Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

DoJ Regarded EIT as Legal [Dan Collins]

When Justice Department lawyers engaged in a sharp internal debate in 2005 over brutal interrogation techniques, even some who believed that using tough tactics was a serious mistake agreed on a basic point: the methods themselves were legal.

Previously undisclosed Justice Department e-mail messages, interviews and newly declassified documents show that some of the lawyers, including James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general who argued repeatedly that the United States would regret using harsh methods, went along with a 2005 legal opinion asserting that the techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency were lawful.

(h/t Hot Air headlines)

Hmmmm. That’s problematic, though, because Obama’s said it was torture, and torture would be illegal. Right?

261 Replies to “DoJ Regarded EIT as Legal [Dan Collins]”

  1. Swen Swenson says:

    Funny, a couple weeks ago there was talk of prosecuting the lawyers who opined that the techniques were legal. Haven’t heard much about that lately. You don’t suppose the ABA slapped Duh Won silly for that bit of idiocy?

  2. happyfeet says:

    The American Bar Association is a dirty socialist collective of spineless eurofellating homos. You can’t count on them doing anything but bending over for Mr. Barack Obama I don’t think.

  3. guinsPen says:

    FREE JG !!!

  4. guinsPen says:

    Or a book, or something.

  5. guinsPen says:

    Rough draft?

  6. guinsPen says:

    I lack…

    direction.

  7. guinsPen says:

    Cough him up, Collins.

  8. guinsPen says:

    Sorry, I flared.

  9. JHo says:

    The American Bar Association is a dirty socialist collective of spineless eurofellating homos.

    Its member’s influence on lawmaking cannot be overstated, and given the in-bed-together nature of the bench and bar, I find it discouraging and irresponsible that the latter is allowed within a hundred yards of a law-making body — ours, not the Euro’s, ‘feets — what given the principle of separation of powers. I mean, duh.

  10. guinsPen says:

    Cough him up

    We mean business.

  11. Rob Crawford says:

    This is news only to people who weren’t paying attention. The whole purpose of the “infamous” Yoo memos, etc. were to figure out what was legal. The Bush administration did it the right way: “What is legal? What can we do inside the bounds of the law?”

    Contrast this with the Obama administration: “Bankrupcty law? Uighur, please!”

  12. Techie says:

    Yes, by all means, prosecute members of the DoJ for daring wrongthink, Congress. That’ll make for splendid television.

  13. Ric Locke says:

    Also sprach somebody who expects to never lose another election. Please note that Obama, himself, who knows for sure he’ll be out of office no later than Jan. 20, 2017 and possibly earlier than that, is not really on board with this whole thing.

    “Lose the election, go to jail” is not a recipe for quality governance.

    Regards,
    Ric

  14. cynn says:

    Clubbing baby seals is legal. Why are you so invested in this drumbeat? Partisan lawyers gave the all-clear, and away you went. I don’t advocate prosecuting anyone, but why the non-stop justification?

  15. XBradTC says:

    Please note that Obama, himself, who knows for sure he’ll be out of office no later than Jan. 20, 2017 and possibly earlier than that…

    You’re more optimistic on that note than me…

  16. Dan Collins says:

    Gee, cynn, let me think. I think it has something to do with the narrative.

    Yeah, we’ve been pounding on the tom-toms: PRO-se-cute-them, PRO-se-cute-them!

  17. happyfeet says:

    James B. Comey is a subpar and douchey individual except al maviva didn’t think so.

    Who?

  18. sdferr says:

    Tom Maguire picks up on what he assumes is a “trial” trial-balloon in the Military Commissions proceedings, floated by the NYT as Maguire puts it, “as the Times tells it, the proposal has no sponsorship at all – apparently it just fell from the sky, or something.”

  19. guinsPen says:

    Cynn, I think he said, “…the sheriff is a Norman.”

  20. Big D says:

    Clubbing baby seals is legal.

    No shit? That decides my summer vacation plans. Anyone know what roundtrip airfare to the Arctic costs? Now I’ll just have to increase my carbon footprint while clubbing. Maybe a nice carbon belching snowmobile. Also, what club do you use? Driver seems a bit much. 5 iron maybe?

  21. sdferr says:

    You’ve got it, a Mashie seems about right Big D.

  22. Random Mr. Mom says:

    Fore, five.

    Whatever it takes.

  23. LTC John says:

    “Partisan lawyers”. Oh really? And the brave, selfless servants of the people who are baying for their hides? Disinterested and above it all.

    Say, cynn, do you suppose any of the people at DoJ who looked at this were career folks? You know, the ones who were going to finally be listened to…until AG Holder saw a contrary opinion, that is.

  24. Swen Swenson says:

    Also, what club do you use? Driver seems a bit much. 5 iron maybe?

    Good thing you asked! Traditionally, you would use a genuine walrus oosic baby seal club like this one, although the other one I show here would leave fewer marks by simply scaring them to death..

  25. Swen Swenson says:

    Ha! Also, check out the photo just above the baby seal club. Are these discussions cyclic or what?

  26. cynn says:

    LTC John: I really don’t keep score, but perhaps they were among those who weren’t run out for their not-so-Repub-fresh feeling.

  27. happyfeet says:

    That’s very cool Mr. Swenson I’m bookmarking the chocolate guy for kissmas pezzents … I think that’s what I’ll get NG this year … the jalapeno ones sold me but this page looks amazing and I think I’ll do some of that for family. There is a problem though. Here are all the different truffles but the jalapeno ones aren’t there so can you ask Mr. Kellogg to put them online?

    Also I don’t understand this part on the home page…

    DUE TO CURRENT WEATHER
    CONDITIONS, MEETEETSE
    CHOCOLATIER IS NO
    LONGER ABLE TO SHIP ANY
    ITEMS. WE WILL RESUME
    SHIPPING IN OCTOBER.

    What’s the dealio with that? Is it cause it gets too hot to ship chocolate cause of it will melt? I never thought about that before. But still I guess it doesn’t affect Christmas.

  28. Pablo says:

    LTC John: I really don’t keep score…

    ..except for when it suits me to characterize DOJ folk as “partisan lawyers.”

  29. cynn says:

    Well, they are partisan after they’re culled. And that’s a shame, because I want to have faith in the DOJ. I don’t even now.

  30. sdferr says:

    Verging on depleted uranium at this point Pablo.

  31. Pablo says:

    Wait, so you’re keeping score now? Generally, when the herd is culled, the cullees aren’t animate enough to be partisan.

  32. cynn says:

    Pablo: you are being obtuse and/or cute. I really don’t care about this TORTURE IS LEGAL argument becase all premises are subjective. I don’t care. The people making the decisions at any one time are political puppets. Yes, that includes Obama. Can we please move on to something substantial, and leave this torture shame behind us?

  33. sdferr says:

    I really don’t care about this TORTURE IS LEGAL argument…

    Why comment in a post Dan devoted to the question then?

  34. Pablo says:

    Pablo: you are being obtuse and/or cute.

    Let’s call it cute, and attribute it as a response to inanity.

    Can we please move on to something substantial, and leave this torture shame behind us?

    Oh, lemme waterboard you just a little, cynn. Or would you prefer the Catherine wheel?

  35. Swen Swenson says:

    You can’t go wrong with Tim’s chocolates ‘feet, they are amazingly incredible. If you want to order you should give him a call or email because he makes odd batches and might have something really interesting that’s not on the regular menu. And you’re right, can’t ship ’em when it’s too hot. Not just that they might melt, the heat can (supposedly) spoil their flavor. Tim insists they’re best fresh but I’m not enough of a conasewer to tell so I hoard them and make them last.

    Oh, he also ties the box shut with a piece of bailing twine. That’s an interesting touch.

  36. What’s the dealio with that? Is it cause it gets too hot to ship chocolate cause of it will melt?

    yep, they warned us about that when shipping care packages overseas.

  37. cynn says:

    I really don’t think you’re being responsive, Pablo. So the referenced attorneys are the last word? Legal is one thing, moral is another.

  38. cynn, this post isn’t for you, it is for a particular troll that’s been all “torture!torture!TORTURE!” for days now.

  39. Swen Swenson says:

    Still waiting for someone to ask what a walrus oosik is. Thanks to Google you probably know by now and know I spelled it wrong to boot, don’t you? Damn Google!

    Also, what’s with their weird logo today? Doesn’t remind me much of D Day.. Oh, I see, it’s celebrating 25 years of the “tetris effect” whatever that is. Sometimes I think they’re being deliberately evil. Somebody should call the Justice Department..

  40. happyfeet says:

    oh. up to two feet long they can get it says.

  41. cynn says:

    I don’t think the torture argument is useful right now. Maybe later. We need to haul our collective asses over the next hurdle or we will all crash together.

  42. happyfeet says:

    I vote crash.

  43. Pablo says:

    So the referenced attorneys are the last word?

    No, they’re a word. And in the moment, they were the word that mattered.

    Legal is one thing, moral is another.

    Yes, they’re often very different, but they’re also often not. Tell me, cynn, are you disheartened over our awful treatment of the currently all too healthy Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Would you be willing to express that dismay to Marianne Pearl?

  44. cynn says:

    Really, happyfeet? I tend that way myself. I keep remembering that my dad and mom grew up in the Depression. It’s like being on a roller coaster right at the top.

  45. happyfeet says:

    Yup. For the clarity.

  46. troll #184 says:

    I vote crash.

    I find hf voting nihilist to be a bit scary. hf needs to be of good cheer, otherwise, I’m just psycho pretending otherwise.

  47. bh says:

    Yeah, sockpuppet.

  48. cynn says:

    You know something, Pablo? I care less about what we do to detainees than who comes up with the rationale.

  49. Swen Swenson says:

    And solid bone. Hard on the ego..

  50. happyfeet says:

    I vacillate. Being of good cheer, what if that’s irresponsible just now? Mr. Soros’ president is bent upon making my little country a loathsome and shriveled thing to my eyes. He wants to alienate my affections from my little country. You can see the conundrum in finding the win/win, no?

  51. Swen Swenson says:

    Times like this ‘feet, it pays to remember that it’s okay to love your country and hate your government. I read that on a bumpersticker somewhere so it must be true.

  52. bh says:

    oh, I agree hf. On the continuum though, I was hoping for a couple people towards hopeful. Otherwise, I feel… less so.

  53. I’m hopeful, bh. but it may just be the drugs.

  54. bh says:

    I was also hoping for drugs, maggie. The kind that Huey Lewis wouldn’t shut up about.

  55. oh, that reminds me… I gots some yogurt to eat…

  56. bh says:

    ‘feets, if it cheers you up, a little bird told me Jeff is taking a vacation to improve the bullshit to fun ratio. Perhaps that ratio won’t improve. But, hey, maybe.

  57. happyfeet says:

    I’ll figure it out. I am good at shoring fragments.

  58. happyfeet says:

    oh.

  59. happyfeet says:

    I understand. About the ratio. I mean, I understand about the idea of the ratio. I don’t at all get how one rebalances it.

    It’s all really a point A to point B thing from what I was saying before the dirty socialist ascendancy. Linear. The media in the tank element means this will be game over is what I said. They’re not at the gates anymore. They’re invested now – not in our dipshit president’s success but in the appearance of it. That’s unprecedented. That’s horrific.

  60. Big D says:

    I care less about what we do to detainees than who comes up with the rationale.

    That is one of the most morally bankrupt statements I have ever heard. Naked politics at its best. Well played, Cynn.

  61. sdferr says:

    Does the media investment rise to the level of undoing the “fool some of the people all of the time, fool all of the people some of the time” paradigm, hf? Potentially that bad, I mean? Where whatever unfooled remainder exists is just too small and too powerless to matter?

  62. bh says:

    Who knows, ‘feets, maybe the scale swings wildly, a few pebbles fall off the heavy end and things find their own balance.

    Okay, towards politics, I’m psycho now. Psycho please move two feet towards full kakotopian to make room for me. Thanks.

  63. sdferr says:

    I wonder if sammy’s ever even going to set foot in this thread?

  64. happyfeet says:

    absolutely. That paradigm is a lot dead.

    It died in Katrina.

    But without dwelling on that aspect, what makes our lot a hopeless one is that the hold upon our politics of the Princess Lindseys and the cowardly John McCains and the bimbos from Maine and the geezer of the corn in Iowa and many many others is the rotting gengrenous flesh of which the wound must be abraded before the dirty socialist problem can even begin to be addressed.

  65. happyfeet says:

    *gangrenous* that should be…

  66. sdferr says:

    Somebody, maybe insty, pointed to the maggot juice as a wound cleanser the other day. Or if they won’t go high tech, just the maggots straight up.

  67. happyfeet says:

    I saw that. I just –

    I’m living in a little country in which a majority of people believe that all about them are jobs what are being created or saved. Crackheads is what we used to call these people.

    I can’t help them.

  68. Sammy says:

    Outside of some debates in the Bush DOJ, when has waterboarding ever been described as anything other than torture?

  69. happyfeet says:

    Waterboarding® brand torture is in litigation right now. Both the dirty socialist Democratic party and NPR claim to have registered the trademark. Since NPR is dependent on the dirty socialists for funding, I think we all know how this is gonna go, Sammy.

  70. thor's 97th personality says:

    Most people would think getting fisted is torture, but for sammah it’s just a little light Saturday play before Dirty Sanchez Sunday. Tough hombre that Sammah.

  71. Mars vs Hollywood says:

    In BUDS, waterboarding is called “training”.

  72. Danger says:

    Comment by Sammy on 6/6 @ 11:43 pm #

    “Outside of some debates in the Bush DOJ, when has waterboarding ever been described as anything other than torture?”

    How about SERE school Sammy?

  73. Danger says:

    Man the servers here in Iraq are awfully slow (I missed the Mars vs Hollywood entry before posting)

  74. Dan Collins says:

    Happy D-Day, Danger. Thanks for your service.

  75. Danger says:

    You are welcome sir,

    Nice to have someone awake at this hour.

  76. Dan Collins says:

    I read this morning that Iraqi police have arrested 6 contractors in connection with the stabbing murder of another contractor. Is there buzz about that where you are?

  77. Danger says:

    Comment by happyfeet on 6/6 @ 9:56 pm #

    I vacillate. Being of good cheer, what if that’s irresponsible just now? Mr. Soros’ president is bent upon making my little country a loathsome and shriveled thing to my eyes. He wants to alienate my affections from my little country. You can see the conundrum in finding the win/win, no?

    Happy feet,

    Ten days ago I left my wife and three girls at an airport prior to departing to Iraq for a year. It was a painful experience as I have ever had.

    All of my girls and my wife were in tears and my youngest one asked why I had to go and why couldn’t we just go home.

    I hope you find reason for encouragement that thousands of other Military members having similar painful separations continue to serve because we believe that America is “worth it”.

    Like most Americans my hope is that my Girls will have the same opportunities that I had and they will go on to live as meaningful and joyful life as I have.

    There a couple of things that might spoil this 1. Tragedy strikes and I am not quite as tough as I promised my Girls and 2. My fellow conservatives continue to canabalize themselves and the left agenda becomes more entrenched making the country I left unrecognizeable when I return.

    I have just two requests while I am gone. 1. Your prayers for a successful deployment and a safe return (for me and all of my fellow service members).

    and 2. Debates and academic discussions are encouraged but please save your heaviest artillery for the other side. Do not be discouraged about current events because the tide will change. I expect that people that visit and contribute to sites like this one will be the ones pushing the tide and not drowning in it.

    God Bless and remember volleys down range

  78. Danger says:

    Dan,

    I have not heard about any contracter murders or arrests since getting here but I will let you know if I do.

  79. Slartibartfast says:

    You know something, Pablo? I care less about what we do to detainees than who comes up with the rationale.

    I just think that needed to be said again, with cynn’s name attached to it.

  80. Slartibartfast says:

    Oh, also this:

    We need to haul our collective asses over the next hurdle or we will all crash together.

    Sweetness and light when cynn feels the need; otherwise, the chamber pot. We hang together until I find it convenient to hang you. It’s like cynn has been possessed by the spirit of Johnny Fairplay.

    That’s assuming he’s dead, which (without checking) is a decent assumption.

  81. Slartibartfast says:

    I hope you find reason for encouragement that thousands of other Military members having similar painful separations continue to serve because we believe that America is “worth it”.

    I am frankly amazed at how many good people we have in this country. It gives me hope.

    Thank you for your service, Danger. I wish you the best.

  82. B Moe says:

    I am frankly amazed at how many good people we have in this country. It gives me hope.

    Thank you for your service, Danger. I wish you the best.

    Agreed. You will be in my prayers.

  83. B Moe says:

    when has waterboarding ever been described as anything other than torture?

    I am not concerned with when or where, Sammy, I want to know why you consider it torture?
    Is it just because others have told you it is?
    Just because you read it online somewhere?

  84. LTC John says:

    Danger, if you are headed Basrah-way, let me know.

  85. Pablo says:

    Debates and academic discussions are encouraged but please save your heaviest artillery for the other side. Do not be discouraged about current events because the tide will change. I expect that people that visit and contribute to sites like this one will be the ones pushing the tide and not drowning in it.

    Word. Keep your ass in one piece, Danger. Thank you.

    Sammy,

    Outside of some debates in the Bush DOJ, when has waterboarding ever been described as anything other than torture?

    Another instance is when it’s progressive street theater. Funny how you never see them talking the power drills to each other or hooking each other’s nads up to the old Die Hard.

  86. […] This comment, from an American soldier recently deployed to Iraq is worth disseminating to a larger audience. […]

  87. happyfeet says:

    I hear you Mr. Danger. You rock and you also be careful. The conundrum is still very very real though. I don’t see any reason why it won’t be the dirty socialist media what picks the Republican nominee again come 2010.

  88. Rusty says:

    #85
    He saw it on the television. TV does not lie to that boy.

    Danger. Be safe. That goes for all of you over there.

  89. Danger says:

    LTC John,

    I am at Camp Victory but if I come through your neck of the woods I will look you up, I hope you will do the same.

    Happyfeet,

    Well the MSM is having less influence every day, and hopefully conservatives will regain their mojo and stand up for what they believe in.

    Slartibartfast, B Moe, Pablo, serr8d, Rusty and anyone I missed,
    Thanks for the prayers and encouragement.

  90. guinsPen says:

    I hope you find reason for encouragement that thousands of other Military members having similar painful separations continue to serve because we believe that America is “worth it”.

    Yes.

    I have just two requests while I am gone.

    Did and did.

    Godspeed you and yours.

  91. JD says:

    Danger – Godspeed.

  92. Sammy says:

    How about SERE school Sammy?

    SERE training is voluntary. If I volunteer to get in a boxing ring, it’s not assault and battery. If someone forces me into the ring, won’t let me leave, and some guy equally beats the shit out of me, it is. There are a long list of reasons why SERE training is different from involuntary torture at the hands of interrogators from which there is no defined end point, and no escape.

    I am not concerned with when or where, Sammy, I want to know why you consider it torture?
    Is it just because others have told you it is?
    Just because you read it online somewhere?

    Since the Spanish inquisition, it’s be understood that waterboarding is obviously torture. It was defined as torture when use by the Japanese against American WWII POWs. In every circumstance, until Bush, it’s been well regarded as torture. If you think otherwise, cite some reliable sources with a neutral point of view.

    Danger – this probably won’t mean much coming from a bleeding-heart liberal, but thank you for your service and sacrifice to this great nation. Despite our differences of opinion, America has the greatest fighting force this planet has ever seen, and guys like you are the reason why. Godspeed and stay safe.

  93. Pablo says:

    There are a long list of reasons why SERE training is different from involuntary torture at the hands of interrogators from which there is no defined end point, and no escape.

    And all of them apply to incarceration. Is that torture too, Sammy?

  94. Pablo says:

    Since the Spanish inquisition, it’s be understood that waterboarding is obviously torture.

    Understood by whom? Based on what?

    It was defined as torture when use by the Japanese against American WWII POWs.

    No, you’re thinking of the water cure, probably because some douchebag told you it was the same thing. Which douchebag was that, Sammy?

  95. guinsPen says:

    Based on what?

    Episode #15.

  96. sdferr says:

    Since the Spanish inquisition, it’s [sic] be understood that waterboarding is obviously torture.

    Here now, hold on. We can fashion another sentence with precisely this structure and wonder, how much weight will it bear? Like so:

    Since the Ascension, it’s [to] be understood that Christ is obviously the son of God.

  97. Sammy says:

    And all of them apply to incarceration. Is that torture too, Sammy?

    Oh Pablo, such a tool. When you’re incarcerated, you’re deprived of freedom of movement. When you’re waterboarded, you’re deprived of oxygen. Do those sound like the same thing to you?

    Understood by whom? Based on what?

    Waterboarding is controlled drowning. In that regard, it’s actually worse than suffocation. Really, cite some reliable sources beyond the Bush DOJ that disagree.

  98. B Moe says:

    Since the Spanish inquisition, it’s be understood that waterboarding is obviously torture. It was defined as torture when use by the Japanese against American WWII POWs. In every circumstance, until Bush, it’s been well regarded as torture. If you think otherwise, cite some reliable sources with a neutral point of view.

    No, fuck you Sammy, it isn’t by God understood by anybody but you and your handlers. I don’t think it is torture at all, and victims of the Spanish Inquisition and the Japanese in WWII would have fucking begged to be waterboarded you ignorant little shit.

    I don’t care about what you have read or been told. I want to know in your own words why you think it is torture, and what you think defines torture.

    Come on, Sammy, give me one post of just you, not some horseshit somebody told you. You are playing with grown ups here, we don’t give a shit what your mommy or daddy said.

  99. B Moe says:

    Waterboarding during the Spanish fucking Inquisition? Are you fucking serious?

  100. sdferr says:

    Hmmph, I thought the whole idea of the headdown position on a waterboard was to prevent water from entering the lungs and that way, prevent the possibility of drowning, which, after all, isn’t the object of the thing. A drowned person can’t talk about the evil plans they have been laying to kill thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands even, of ones fellow citizens, can they?

  101. B Moe says:

    Ask the survivors of Nanking what they think of waterboarding , you pinheaded little fool.

  102. lee says:

    Hummm, no mention of water boarding on this list, though I’m sure it was just an oversight.

  103. B Moe says:

    I am having trouble posting, forgive me if this winds up being a duplicate.

    I think this is what Sammy is talking about:

    The so-called “water treatment” was commonly applied. The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach until he lost consciousness. Pressure was then applied, sometimes by jumping upon his abdomen to force the water out. The usual practice was to revive the victim and successively repeat the process.

    That isn’t waterboarding Sammy. You are listening to liars.

  104. B Moe says:

    I have tried repeatedly to link the source for the above quote and this blasted machine won’t let me.

  105. B Moe says:

    You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.

    What the Fuck?

  106. B Moe says:

    http: //www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-8. html

  107. B Moe says:

    Hah!

  108. B Moe says:

    Bobby Orr and a half!

  109. Mark A. Flacy says:

    From one of Sammy’s earlier postings on the matter, it would appear that he would consider a person on death row to be undergoing torture.

  110. Rusty says:

    Sammy so much wants to take the moral high ground and if soldiers and civilians are put in jeopardy, then so be it.

  111. Pablo says:

    Oh Pablo, such a tool.

    A BFH, as far as you’re concerned.

    When you’re waterboarded, you’re deprived of oxygen.

    No, that’s neither the point nor the result of waterboarding. It’s designed to trip the gag reflex, thereby inducing panic. That’s why people who KNOW they’re not going to drown find it awful within a matter of seconds, long before a lack of oxygen would have any effect. How long can you hold your breath, Sammy?

    Do those sound like the same thing to you?

    Of course they don’t sound like the same thing, idiot. Filet mignon and chocolate cake don’t sound like the same thing either. Which one’s torture?

    Waterboarding is controlled drowning.

    No, it’s

    simulated

    drowning.

    In that regard, it’s actually worse than suffocation.

    Oh, now it’s worse than something that actually kills you? Brilliant, Sammy.

    Really, cite some reliable sources beyond the Bush DOJ that disagree.

    I don’t know of anyone that would agree with that asinine statement. As for what I think you meant to ask, take your pick. But what you really ought to be doing, instead of dismissing the DOJ out of hand is refute their analysis:

    As we understand it, when the waterboard is used, the subject’s body responds as if the subject were drowning — even though the subject may be well aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm. Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. as we explained in the Section 2340A Memorandum, “pain and suffering” as used in Section 2340 is best understood as a single concept, not distinct concepts of “pain” as distinguished from “suffering”…. The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view, inflict “severe pain and suffering”. Even if one were to parse the stature more “finely” to attempt to treat suffering as a distinct concept, the waterboard could not be said to inflict severe suffering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering.

    Where is Bybee wrong? Be specific.

  112. Pablo says:

    I wonder how much Amnesty International had to pay this actor to “torture” him. Also of note, they’re doing it wrong.

  113. Slartibartfast says:

    Since the Spanish inquisition, it’s [sic]

    Nit: the [sic] should itself be [sic]-ed. “it’s” is proper usage, in this context.

  114. Slartibartfast says:

    I wonder how much Amnesty International had to pay this actor to “torture” him. Also of note, they’re doing it wrong.

    I wonder why they wasted the first half of the ad just showing water.

  115. JD says:

    They never tire of lying and being mendoucheous, do they Pablo and B Moe?

  116. sdferr says:

    Sorry Slart, you are right, my clumsy there. It wasn’t the “it’s” I was aiming at exactly, but the lack of the “to” or in the alternative, eliminating the “be” so that either, “it’s to be understood…” or “it’s understood…” becomes the result. Which one was intended isn’t clear.

  117. Sammy says:

    Pablo/B Moe – yes, there are lots of other water tortures. Some used by people who also used waterboarding.

    sdferr – Go read about waterboarding. I don’t think you really understand how it works.

    Pablo says:

    When you’re waterboarded, you’re deprived of oxygen.

    No, that’s neither the point nor the result of waterboarding. It’s designed to trip the gag reflex, thereby inducing panic. That’s why people who KNOW they’re not going to drown find it awful within a matter of seconds, long before a lack of oxygen would have any effect. How long can you hold your breath, Sammy?

    Go read about waterboarding. You have no idea what you’re talking about. No wonder you think it’s not torture. You can easily kill someone by waterboarding them. That’s why they have the Dr. there, measuring the pulseox.

    Again, outside of the Bybee memo, it’s always been considered torture. If you believe otherwise, CITE A SOURCE.

    Our State Department considered it torture when classifying “Countries that torture”. It was torture when Khmer Rouge did it. Outside of the bybee memo, it’s always been considered torture.

  118. SBP says:

    You have no idea what you’re talking about.

    You are a liar.

    An incompetent one.

    Now, back in the troll bin you go.

  119. Slartibartfast says:

    It was torture when Khmer Rouge did it.

    Somebody’s still way down on the learning curve, it appears.

  120. Sammy says:

    I get the feeling that the conversation’s gotten inconvenient for SBP, and he’s shoved his fingers in his ears and started yelling LA LA LA LA LA LA.

  121. SBP says:

    I get the feeling that the conversation’s gotten inconvenient for SBP

    I get the feeling that you are a liar.

    An incompetent one.

  122. Slartibartfast says:

    I think it’s more that he has little regard for folks who believe everything they read on Wikipedia.

  123. B Moe says:

    Go read…
    Go read…
    Go read…

    Go fuck yourself. Then go learn to debate.

  124. SBP says:

    BTW, Sambot, you might be interested in this.

    And if you’re feeling especially “scientific” today, you might go here and just keep going back through the archives.

    Or you could continue to be gullible and believe industrial-grade tools like Al Gore and/or whichever anonymous fascist managed to get to a Wikipedia page most recently.

  125. Sammy says:

    Not sure why a former Khmer Rouge prisoner would have drawn this then:

    “Waterboarding in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge regime. Painting by a former prison inmate, Vann Nath, at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waterboard3-small.jpg

    But, you know, the guy on trial for torture says they didn’t do it, so they didn’t I guess.

    Cite reliable sources outside of the Bybee memo where it is not considered torture.

  126. JD says:

    It will never stray from Teh Narrative.

  127. Pablo says:

    You should offer an argument instead of suggesting that everyone go find the basis for the one you’d like to make, Sammy. Try again:

    Where is Bybee wrong? Be specific.

  128. SBP says:

    Cite reliable sources

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waterboard3-small.jpg

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    What a fucking tool you are.

  129. Pablo says:

    “Waterboarding in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge regime. Painting by a former prison inmate, Vann Nath, at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waterboard3-small.jpg

    A painting! That’s damned fine evidence you’ve got there, Sammy. In other news, there is an alien sock bandit. Proven.

  130. Pablo says:

    Purpose of use

    Authoritatively illustrate what waterboarding involves, a topic of great public importance since it is widely condemned as torture, but the U.S. government has admitted using it around 2001.

    That is funny stuff.

  131. Danger says:

    “Danger – this probably won’t mean much coming from a bleeding-heart liberal, but thank you for your service and sacrifice to this great nation. Despite our differences of opinion, America has the greatest fighting force this planet has ever seen, and guys like you are the reason why. Godspeed and stay safe.”

    Sammy yes that does mean a lot to me so Thank you

    “SERE training is voluntary. If I volunteer to get in a boxing ring, it’s not assault and battery. If someone forces me into the ring, won’t let me leave, and some guy equally beats the shit out of me, it is. There are a long list of reasons why SERE training is different from involuntary torture at the hands of interrogators from which there is no defined end point, and no escape.”

    I don’t buy the analogy, Serving in the Military is voluntary but completing SERE training is a required part of Aircrew training. It is perhaps the most rigorous and realistic training conducted in the Service. At some point during the training I forgot that it was only training and running out the clock did not seem like a viable option. I can assure you that the techniques that are used by our interrogaters are effective yet do not induce long term mental or physical damage.

  132. SBP says:

    A painting!

    Something tells me that Sambot wouldn’t accept this as evidence.

    How about it, Sambot? It’s a painting! In Wikipedia!

  133. B Moe says:

    You still haven’t explained why being apprehended and detained at gunpoint isn’t torture, Sammy. Do I need to find a drawing to illustrate my point?

  134. Slartibartfast says:

    Sammy seems to be blissfully unaware that some of us, too, have noticed that Wikipedia has an article on waterboarding.

    I mean, how could it possibly be incorrect? Even, I mean, given that the entire Wikipedia article on Mao Tse-tung is a complete, ahistorical fabrication?

  135. SBP says:

    Wikipedia is utterly useless for anything that’s remotely politically controversial.

    In practice, the articles reflect the views of those who a) are fucking moonbats and b) don’t have jobs or lives.

    In short, people much like Sambot.

  136. JD says:

    But, but, but … There’s a picture! And they call it waterboarding! Good Allah.

  137. Slartibartfast says:

    But, you know, the guy on trial for torture says they didn’t do it, so they didn’t I guess.

    …while admitting to beatings and electrocutions. Probably didn’t do those, by your rules of opposition.

  138. Sammy says:

    “Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.[1]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

    “Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school in California, likened waterboarding to drowning and said those who experience it will say or do anything to make it stop, rendering the information they give nearly useless.

    In my case, the technique was so fast and professional that I didn’t know what was happening until the water entered my nose and throat,” Nance testified yesterday at a House oversight hearing on torture and enhanced interrogation techniques. “It then pushes down into the trachea and starts the process of respiratory degradation. It is an overwhelming experience that induces horror and triggers frantic survival instincts. As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured.

    Nance’s testimony came as Democrats on Capitol Hill press for an outright ban on the technique and others like it that have been used by the CIA in interrogating terrorism suspects. Unlike attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey, who called the technique repugnant but declined to say whether it is torture, Nance said unequivocally that waterboarding is a long-standing form of torture used by history’s most brutal governments, including those of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, North Korea, Iraq, the Soviet Union and the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html

    “Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:

    …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.
    —UN Convention Against Torture[1]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

    United Nations Convention Against Torture was ratified by the Senate in 1994.

  139. JD says:

    Sammy – It is good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out.

  140. B Moe says:

    Wow. Every time he cuts and pastes that, it says exactly the same thing, it must be right.

  141. SBP says:

    I think that’s called “proof by repeated assertion”, B Moe.

    It’s a science thing, y’know.

  142. Sammy says:

    You still haven’t explained why being apprehended and detained at gunpoint isn’t torture, Sammy. Do I need to find a drawing to illustrate my point?

    Do you know what a “definition” is? It’s not torture because it doesn’t meet the definition:

    “…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.
    —UN Convention Against Torture[1]”

  143. SBP says:

    any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental

    So giving a murderer life in prison is torture? I mean, that could certainly result in severe mental suffering, yes?

    Let’s see — you have a choice between waterboarding or life in prison.

    Which would you choose, Sambot?

    That’s what I thought.

  144. B Moe says:

    I would think looking down the barrel of a loaded gun, wielded by an enemy who is taking one prisoner, would cause one to reasonably fear for their life and could cause a great deal of mental stress and suffering.

  145. Sammy says:

    Wow. Every time he cuts and pastes that, it says exactly the same thing, it must be right.

    Right, the Wikipedia extract from the UN Convention Against Torture is just some made up inaccurate shit. Care to say where?

    Or the SERE instructor testimony to Congress is describing waterboarding is totally wrong, because you guys all know way more about waterboarding than the SERE trainer.

    Or even the definition of waterboarding is wrong, but again, you guys cite no reliable sources to contradict it.

  146. SBP says:

    Neither Wikipedia nor the UN is a “reliable source”, Sambot.

    This is the same UN that put Libya in charge of the “Human Rights Commission”, you fucking moron.

  147. Pablo says:

    …any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person

    Severe is one end of a continuum. Waterboarding does not inflict severe pain or suffering, either physical or mental.

  148. B Moe says:

    Do you know what a “definition” is?

    Yeah, this is the definition your buddy ‘cleo came up with on the other thread:

    SERE training certainly included the legal requirement that the WB subject be given the assurance there is no death threat from the procedure because it is well known that if the subject THINKS he might die, then it’s torture, the same way mock execution and forced Russian Roulette is regarded. But here’s the catch……………………..

    It absolutely meets that definition. Are you saying that this parameter is not “well known” then? Or are you just ignorant of it?

  149. sdferr says:

    …the SERE instructor testimony…

    There are many more SERE trainers in the world than this one fellow. No small number of them deny his assertions. It would seem that path of argument results in an undecidable impasse.

  150. Danger says:

    Sammy,

    Why do you suppose their are not a lot of SERE school graduates making abuse claims? Could it be that while the experience is certainly not pleasant it is not something we would care to have equated with the kinds of treatment that the Hussein boys regularly dished out.

  151. B Moe says:

    I just want to know what Jesse MacBeth thinks of all this. Anybody heard from him lately?

  152. Sammy says:

    Why do you suppose their are not a lot of SERE school graduates making abuse claims? Could it be that while the experience is certainly not pleasant it is not something we would care to have equated with the kinds of treatment that the Hussein boys regularly dished out.

    It’s not a relative definition. Yes, waterboarding is not the same as some of the gruesome things others do, esp people like the Hussein boys, who were sadistic for the fun of it. The question is, does waterboarding meet the definition of torture. The answer seems obvious.

  153. sdferr says:

    Saw his name mentioned today B Moe.

  154. Sammy says:

    Why do you suppose their are not a lot of SERE school graduates making abuse claims?

    Also, because it’s voluntary, and they can bow out if it’s too much for them to take.

  155. B Moe says:

    The answer seems obvious.

    So why can’t you see it?

  156. Ric Locke says:

    Bah. Why is this being discussed in these terms?

    It is a classic case of “useful idiot being manipulated by the cynical.” Sammy’s concerns are real, whether they are valid or not, and the real problem is that the cynics behind the scenes are grasping for excuses to prosecute and torture (!) anybody who disagrees with them. The result is intended to be a final end to that horrid institution called “free speech”, and to establish the rule of power over the rule of law.

    There are several layers below Sammy. The most prominent is the idiots who want to prosecute Bush, et. al. for “war crimes” — “frogmarching Bush and Cheney off to jail.” I’m not sure whether Sammy subscribes to that or not; frankly I haven’t been following the thread, which interests me only as an example of both sides missing the point. They are aided and abetted not only by the Sammys of the world, but also by people who are looking for a “shield law” for politicians, either so they can search for loopholes and thereby enrich themselves, or would like to see Chris Dodd (among others) walk regardless of his behavior. There is no particular reason why both objectives couldn’t be achieved, of course.

    The “prosecute Bush” fanatics are at best shortsighted. Establishing the principle that losing the election means going to jail will simply reinforce the stranglehold of the elite upon what is nominally “politics” — if you know you’re going to be shot at sunrise if you don’t get re-elected, you aren’t likely to be squeamish about the measures you use to maintain your position.

    Arguing about whether this or that technique meets the definition of “torture”, and is therefore grist for the prosecution mill, is simply abandoning the real fundamental concern in favor of angels dancing on pin-headed people.

    Regards,
    Ric

  157. Sammy says:

    Waterboarding does not inflict severe pain or suffering, either physical or mental.

    How can you possibly know that? Please cite some sources who can attest to that.

  158. Danger says:

    It’s not a relative definition. Yes, waterboarding is not the same as some of the gruesome things others do, esp people like the Hussein boys, who were sadistic for the fun of it. The question is, does waterboarding meet the definition of torture. The answer seems obvious.

    Well it is not severe treatment either which is listed in your UN definition (nice catch Pablo).

    Pretty soon harsh language is going to be considered torture. The good cop bad cop technique that seems to be in vouge with bleeding heart types also requires at least the threat of harsh treatment. Couldn’t that be considered severe mental harm by some?

  159. B Moe says:

    They don’t seem to understand that for good cop/bad cop to work there has to be a bad cop, Danger. And when you are dealing with stone age Afghani hillbillies it takes a fairly serious threat to get their attention.

  160. Sammy says:

    And this seems to be the disconnect. You guys see controlled drowning, where the subject is strapped down, unable to escape, unable to breath, as water fills their air passages and they have the full sensation of being drown – as no different than being apprehended for committing a crime, or having harsh language used on you. No difference, so not torture.

  161. Danger says:

    “Also, because it’s voluntary, and they can bow out if it’s too much for them to take.”

    Sammmy once the training starts they don’t let you “bow out”, the techniques are used until information is extracted.

    And yes the information is collaborated by what others have said and by information that they already have attained through other means. So the arguement that people will say anything to get the treatment to stop is not valid.

  162. JD says:

    Feelings, nothing more than feelings ….

  163. B Moe says:

    because it is well known that if the subject THINKS he might die, then it’s torture

    DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, SAMMY? YES OR NO?

  164. SBP says:

    You guys see controlled drowning

    Liar.

  165. Danger says:

    Sammy,

    I don’t like talking about actual interrogation techniques because they deal with sources and methods of collecting intellegence and should be protected at the highest levels because of the grave damage that can occur to the nations security if they are disclosed.

    Having said that I will say that your description of the technique is not accurate and the level of pain or suffering inflicted is NOT severe.

  166. JD says:

    I think I am going to die if I have to read any more drivel from Sammah.

  167. Pablo says:

    How can you possibly know that? Please cite some sources who can attest to that.

    Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

  168. Pablo says:

    Pretty soon harsh language is going to be considered torture.

    BOOBIES!!!

  169. Pablo says:

    You guys see controlled drowning,

    No, Sammah! YOU see controlled drowning. Because you’re not very bright and you don’t process information well.

  170. JD says:

    Danger – Sammah, and the Leftists, routinely conflate simulation of drowning, and what happens in waterboarding, where the body is tricked into thinking that is happening. It is a not-so-subtle difference, but one they just gloss right over.

  171. Danger says:

    Man, the Force is strong in that Pablo fella, I think I will bow out and get some chow now.

  172. Danger says:

    JD,

    Good point, I guess I should just let it go but it just bothers me that inaccurate information becomes the premise for so many arguements from the left.

  173. Sammy says:

    because it is well known that if the subject THINKS he might die, then it’s torture.

    DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, SAMMY? YES OR NO?

    No, that’s not a complete and accurate definition. I think the person commenting was making the point that mock executions are considered torture.

    Sammah, and the Leftists, routinely conflate simulation of drowning, and what happens in waterboarding, where the body is tricked into thinking that is happening. It is a not-so-subtle difference, but one they just gloss right over.

    Except that with a sufficient amount of this form of simulated drowning, the subject actually drowns/suffocates. Hence the doctors monitoring the pulseox.

    I don’t like talking about actual interrogation techniques because they deal with sources and methods of collecting intellegence and should be protected at the highest levels because of the grave damage that can occur to the nations security if they are disclosed.

    Having said that I will say that your description of the technique is not accurate and the level of pain or suffering inflicted is NOT severe.

    I respect your intention, but it doesn’t seem that waterboarding is much of a state secret any more. What about the description is inaccurate?

  174. B Moe says:

    No, that’s not a complete and accurate definition.

    That is why I referred to it as a statement, not a definition.

    I think the person commenting was making the point that mock executions are considered torture.

    You think wrong, Sammy. That wasn’t his point at all. Pablo was dead nuts about your ability to process information.

    SERE training certainly included the legal requirement that the WB subject be given the assurance there is no death threat from the procedure because it is well known that if the subject THINKS he might die, then it’s torture….

    Cleo was trying to make some point about the effectiveness of the assurance given.

  175. B Moe says:

    I respect your intention, but it doesn’t seem that waterboarding is much of a state secret any more.

    Are you expecting congratulations for that? Because I don’t respect you intentions at all.

  176. Sammy says:

    More description on what waterboarding is:

    http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

    Pablo, it addresses your “waterboarding is a simulation” thing.

  177. Pablo says:

    Sammy, see this comment and then see this article. Then try to suss out the difference between and opinion and a legal definition.

  178. B Moe says:

    We live at a time where Americans, completely uninformed by an incurious media and enthralled by vengeance-based fantasy television shows like “24”, are actually cheering and encouraging such torture as justifiable revenge for the September 11 attacks.

    That is bullshit, Sammy, I am forced to question your sources motives if he is going to question mine.

    He remembered “the Barrel” version of waterboarding quite well. Head first until the water filled the lungs, then you talk.

    That is utter bullshit, Sammy. Anyone who defines waterboarding as holding someone’s head underwater until they drown is a liar and unreliable source.

  179. B Moe says:

    There is No Debate Except for Torture Apologists

    1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator.

    Finally, that is not a good faith effort to engage in a dialog. Anyone who dares question his is a torture apologist. Fuck him. And fuck you if you agree.

  180. Pablo says:

    I liked this bit:


    There is No Debate Except for Torture Apologists

    I wonder if he cribbed that from Al Gore.

    I also wonder how he’d rate the level of pain and suffering in comparison to having someone set on him with a blowtorch and a pair of needlenose vise grips, or perhaps having someone do it to his child while he watched. That’s severe.

  181. Sammy says:

    I also wonder how he’d rate the level of pain and suffering in comparison to having someone set on him with a blowtorch and a pair of needlenose vise grips, or perhaps having someone do it to his child while he watched. That’s severe.

    I agree. Again, you seem to want a relative definition – where it’s not torture as long as we’re X% better than the bad guys.

  182. Pablo says:

    Again, you seem to want a relative definition – where it’s not torture as long as we’re X% better than the bad guys.

    No, I want you to define severe pain and suffering without regard to who is inflicting it.

  183. Danger says:

    I respect your intention, but it doesn’t seem that waterboarding is much of a state secret any more. What about the description is inaccurate?

    Sammy,

    Regrettably more information has been disclosed then should have been, but I try to live by the “two wrongs dont make a right motto” my parents taught me.

    It is the President’s right and perogative to authorize or prohibit any technique he deems appropriate and I will stand by that. However, I dont think its a great idea to disclose (more of) the playbook to the enemy.

    There is an appropriate place to discuss this subject; unfortunately, too many (mostly on the left) used leaks selectively to undermine our intellegence capabilities and push their agenda.

  184. Sammy says:

    Waterboarding is controlled drowning. Drowning someone to get them to talk is torture. It does make a difference if it’s voluntary or involuntary. Again, if I get in a boxing ring, and get the shit beat out of me, it’s not assault and battery. If I’m forced into the ring, and can’t leave, it is assault and battery.

    SERE is voluntary. Thank God there are people willing to go through it to get into certain combat positions.

    “(U) SERE school techniques are designed to simulate abusive tactics used by our enemies. There are fundamental differences between a SERE school exercise and a real world interrogation. At SERE school, students are subject to an extensive medical and psychological pre-screening prior to being subjected to physical and psychological pressures. The schools impose strict limits on the frequency, duration, and/or intensity of certain techniques. Psychologists are present throughout SERE training to intervene should the need arise and to help students cope with associated stress. And SERE school is voluntary; students are even given a special phrase they can use to immediately stop the techniques from being used against them.

    http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/EXEC%20SUMMARY-CONCLUSIONS_For%20Release_12%20December%202008.pdf

  185. Bob Reed says:

    Bravo Danger!

    If only some at the NYTimes had your integrity; you refusal to discuss this matter is both laudable and understandable. Many members, and veterans, of the defense community face this trial with the stoic silence that professional discretion dictates…

    While others, dilletantes, wanna-be’s, and ideologues are like a teenage boy begging his girlfriend, “C’mon, I just wanna see it”…

  186. JD says:

    Simply asserting that it is controlled drowning does not make it so. Especially since it is most certainly not.

  187. Sammy says:

    Simply asserting that it is controlled drowning does not make it so. Especially since it is most certainly not.

    If you waterboard someone for long enough, they drown. They are certainly suffocating shortly after you start. How is it not controlled drowning?

  188. Pablo says:

    Drowning: to die under water or other liquid of suffocation.

  189. Pablo says:

    How is it not controlled drowning?

    The same way parachuting is not controlled suicide. And the way donating blood isn’t controlled bleeding out.

    You have unanswered questions waiting for you in #129 and #184.

  190. sdferr says:

    Has anyone drowned on account of waterboarding techniques used at SERE? Anyone among the many tens of thousands who have undergone this particular EIT?

  191. JD says:

    That you do not care to get educated beyond the Kos and Wiki talking points has already been well established. You do not discuss this in good faith, like every other time you drop in to take a dump. Simulating a feeling and kicking in the body’s natural reflexes are not the same as simulating drowning. Your descriptors do not start from a position of good faith, and are based on distorted and outdated versions not employed in the instant cases.

  192. SBP says:

    If you waterboard someone for long enough, they drown.

    If you feed someone long enough, their stomach explodes. Therefore buying someone a Big Mac is torture.

    If you pull a necktie too tight, you choke. Therefore wearing a necktie is torture.

    Not to mention that no water actually enters the lungs during waterboarding.

    Now, go ahead. Link your Wikipedia article again, dumbass.

    I notice that you never link the page history, which shows that your fascist fellow-travellers are busy putting facts down the memory hole as quickly as they’re added to the page.

  193. Pablo says:

    If you pull a necktie too tight, you choke. Therefore wearing a necktie is torture.

    I concur! Man is the only animal dumb enough to begin his day by tying a noose around his neck.

  194. Bob Reed says:

    Good pull with the page history SBP…

    I wonder how come politically hot topics get the most page mods…

    And I wonder if that list includes mods made by the site administrators..?

  195. Sammy says:

    Pablo: we’re arguing pure semantics. You posted the definition of drown. Waterboarding is a process which, uninterrupted, results in a person being drown.

  196. Bob Reed says:

    Sammy,

    Drowning occurs when the lungs fill with water; since our lungs can’t extract the oxygen from water, based on the biological process they’re equipped to perform…

    Since no water actually enters the lungs when waterboarding is properly performed, it cannot be drowning; regardless of what you would call the biological response…

    Whether or not it is drowning is definately not a semantics game…

  197. sdferr says:

    Waterboarding is a process that proceeds in intervals of 20-40 seconds, interrupted by opportunities for the subject to breathe fully for a period. Waterboarding as such never proceeds with water application uninterruptedly. Sticking to the facts may go a long way around here Sammy.

  198. Bob Reed says:

    Death by oxygen deprivation is asphixyiation…

  199. SBP says:

    Good pull with the page history SBP…

    It’s a good idea to always check out the page history on Wikipedia.

    You can also copy the link to a specific version from that screen, so you don’t have to worry about things going down the memory hole before the person you give the link to clicks on it.

  200. Sammy says:

    Besides, at a minimum, you’re suffocating the subject.

    If you feed someone long enough, their stomach explodes. Therefore buying someone a Big Mac is torture.

    If you pull a necktie too tight, you choke. Therefore wearing a necktie is torture.

    Not to mention that no water actually enters the lungs during waterboarding.

    I guess nothing’s torture then, because if anything is torture, then everything is torture.

  201. Pablo says:

    Pablo: we’re arguing pure semantics.

    I’m not. You, I’m not so sure about.

    You posted the definition of drown.

    And you posted the (UN) definition of torture. We’re talking about what things are, which by definition involves their definitions.

    Waterboarding is a process which, uninterrupted, results in a person being drown.

    So who interrupted the drownings of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri? Am I saving myself from alcohol poisoning if I only have a few beers? Of course not. And you have unanswered questions waiting for you in #129 and #184.

  202. SBP says:

    I guess nothing’s torture then, because if anything is torture, then everything is torture.

    By your definition, yes.

    By the definition of an honest person, no.

  203. Pablo says:

    I guess nothing’s torture then, because if anything is torture, then everything is torture.

    BOOBIES!!! They’re only torture if you don’t like them.

  204. Sammy says:

    Whether or not it is drowning is definately not a semantics game…

    Some people drown without water ever entering their lungs then, or semantically, they asphyxiate fully submerged.

    Whatever – if it makes you happier to view waterboarding as suffocation, cool with me. It’s still torture. It’s still always been considered torture prior to the Bush DOJ looking for a rationalization to allow it.

    Cite sources to the contrary, please.

  205. SBP says:

    It’s still torture.

    You’re still a liar.

    A bad one.

    Go on, post your Wikipedia link again. You know you want to.

  206. Pablo says:

    Some people drown without water ever entering their lungs then, or semantically, they asphyxiate fully submerged.

    Which is to say that they die, right?

  207. bh says:

    6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

    If this description is correct, it seems nearly impossible that one would drown regardless of how long it continued.

  208. Pablo says:

    Suffocation: 1. to kill by preventing the access of air to the blood through the lungs or analogous organs, as gills; strangle.

    It’s still torture.

    Does it create severe physical or mental pain/suffering?

  209. Pablo says:

    bh,

    According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in.

    14 seconds without being able to breathe? Say it ain’t so!

  210. bh says:

    And this seems to be the disconnect. You guys see controlled drowning, where the subject is strapped down, unable to escape, unable to breath, as water fills their air passages and they have the full sensation of being drown – as no different than being apprehended for committing a crime, or having harsh language used on you. No difference, so not torture.

    That’s Sammy at #162. Goal post movement detected.

  211. Danger says:

    sdferr,

    Damn you man the servers here in Iraq are far too slow for falling for that kind of tempting ;-)

  212. Sammy says:

    And you have unanswered questions waiting for you in #129 and #184.

    I answered #129 in #140.

    For #184 – define severe pain and suffering – again, until the Bush DOJ, waterboarding was always considered to meet this definition.

    Who of us are attorneys specializing in human rights and POW litigation? None. So let’s rely on the guidance crafted by the people specializing in defining the detention and treatment of prisoners. Again, they have always banned the use of waterboarding, as it constitutes torture. Outside of the bybee memo, show me where this is allowed by the US or any civilized democracy? Show me any ruling that concludes that waterboarding did not constitute torture. Our Army forbids it, and our state department defines it as torture when other countries use it.

    You all seem to want to say, “Under my personal definition of ‘severe pain and suffering’, waterboarding (which I’ve never personally experienced) isn’t severe enough.” But it doesn’t really matter what you personally believe. Outside of the Bush DOJ, waterboarding has always been considered a method of torture. Show me otherwise.

  213. bh says:

    Hey, I’m late to the thread, Danger, but thanks for your service. Best of luck to you.

  214. Pablo says:

    as water fills their air passages

    Use a neti pot, go to jail.

  215. SBP says:

    Outside of the Bush DOJ, waterboarding has always been considered a method of torture.

    You are a liar.

    Sorry.

  216. SBP says:

    Hey, I’m late to the thread, Danger, but thanks for your service. Best of luck to you.

    From me as well.

  217. Pablo says:

    For #184 – define severe pain and suffering – again, until the Bush DOJ, waterboarding was always considered to meet this definition.

    That’s not an answer. And your #140 contains the UN definition of torture:

    …any act by which severe pain or suffering,

    That doesn’t refute Bybee, and you still refuse to attempt a definition of severe pain and/or suffering. Which brings me right back around to your continuing failure to answer #184.

  218. Danger says:

    Thanks BH and SBP but it is getting late here and Sammy is relying on circular arguments so good night all.

  219. Sammy says:

    That doesn’t refute Bybee, and you still refuse to attempt a definition of severe pain and/or suffering. Which brings me right back around to your continuing failure to answer #184.

    Oh, I don’t know, let’s see how the dictionary defines it:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/severe

    Definition 5 or 6 is probably the right context:


    5. causing discomfort or distress by extreme character or conditions, as weather, cold, or heat; unpleasantly violent, as rain or wind, or a blow or shock.
    6. difficult to endure, perform, fulfill, etc.: a severe test of his powers.

    As bh says:

    According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in.

    14 seconds without being able to breathe? Say it ain’t so!

    Wow, 14 seconds, so does that mean that our CIA agents are a bunch of complete pussies? I’m willing to guess they’re tougher than I am, so if they broke in 14 seconds, maybe they experienced something… severe – you think?

  220. SBP says:

    Wow, 14 seconds, so does that mean that our CIA agents are a bunch of complete pussies?

    I wouldn’t want to get a Dutch Rub for 14 seconds.

    That doesn’t make it “severe torture”, idiot.

  221. Pablo says:

    severe weather doesn’t apply here. That’s a weather continuum, not a pain and suffering continuum. Severe pain or suffering, Sammy. Focus. There’s no argument that waterboarding induces panic in a hurry. But does it induce severe pain or suffering? Define that and show me.

  222. Sammy says:

    I wouldn’t want to get a Dutch Rub for 14 seconds.

    That doesn’t make it “severe torture”, idiot.

    Would you break and give the location of family members, or swear you trained in an Al-Qaeda camp? You might.

    Also, FWIW, severe is a lower threshold than “extreme” or “agonizing”, and yet, “severe pain or suffering” is the definition of torture.

  223. bh says:

    As bh says…

    Uhhh, not really, that was Pablo’s comment where he quoted from my ABCNews link. There isn’t a single word of mine in your blockquote.

  224. Sammy says:

    But does it induce severe pain or suffering? Define that and show me.

    Why do you want to take my word for it? Are you saying that my opinion carries more weight with you than every legal determination outside of the Bush DOJ?

  225. B Moe says:

    Waterboarding is controlled drowning. Drowning someone to get them to talk is torture. It does make a difference if it’s voluntary or involuntary. Again, if I get in a boxing ring, and get the shit beat out of me, it’s not assault and battery. If I’m forced into the ring, and can’t leave, it is assault and battery.

    SERE is voluntary. Thank God there are people willing to go through it to get into certain combat positions.

    Cool. Sammy has already agreed that threatening someone with a gun isn’t torture, so what we do is we tell the prisoners they can either agree to be waterboarded or we are going to shoot their asses. If it is voluntary it isn’t torture, right Sammy?

  226. SBP says:

    Are you saying that my opinion carries more weight with you than every legal determination outside of the Bush DOJ?

    I think he is saying that you are a liar, and that repeating the lie doesn’t make it true, no matter how many times you do it.

  227. Sammy says:

    Are you saying that my opinion carries more weight with you than every legal determination outside of the Bush DOJ?

    I think he is saying that you are a liar, and that repeating the lie doesn’t make it true, no matter how many times you do it.

    I’d think that in all the times you’ve called it a lie, you could have been bothered to dig up a reliable source with a neutral point of view.

  228. B Moe says:

    He remembered “the Barrel” version of waterboarding quite well. Head first until the water filled the lungs, then you talk.

    I can’t get over that one.

  229. Pablo says:

    Are you saying that my opinion carries more weight with you than every legal determination outside of the Bush DOJ?

    No, your opinion carries no weight. And you haven’t shown a legal determination that says what the CIA did to those 3 guys is torture. I’m asking you for a definition of severe pain and suffering.

  230. Sammy says:

    No, your opinion carries no weight. And you haven’t shown a legal determination that says what the CIA did to those 3 guys is torture. I’m asking you for a definition of severe pain and suffering.

    Again, why does it come down to why I say. The US military has determined that these are not allowable interrogation techniques. The CIA had formerly been banned from using it. Until the Bush DOJ, it’s been obvious that waterboarding meets the definition of torture. Other countries do not allow it. Our state department determined it meets the definition of torture. Why are you asking for me (a non-lawyer) to put for a definition to you (another non-lawyer) so that you can accept or reject the criteria. Like you’re qualified. If you’re so qualified, why don’t you spend your time disputing the former determinations that it’s obviously torture?

  231. SBP says:

    I’d think that in all the times you’ve called it a lie, you could have been bothered to dig up a reliable source with a neutral point of view.

    I’m not going to help you pretend that this is an honest discussion, Sammy.

    If you gave a shit about “reliable sources” and “neutral points of view” you wouldn’t have cited that Wikipedia article so many times.

  232. Sammy says:

    I’d think that in all the times you’ve called it a lie, you could have been bothered to dig up a reliable source with a neutral point of view.

    I’m not going to help you pretend that this is an honest discussion, Sammy.

    If you gave a shit about “reliable sources” and “neutral points of view” you wouldn’t have cited that Wikipedia article so many times.

    In other words, “I looked and looked, and gosh-darn-it, there are none. Shit. Load the ad hominem into the cannons!”

  233. sdferr says:

    Have you noticed Sammy, that the Congress of the United States has yet to write into law the words “Waterboarding is torture.”? Do you reckon that is because no Congress has ever thought to put those words together in law? It is an odd thing, isn’t it?

  234. Pablo says:

    In other words, “I looked and looked, and gosh-darn-it, there are none. Shit. Load the ad hominem into the cannons!”

    There have only been a couple of official findings as to whether or not the CIA’s waterboarding is torture. Both of them say no, it isn’t, which is probably why you keep wanting to dismiss them out of hand. You have yet to refute them, despite my asking you repeatedly to refute Bybee.

  235. JD says:

    Sammy – Quit torturing everyone. Your relentless mendacity and constant reliance of kicking out what you consider to be pithy responses are bringing severe physical and mental pain and anguish to all.

    Every time Sammay lies, a fairy loses its wings, and a unicorn dies.

    Careful, God is watching.

  236. Pablo says:

    The US military has determined that these are not allowable interrogation techniques. The CIA had formerly been banned from using it.

    That doesn’t make it torture.

    Until the Bush DOJ, it’s been obvious that waterboarding meets the definition of torture.

    Cite, please.

    Our state department determined it meets the definition of torture.

    Another cite, please.

    Why are you asking for me (a non-lawyer) to put for a definition to you (another non-lawyer) so that you can accept or reject the criteria.

    What is severe pain and/or suffering? It’s not that fucking complicated, Sammy.

    If you’re so qualified, why don’t you spend your time disputing the former determinations that it’s obviously torture?

    Surely, you’ll cite those.

  237. Pablo says:

    Have you noticed Sammy, that the Congress of the United States has yet to write into law the words “Waterboarding is torture.”?

    Legally, that would make it a done deal for our purposes. And yet, they won’t do it. So, we’re left with the UN Convention definition which includes severe pain and/or suffering. For my money, when you’re just fine when the ordeal is over, it can’t be severe pain or suffering. Those things don’t vanish in a matter of seconds.

  238. SBP says:

    In other words, “I looked and looked, and gosh-darn-it, there are none. Shit. Load the ad hominem into the cannons!”

    In other words, you’re going to lie about what I said.

  239. sdferr says:

    Sammy solicitations contra waterboarding on behalf of three Al Qaeda men are certainly a sign of his superior moral bearing, we ought to say. Nearly Christ-like in the “turn the other cheekish” way, don’t you think? Raising a few of his fellow Americans above the level of the ghastly uncivilized brutes of old on the other hand, is proving to be the labor of a lifetime. How shamed should we feel my fellow brutes?

  240. B Moe says:

    Reliable sources? You bring us Wikipedia and a “military expert” who calls sticking someone’s head into a barrel of water waterboarding and you want reliable sources?

    Someone asked you which you would prefer, life in prison or a being waterboarded, I don’t believe you ever answered that, did you?

  241. Sammy says:

    For my money, when you’re just fine when the ordeal is over, it can’t be severe pain or suffering. Those things don’t vanish in a matter of seconds.

    And yet, the definition doesn’t say anything about how quickly you recover.

  242. Sammy says:

    Sammy solicitations contra waterboarding on behalf of three Al Qaeda men are certainly a sign of his superior moral bearing, we ought to say.

    Oh, once we wrap up on waterboarding 3 guys, we can get into “stress positions” which we used on a lot more people.

  243. B Moe says:

    And yet, the definition doesn’t say anything about how quickly you recover.

    What definition? You have a definition of severe you are holding out on us, Sammy?

  244. JD says:

    Clearly severe means that it ends immediately. Isn’t that obvious?

  245. Sammy says:

    causing discomfort or distress by extreme character or conditions

    or

    difficult to endure

  246. Sammy says:

    or

    6 a: inflicting physical discomfort or hardship : harsh b: inflicting pain or distress : grievous

    https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15022#comment-732239

  247. JD says:

    Your comments are difficult to endure.

  248. Sammy says:

    Now you guys seem to be claiming that waterboarding isn’t torture because it’s not all that severe. It only lasts a few seconds, and people recover quickly. Any yet, if it’s so mild, it seems like it would be one of the first things we would use, rather than reserving it for the 3 worst of the worse guys. You also seem dismissive of the accounts from people who’ve actually experienced it.

    14 seconds – ha ha. Big whup.

    And so that seems like your final analysis is – it can’t be torture because it doesn’t seem so bad to me. But that’s contradicted by so many first hand accounts, and every legal opinion outside of Bybee. But you know, it seems, therefor it is.

    If it’s so mild, why did we only use it on 3 people? If it’s so mild, why is it reported to have worked so well? Why wouldn’t we use something that’s (a) mild, and (b) effective, on everyone we interrogate?

  249. Pablo says:

    And yet, the definition doesn’t say anything about how quickly you recover.

    What definition? You haven’t provided one. Hint: defining “severe” does not define “severe pain and suffering”.

    But that’s contradicted by so many first hand accounts, and every legal opinion outside of Bybee.

    What legal opinions?

  250. Pablo says:

    14 seconds – ha ha. Big whup.

    Yup.

  251. B Moe says:

    If it’s so mild, why did we only use it on 3 people? If it’s so mild, why is it reported to have worked so well? Why wouldn’t we use something that’s (a) mild, and (b) effective, on everyone we interrogate?

    The sophistry is getting a little too deep for me, fellows. I’m outta here.

  252. Rusty says:

    #252
    If it’s so mild, why is it reported to have worked so well?

    To be honest.After you shoot the first one, the rest just sort of fall in line and get with the program.

    Was what happened to Daniel Pearl torture? Is it legitimate, in time of war, to use any means at your disposal to save your countryman’s lives? war isn’t moral, sammah. Things that are done in wars aren’t moral things.You don’t want to torture, but you’re more than willing to pay men and women to do violence on your behalf.You’re the worst sort of hypocrit, sammah.

  253. JD says:

    It is a lying sack of shit. It cannot point to one legal opinion or court finding that declares waterboarding to be torture or illegal, Pablo.

  254. JD says:

    But wiki told me so! And it will just keep copying and pasting the same definition that is so broad as to make the term meaningless. It just wants to claim some moral high ground and call everyone else a torture lover.

  255. geoffb says:

    Linked by bh on another thread.

    U.S. Lawyers Agreed on Legality of Brutal Tactic.

    And I’ll say it again. It revolves around knowledge and intention. Probably above Obama’s pay grade too.

  256. Use a neti pot, go to jail.

    heh. I kept thinking about mentioning that. but I use a tea cup, just snork that salt water right up my nose. It’s not fun when I do it wrong, though.

  257. Rusty says:

    In another time and another place sammah and his ilk would have righteously placed a bullet in the back of your head.

  258. JD says:

    They are cowards, Rusty.

Comments are closed.