A case FOR waterboarding - it simply IS NOT torture

of referring to the empty headed in our society, are being manipulated big time by the libs headed up by our Manipulator in Chief.

Said Master Manipulator disqualifies his own credibility when he feigns moral indignation to waterboarding yet is an enthusiastic cheerleader for unfettered abortion. Abortion; now THAT's torture!

Thanks for this post and the links to the two memos. It should reassure anybody with two working brain cells that we aren't torturing anybody. Of course, the "inert" won't get it.

Obama's MASSIVE ego was sure that the POTUS job would be easy for someone of his SUPERIOR intellect and UNPARALLELED negotiationing skills. He's finding out that, even with all of his advisors, he is constantly screwing up. Of course, he does his best to paper over it and spin up a rosy picture, but one day ... the fit will hit the shan and he'll be exposed for what he is, a dumba$$ with a gift of gab.

I love it when he continually has to take a Bush policy and "reinvent" it so it becomes his own. What a maroon!

So getting one's head cut off by a dull knife while being You-Tubed isn't torture? This should effectively end any POW issues. Drop'em all on the field,let God sort them out.

comment. Beheading certainly falls within the "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" definition of torture? If you meant that we shouldn't take prisoners, I can agree with that up to the point of needing the info that the higher-ups among them might have.

Very insightful piece. I'd like to volunteer right now to be waterboarded. Just for the fun of it!

I've heard the points from the memo before that they only used any of these techniques after finding that the person did know something and would talk by asking questions to which we already knew the answers. If there is no credibility to what information the person will give up, why bother?

And I would like to applaud Ann Coulter for what she said to Joy Behar the other night on Larry King regarding water boarding:
"No, I do not want to be waterboarded. Do you want to be aborted because I think you support abortion?"

That was seriously the best come back I have ever heard in my life.

to your excellent piece on Dick Cheney's speech.

I have to agree on Ann Coulter's ability to spar with her "opposition." Few can compete head-to-head with her sharp wit. I've never seen anyone get the better of her.

I don't care if waterboarding IS torture Garnet. Controlled asphyxiation that you're not sure will ever stop can come close to the definition, yet the definition of torture could be relative. Again, I don't care. Non uniformed combatants could just be hung on the spot. What say you?

I went through survival school in 1993 at Fairchild AFB, WA. The details of the escape and evasion portion of that training, which all aircrew members must endure is classified. But I and thousands more can tell you this much, we underwent some tough training, but torture wasn’t part of it. I wouldn’t torture a fellow airman, and certainly wouldn’t allow myself to undergo it. BTW, IMHO Parris Island in 1973 was tougher.

Your essay is well written and clear. But at what point did we have to start explaining the obvious.

Killed on the spot for most is perfectly ok with me – it is more “economical” in that it precludes prison, feeding, fighting with the ACLU and others, no legal complications, etc. – simple and straightforward. Some will call that barbaric – so be it.

However, intelligence can be valuable and that is the exception that I’d draw – if is believed that the terrorist can provide information that can be helpful, then I’d want to grab them. But this is where rendition comes in – probably better to let an ally interrogate them on foreign soil than to take “possession” of them.

I know that some will take exception to my position, but going by the three item guidelines used by the CIA, I’d basically do whatever was necessary to maintain the security of our citizens.

As far as the definition of torture goes – if you read the memos, you can see the hoops the attorneys jumped through to arrive at a definition of torture – they note several dictionaries and laws that all attempted a definition and tried to incorporate parts of all to arrive at a definitive answer. When dealing with legal issues, ambiguity doesn’t cut it. They were trying to define it so that we didn’t cross the line into torture, thus the “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” wording.

(as an enlisted man) and worked on the bomb/navigation system on B-47s. The crewmen alluded to some of the training they went through and it sounded pretty intense – but not to the point of torture. But I never heard of waterboarding until this issue came up recently.

I understand that to most bloggers on TH, what I wrote is obvious, but much of what I write on Pesky Truth is an attempt to create a question in the mind of someone who might be on the fence on an issue. To try to convince someone who hasn’t made up their mind about some item and convince them to accept my position. Essentially, I’m trying to win folks over to “my side” by presenting a logical and factual case.

Again, most on TH will see my stuff as “singing to the choir,” and I don’t dispute that, but I’d like to think that sooner or later, I will convince some left-leaning individual(s) to the path of righteousness.

Love your stuff! And didn’t mean to imply it was unnecessary; just the opposite. My inept quip was intended to illustrate just how far from reality the crazy liberal mindset has bought us.

We all need to keep exposing the nonsense to the light of day. It shouldn’t be necessary, but unfortunately it is.

Good work, Garnet! None of this would be happening had not prezbo, in his infinite wisdom, released a few of those Pesky CIA memos to inflame the left and bring on the call for Truth Commissions. A phrase not heard so much anymore. The present denied the release of the ones which tell the Pesky Truth of all the information that was gleaned to save American cities and lives!

If I must argue the case for EIT, I always go back to the pro-choice argument. It is really, really mean and bad to pour water down the nose of an innocent-until-proven guilty jihadi, but it is just fine to destroy the most innocent lives by the most barbaric and inhumane procedures.

help from the "supposed" objective big media but I won't hold my breath on that.

I am just a little optimistic that we conservatives are learning to be more vocal and perhaps by 2010 we can make enough noise so that we can dump a bunch of the worthless occupiers of seats (like Murfa and Reid).

Kill the babies - OK, waterboard the terrorists - inhumane.

Of course, the left can't recognize that illogic else their heads would spin 360 degrees. What have the babies done to anyone? NOTHING is so innocent as an unborn child.

Whereas the terrorists are hell-bent on jihad so they can stop by the "Virgin Superstore" and pick out their 72 virgins.

It's funny. You'd think those "enlightened, compassionate" liberals would know how hypocritical they are in so many areas. Be nice to terrorists, kill babies at their birth. Call waterboarding torture, yet MSNBC is still on tv! (that's torture in another form) The only threat they believe is from "right wing extremists" while forgetting those psychos at Gitmo who want nothing but our total destruction or conversion. Our ego-in-chief should realize nobody really wants those guys, and many of their friends back out east don't care how nice we are!

good post.

Couldn't agree more. It's really sad to think that there are SO MANY non-thinking idiots out there who are holding down responsible jobs. Our lives are in danger when things must depend on logical, clear thinking - and all they can do is "hope."

Well struck, laddie.

Your point about lawyers arguing opposing views and being duty bound to do just that was especially salient.

To have a lawyer in the WH again just muddies the water even further.

The SERE trainees issue has also been lost in the shuffle. Amazing that none (that I'm aware of) of those folks have stepped up and sought to mitigate some of the kerfluffle over waterboarding. (Sound of crickets chirping) Anyone??

Thought when I first read your excellent essay you may have meant "inept." Then I realized that only those in this administration are "inept" and you are right on target with, "... our inert population." Outstanding term, Garnet.

As for the whole 'torture' thing, give me a break. Going to the dentist is torture. Driving on the beltway is torture. (tic) I am not saying waterboarding isn't scary as all get out, but I do know that some in the military have undergone this same treatment as part of their training. That's been reported.

More emotionalism. More inertness.

Great read and thanx for posting this!

nation. That, in and of itself, means they are not entitled to any protections of the Geneva Convention.

Whatever is done to them is alright by me. They are nothing more than scum. As for "waterboarding", it probably gives them the first washing most of them have had in years.

Having a half-a**ed lawyer (that's all he ever was) in the White House doesn't matter much cause he's got hundreds (if not thousands) of those bottom-feeders on his payroll already.

Agreed - like AL said, we all use the term torture almost daily to describe something unpleasant. But the CIA was trying to avoid a procedure that could be LEGALLY be considered torture. I guarantee that BHO or BJ Clinton would have done the same thing - i.e., get a legal determination.

I'm all for whatever it takes to keep us safe.

fit the way I think about those people - they're having no effect on the world aroung them. Inept probably describes them as well as far as having a positive impact on themselves and their children.

How many times must that point be made? The GC has definitions of a soldier and the terrorists ain't one of them. They're TERRORISTS, what part of that word doesn't the left understand?

I really believe that liberals and BHO don't really believe that we can/will be hit again. The word "incredulous" comes to mind. They're bluffing that no attack will come - but if one does, it can cause them to lose elections, and you KNOW they don't want that. They should be hawks on defense - that would also take away what has always been a Repub strength. They won't though, 'cause they're arrogant dumba**es.

Great post. We have to make these issues personal. What people say and what people do are two totally different things. There are very few of those even on the left that would not waterboard a terrorist if they knew it would save the lives of people they loved. Those who wouldn't have a screw loose. If someone I loved were in danger of a terrorist attack and it was up to me, I'd bring out the woodchipper.

Have two new posts after a long hiatus from writing. Each is a part of a summary after reading Alinsky's book. It's worse than any of us thought. "Put on the effin' glasses" is the first part, "Taking down the great Alinskyite" is the second part. Would appreciate your input.

If fact, I'd go one step further. I'd bring a "detainee" who deserves interrogation out to the yard and let him watch a hog or two slowly dropped into the chipper to "warm it up" for him. I'll bet he'd talk by the time the chipper was chomping at the soles of his sandals. Torture? Absolutely, but if the three CIA conditions were present, I'd be prepared to mix his bits and pieces in with the hogs in the same plastic bag. Let the 72 virgins sort them out.

I wouldn't put a live hog in there. Just put a ham in there, let some fat lunatic eat the meat that comes out and tell the detainee that this guy prefers human meat. Dark meat. Liked the virgins comment. Reminds me of that Dennis Miller joke. "72 virgins? After having a few virgins I think I'd want a pro." You have my permission to use my blog and contact me via email.