they couldn't seem to understand how many incredibly stupid Americans there are.

Had they known that the Media would take "Mission Accomplished" on the flight deck of a carrier returning from an accomplished mission and portray it as the President is advertising the war itself as being over and millions of nitwit Americans would believe it -- I am sure they probably wouldn't have done it.

Is it George Bush's fault because you lemmings on the Left are dumb as dirt?

No group of folks can compete in pettiness and childishness -- like you all on the Left.

Unbelievable
I almost can't believe we're even having this discussion.

We are talking about people who stone women to death for the crime of being gang raped.

We are talking about people who have already demonstrated they have no qualms about slaughtering innocent civilians in as horrific a fashion as they can dream up--and then dancing in the streets in celebration.

We are talking about people who would love nothing more than to give the likes of "jeffrey" an up-close look at his own entrails.

We are talking about people who do to their prisoners things that would make waterboarding seem like a Swedish massage.

The only thing preventing these people from turning a major US city into a pile of rubble is technological know-how, and it probably won't be long until that is no longer an obstacle.

And we're whining about water up the nose and sleep deprivation?

In the end, I suppose it matters little to the Obamatons. When we are hit again--as we inevitably will be--I have little doubt that it will all be Bush's fault anyway. Besides, what's a few thousand dead Americans when compared to our "image" in the world?

Terry in GA
Hey moron, maybe if the president hadn’t made such a big deal of it, landing on the flight deck in his little flight commander suit, and given a speech that said major combat operations were over, with a sign behind him that said “Mission Accomplished,” us dumb Democrats (oh, and a lot of non-Democrats) wouldn’t have thought the war was over. But alas, here we are, six years after we first invaded the poor country of Iraq, and people are STILL dying. And it has cost a fortune.

“Is it George Bush's fault because you lemmings on the Left are dumb as dirt?”

Um, who walked off the cliff with George Bush? Who’s a lemming???

“No group of folks can compete in pettiness and childishness -- like you all on the Left.”

You’re right. It’s petty to get angry when a president lies about a war, and 4,200 soldiers (so far) are now dead. Many more injured. And 100,000 or more dead, innocent Iraqis. You know what’s childish? Blind obedience to a tyrant, in exchange for empty promises that he’ll take care of you against those mean old terrorists. Only a child is so weak as to compromise his soul for protection.

John
"Making people think they are going to be killed has been and is considered torture.

That's what waterboarding is."

Water-boarding doesn't make you think you are going to be "killed", it makes you think you're drowning. Have it done to you and you will know what you're talking about as some of us do.

If folks thinking they were going to be killed, is to be considered "torture" and thus illegal, we could never send troops into battle.

What makes you all tick, John? We've had thousands of good and decent military people go through water-boarding, and I doubt you and others have given it a minute's concern. Yet, a small handful murderers get water-boarded in an attempt to help save lives -- and some of you folks act as if the sky is falling. Why is that?

On a number of these "torture" topics that are flying around, I keep seeing people mention these feel-good terms like: "Moral compass."

So I guess I'll weigh-in on the "moral compass". My moral compass would not allow me to live with myself if I thought that hundreds or thousands of completely innocent people, were being burned alive or jumping from skyscrapers and splattering like watermelons, because of an attack that I might have prevented had a water-boarded the murderers.

So many people live in the comfort of their make-believe virtuous little worlds - which are protected by real people doing real things - and they want to pontificate and spout-out a bunch of crap about "moral compasses" and our "reputation around the world" and the "Geneva Convention" (which they know nothing about) and other such meaningless nonsense.

And meanwhile, the next person to appear in a video having his head cut-off with a knife -- is walking around out there unknowing at the moment.



Pussification Of America.
In our haste to be a kinder gentler America especially at a time when we should be exuding strength, we're worried about how we're percieved by folks who could care less about us.
Zabayda and Mohammed were waterboarded 266 times, is not enough to extract any real information especially with the 20 second intervals and a doctor present. Millions of Americans without healthcare they get a doctor present, I heard there was a terrorist who got an artificial leg in Gitmo courtesy of our bad healthcare system. How does that happen?
The terrorist are yucking it up, just like the pirates are doing-with all that new found pirate wealth, those suckers are building mansions on the Somali coast.
We need to get back to our post 9/11 stance and right quick, I propose some accidental bombings in Somalia where we kill innocent civilians and pirates together, no warning this time, we'll do it at a call to prayers when they're all bending over, so they can kiss each others butts goodbye.
Oh! and for our Gitmo detainees who are about to be released lets flush some Koran's make them right at home.

Jeffrey
Quote:
Hey moron, maybe if the president hadn’t made such a big deal of it, landing on the flight deck in his little flight commander suit, and given a speech that said major combat operations were over, with a sign behind him that said “Mission Accomplished"...

End quote.

Jeffrey...you did it again. Let me ask you, since President Bush announced that "major combat operations" were over...have you seen any F-14's from the Lincoln conducting bombing raids in Iraq? Have you seen any "Shock and Awe" all-out military attacks in Iraq?

President Bush stated that "major combat operations" were over -- not that "ALL combat operations" were over.

How would President Bush know that grown adults can't understand what "major combat operations" mean?

You guys want a President to talk to you like little kids, hold your hand and explain everything to you. You've got one now and you're happy with him -- but you can't blame President for treating you like an adult that you're supposed to be.

Bigbelly
I don't care if you DO have a big belly. I LOVE YOU! You make more sense than half the people here.

My husband has told me tales from his college days of pledging for his fraternity. He says they (himself and some other pledges) were forced to lie on a cold basement concrete floor naked all night. He said the "masters" would come down and pour ice water over them while they were laying there.

There are other things he told me that were too gross to print here, but the point is he laughs about it saying they were a bunch of dumb kids. Yes, this type of pledging is suppose to be forbidden in colleges now, but the point is, these guys did this willingly to get into a fraternity, but our government would not allow such techniques to save thousands of men, women and children from death because it is too cruel.

Wuss and pantywaist are too good a words for these morons that care more about terrorists than they do about innocent Americans. Even to call them morons is an insult to morons everywhere. They should be thrown off the top floor of the highest building in New York. Then they would know real torture. The kind of torture experienced by dozens of Americans in the towers who had to choose between being splattered on the pavement below or being burned alive.


Terry in GA
For your reading pleasure:

During the speech in May [2003], Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

The speech and events surrounding it were widely publicized and served as the symbolic end to the war in Iraq.

However the speech also said that:

"In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

When he received an advance copy of the speech, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took care to remove any use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished" in the speech itself. Later, when journalist Bob Woodward asked him about his changes to the speech, Rumsfeld responded: "I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it's too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back… they fixed the speech, but not the sign."

Bush reiterated a "Mission Accomplished" message to the troops at Camp As Sayliyah on June 5, 2003 — about a month after the aircraft carrier incident: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished."

In November 2008, Bush indicated that he regretted the use of the banner, stating in a CNN interview, "To some, it said, well, 'Bush thinks the war in Iraq is over,' when I didn't think that. It conveyed the wrong message."

In January 2009, Bush said that "Clearly, putting 'Mission Accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake".

Last one, I promise
Iraq War opponents have used the phrase "mission accomplished" in an ironic sense as well as denoting a public relations failure in general. In addition, some mainstream outlets questioned the state of the war with derivatives of this statement. For example, the October 6, 2003 cover of Time featured the headline "Mission Not Accomplished."

On April 30, 2008, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said "President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said 'mission accomplished for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission.' And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner."

TERRY GAG
TRY THE BATAN DEATH MARCH DUFUS.The Japs were real good at torture,try
bamboo under the fingernails,or cutting out your tongue and sewing your mouth shut.What you call torture
is nothing but high school hazing!

Tough choices
Would you run those choices by one more time please?

sac

Asking the wrong question...
Given all of the information, in total, the question isn't "How could they?"

The question is "How could they not?"

http://www.e3gazette.com/2009/04/waterboarding-torture-and- not-letting.html

- MuscleDaddy

Even Fox hates it
Fox News viewers witnessed a rather incredible scene on Wednesday as anchor Shepard Smith and Fox contributor Judith Miller (of CIA leak infamy) repeatedly and passionately condemned torture, with Smith declaring at one point, "We are America, we don't torture! And the moment that is not the case, I want off the train! This government is of, by, and for the people -- that means it's mine. That means -- I'm not saying what is torture, and what is not torture, but I'm saying, whatever it is, you don't do it for me! I want off the train when the government starts -- I want off, next stop, now!"

The full segment is worth a watch. And Smith felt strongly enough about the issue to speak out about it again as he was heading into commercial break.

"They better not do it," he said. "If we are going to be Ronald Reagan's Shining City on the Hill, we don't get to torture. We don't do it."


Sweet Jesus, even Fox News, at least Smith, is against it! What more do you people need?!?!

mililtary view on waterboarding
Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America's military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America's history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well- established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.


military view on waterboarding
The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88


ha!
false choice presented by an either dishonest or lazy author...KSM was waterboarded after the supposed plot was foiled. anyone disagree?

lastly, seriously there is no debate about torture...there are torturers, and those opposed to torture in all cases...for the torturers on this site, IMO you are all a bunch of scared little b*thces....oh my if we don't torture the evil, barbaric men, we wont be as safe in some cases...get out of here! your fear is very telling, and if you think its not ask a real man..in your prayers (Jesus) for the strength to know what to stand for! p*ssies!

sorry for the anger but this issue is not debatable, and debating whether or not waterboarding is torture???? you were the same people whose heads almost exploded when Clinton said, 'depends on what the definition of is is' (as did mine)....you're basically using the same argument now

Libs, I Volunteer!

As a Chanel aficionado, FMP-wearing, and mother of two small children, I, hereby, offer myself for a waterboarding session even though I have been called by some as as "elitist".

And I wull leave my guns at home.

To save another American life and debunk this torture crap, I am ready to undergo this so-called torture.

As God is my witness...

Just please don't prohibit TERMIX from visiting my home while I am undergoing "treatment" because those extreme right-wing termites are a b!atch!

And another view
From Robert Parry, ConsortiumNews.com

“Besides the value that al-Qaeda saw in dragging out the Iraq War, the harsh interrogations also had severe consequences for American troops.

As former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora told the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008, “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.”

Zarqawi was killed in June 2006, but only after a new team of military intelligence interrogators arrived in Iraq and rejected the brutal interrogation strategies that had survived the Abu Ghraib scandal two years earlier.

Instead, the team employed FBI-style "rapport-building" techniques and won the confidence of captured Sunni insurgents who gave up Zarqawi's location, which was destroyed by a U.S. aerial attack. [For details, see Washington Post, Nov. 30, 2008, or Consortiumnews.com's "Connecting CIA Torture to Abu Ghraib."]


So, the “enhanced interrogations techniques” may have had two deadly consequences: eliciting misinformation that helped lead the United States into the quicksand of Iraq (while al-Qaeda and its Islamic fundamentalist allies strengthened their position in nuclear-armed Pakistan) and contributing significantly to the deaths of more than 4,200 American soldiers in Iraq.”

Seriously Denise
Your form of mental illness might be treatable. There's some experimental therapies that might help you. I urge you to inquire about them.

denise
christopher hitchens a war hawk underwent waterboarding.

here is his description

You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure. The “board” is the instrument, not the method. You are not being boarded. You are being watered. This was very rapidly brought home to me when, on top of the hood, which still admitted a few flashes of random and worrying strobe light to my vision, three layers of enveloping towel were added. In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited for a while until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose. Determined to resist if only for the honor of my navy ancestors who had so often been in peril on the sea, I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and—as you might expect—inhale in turn. The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, and flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me. I find I don’t want to tell you how little time I lasted.

... I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.


This one really got me
Torture even kills our own soldiers.

“U.S. Soldier Who Killed Herself--After Refusing to Take Part in Torture

By Greg Mitchell [of Editor & Publisher]

(April 23, 2009) -- With each new revelation on U.S. torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo (and who, knows, probably elsewhere), I am reminded of the chilling story of Alyssa Peterson, who I have written about numerous times in the past three years but now with especially sad relevance. Appalled when ordered to take part in interrogations that, no doubt, involved what we would call torture, she refused, then killed herself a few days later, in September 2003.

Of course, we now know from the torture memos and the U.S. Senate committee probe and various new press reports, that the "Gitmo-izing" of Iraq was happening just at the time Alyssa got swept up in it.

Alyssa Peterson was one of the first female soldiers killed in Iraq. A cover-up, naturally, followed.

"Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed."

According to the official report on her death released the following year, she had earlier been "reprimanded" for showing "empathy" for the prisoners. One of the most moving parts of that report is: "She said that she did not know how to be two people; she ... could not be one person in the cage and another outside the wire."”

True torture is
listening to the the warped logic from mealy mouthed sissies like Jeffy, Christianlib, and others.

You are so worried about the "rights" of 7th century minded barbaric savages. Why? I imagine you'll all crack like eggs when terrorist sleeper cells now operating all across America unleash a coordinated Mumbai style attack on cities all over the nation.

Sleep well, numbskulls, for tomorrow the bell tolls for thee!

Nancy get a "BRAIN TRANSPLANT"

PELOSI needs a brain transplant and a Character transplant instead of a face transplant

Lying about their lies is a way of life for
democrats;

Hey Scott! Right
on with your comments. It's not a question of "if" but "when".
God help us.

LIBERAL LOGIC
So what liberals are really saying is that LA would have been an acceptable "sacrifice" to garner additional votes against Republicans due to the probable rage about not being protected.

It's never about real morality (since liberals have none), it's always about the use of pseudo-morality (fake outrage) to gain more power with Dhimmicrats.

Yes, Patriotic
We’re busted! We liberals like nothing better than to sacrifice human life to advance our agenda of total control of every aspect of your life. If only the terrorists had bombed LA; then we’d have something else to blame on Bush.

Actually, it was us liberals, through mind control techniques, who persuaded Bush to invade Iraq, a country that had done nothing do us and which harbored no terrorists. We manipulated his thinking so that everything that could go wrong, has. So far, about 4,200 US soldiers are dead, and in excess of 100,000 Iraqis. So our plan succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. We were able to score some big wins in recent elections.

With control of the White House and Congress, we will now move to the New World Order, converting the US to a communist country, and sending all conservatives to re-education camps to be established in Idaho.

NICE TRY JEFF!
The sometimes daily shooting at our Air Force in the No Fly Zone was an act of aggression that would have precipitated a war much sooner if directed at many other nations.

Regarding the remainder of your supercilious, solipsistic diatribe - Not worth my further comment.

Jeffrey
And you did it again.

Of course the "Battle of Iraq" was over when President Bush stated it was -- have you seen the United States fighting against Iraq lately?

The Battle of Iraq was against Hussein, his government and his defense forces. That battle was over shortly after it started. And we've been trying to work "with" Iraq ever since.

You might have noticed that they have a new government over there now and we are working "with" them.

And I already stipulated that President Bush regretted the "Mission Accomplished" sign -- he had no idea how many stupid people would confuse "mission" with "war". Rumsfeld on the other hand -- knew better. Conversation between Rummy and Bush:

Rummy: "Mr. President, we might suggest not using the term "Mission Accomplished". There's a lot of stupid people in the Media and other Leftists at large that will get confused and think you're declaring the war over."

Bush: "Come on Don, no one is that stupid, we're just congratulating our troops for the great work that was done during the invasion -- we've still got a long way to go in the war. Certainly everyone knows that."

Rummy: "Sir, the Media will twist the meaning of "mission accomplished" and all the little Leftist lemmings will believe it -- trust me."

Mr. Bush thought more of you guys on the Left, Jeffrey. But Rummy was the one who was right.

the inevitable nuclear attack
will ocurr because our enemies hate us, and now they do not fear us. liberals, think of this. when your friends and relatives have been murdered in the nuclear attack, will you still think that waterboarding is "torture", and will you still think it is a good idea to publicly emasculate our security services to pursue political goals? the issue of "torture" should never have been discussed publicly, and anyone who has contributed is a traitor. if they can prosecute lawyers who gave the "wrong" advice, think what is going to happen to the traitors who made the nuclear bombing of america inevitable. america will not always be ruled by cowards, even if it takes a nuclear attack to get rid of them.

IF THIS IS A MORAL ISSUE:
Why not require the CIA to divulge "torture" techniques used during Clinton's tenure? You know, make it "bipartisan."

Because it's not about morality, it's about Bush.

On second thought, it probably would be useless, since Sandy Berger could be sent in (again) to destroy evidence and be penalized with just another slap on the wrist.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.