Can't Wait For The Video!

[Go Fish]

After all, that Saddam Hussein footage was jerky, and had poor sound quality. Somewhere, 432 virgins are getting ready.

The US today charged six Guantánamo Bay detainees with murder and war crimes in connection with the September 11 attacks and said it would seek the death penalty if they were convicted.

The men are set to be the first detainees brought before a military tribunal in Guantánamo Bay over the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001.

A spokesman told reporters one of the men charged was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who he named as the "mastermind of the 9/11 attacks" and who proposed the mission to Osama bin Laden as early as 1996.

Brigadier general Thomas Hartmann, a legal adviser to the US military tribunal system, said: "There will be no secret trials." He said the suspects would receive rights "virtually identical to the rights we provide to our military members".

However, critics likened the military tribunal, where the six defendants are likely to face trial, as a "kangaroo court".

Last week, the CIA admitted interrogators used "waterboarding", a technique widely perceived as torture, on Mohammed shortly after the September 11 attacks.

Mohammed was among 15 so-called "high-value detainees" who were held at length by the CIA in secret overseas prisons before being handed over to the military in 2006.

In Guantánamo Bay hearings that have been attacked as unfair, he allegedly confessed to the September 11 attacks and a string of other terror plots last March.

"I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z," Mohammed said in a statement read during the session, according to hearing transcripts released by the Pentagon.

The other five suspects are Mohammed al-Qahtani; Ramzi bin al-Shibh, said to have been the main intermediary between the hijackers and leaders of al-Qaida; Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, known as Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who has been accused of being Mohammed's right-hand man; Baluchi's assistant, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi; and Walid bin Attash, who investigators believe selected and trained some of the hijackers.

All six were charged with murder, terrorism and violating laws of war.

Officials plan to hold the trial in a specially constructed court at Guantánamo that will allow lawyers, journalists and officials in but leave victims' relatives and others to watch through closed-circuit TV.

The men will be tried in the military tribunal system that was set up by the US administration after the September 11 attacks. The system has been widely criticised for its rules on legal representation for suspects, hearings behind closed doors and allegations of the abuse of detainees at Guantánamo.

Reprieve, a legal charity which supports prisoners on death row in the US and has acted for Guantánamo detainees, has condemned the decision to seek the death penalty as "absolutely the wrong decision".

Clive Stafford Smith, the director of Reprieve, said: "Military commissions in Guantánamo Bay are not about justice, they are about politics. The proceedings these men would face are deeply flawed. Someone could be put to death based on secret or third or fourth-hand evidence. That is not the American way."

He added: "What will the US achieve by hauling these men before a kangaroo court and executing them? Anyone can see the hypocrisy of espousing human rights, then trampling on them. We will infuriate our allies who firmly oppose the death penalty. We will anger the world. The most effective counter-terrorism strategy is the enforcement of human rights."

[jafar00]

Since they are using "evidence" collected by way of torture, this is a complete farce.

[Grizz]

Sorry, but we generally hang war criminals and mass murders. The actions of the 9/11 conspirators could fall into either category.

[Elrathin]

Sorry, but we generally hang war criminals and mass murders. The actions of the 9/11 conspirators could fall into either category.


Give me 2 years with you while I use some "interrogation" techniques and I can make you believe you were part of 9/11.

[Easy90]

Seems to me that most of the Lefties here who think these six terrorists are simply innocent victims of Bush's "illegal oil war against the downtrodden masses," would rather see Bush and all his cabinet...and a fair number of high ranking US military hanged, rather than these "freedom fighters."

After all...9-11 was an inside job...(right Patric Henry?) and Cheney blew up the levies around New Orleans during Katrina (because he hates Black people...) And the Marines wanted to practice their illegal "crowd control" techniques in Toledo so they will be ready to put down the riots if Republicans win in November... You know...All that! * All sentiments expressed by our Lefty friends. LOL! Whew! What a den of loonies! The Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and flourishing here! :ecstatic:

[apdst]

Since they are using "evidence" collected by way of torture, this is a complete farce.

When you say torture, are you talking about underinflated soccer balls and scentless deordorant?[hr]Give me 2 years with you while I use some "interrogation" techniques and I can make you believe you were part of 9/11.

The Nuremberg trial lasted four years. I wonder if all those Nazis were made to believe they had something to do with, "The Final Solution".

[Fishingriver]

The administration, military, CIA have lied to us since the first pictures appeared out of Abu Gahrib. First they said it was just a few bad soldiers. Then we found out it was also happening in Afghanistan. Then we found out it was widespread. The German national who the State Department contended was a victim of mistaken identity was tortured. Now we are being told by the same liars that they only tortured three. Why in the world would we respect their word enough to assume they hadn't tortured others? When they admitted to torturing these three high profile terrorists, it was intended to frame the debate on torture. It isn't these guys. Its that torture became US policy. Today they admit to waterboarding. If we accept that, they won't stop.

[jafar00]

Since they are using "evidence" collected by way of torture, this is a complete farce.

When you say torture, are you talking about underinflated soccer balls and scentless deordorant?

No. KSM was waterboarded for example. I'm sure you would own up to single handedly bombing Pearl Harbour using remote control planes if you were waterboarded enough. Evidence extracted by way of torture is inadmissible in any court of law, Kangaroo or otherwise.

[Saigio]

Since they are using "evidence" collected by way of torture, this is a complete farce.

When you say torture, are you talking about underinflated soccer balls and scentless deordorant?

No. KSM was waterboarded for example. I'm sure you would own up to single handedly bombing Pearl Harbour using remote control planes if you were waterboarded enough. Evidence extracted by way of torture is inadmissible in any court of law, Kangaroo or otherwise.


Indeed. Torture a man enough and he'll say anything for it to just stop. Torture him even more, and he'll believe that it's true. Torture is not effective enough at gathering information to be trusted at all.

[Easy90]

You libs are confused. I believe the fact that these "gentlemen" were identified as being the ones responsible for conspiracy in the attack wasn't established via waterbording. The "waterbording" provided details of further plots which were effectively thwarted... But since you've decided otherwise, and are committed to supporting the terrorists in lieu of America, I doubt you will be receptive to that information.

[Trish]

Not to throw a wet blanket on all the mean old USA dialogue here, but the US has not admitted to torturing anyone. They admitted to waterboarding 3 people - 3 very bad people. Yes, I know....to many people waterboarding is torture. However, LEGALLY speaking waterboarding has not been determined to be torture and at the time it was used it was a sanctioned interrogation technique for extreme cases. Until there has been a definitive LEGAL determination as to whether or not waterboarding is indeed torture, can we please stick to accurate statements and not insert our own definitions in place of legalities - the US has admitted to WATERBOARDING 3 people - not to torture.

Thank you.

[Easy90]

Not to throw a wet blanket on all the mean old USA dialogue here, but the US has not admitted to torturing anyone. They admitted to waterboarding 3 people - 3 very bad people. Yes, I know....to many people waterboarding is torture. However, LEGALLY speaking waterboarding has not been determined to be torture and at the time it was used it was a sanctioned interrogation technique for extreme cases. Until there has been a definitive LEGAL determination as to whether or not waterboarding is indeed torture, can we please stick to accurate statements and not insert our own definitions in place of legalities - the US has admitted to WATERBOARDING 3 people - not to torture.

Thank you.


Correct! One of these was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...who after 20 seconds, sang like a canary. They got information from him that thwarted numerous other conspiracies and plots...and helped net a bunch of terrorists. They already KNEW who he was and what he did...but they exploited him via some intense interrogation to get details of other plots.

Some of our pro-terrorist friends here are trying to speculate that his association with the plot was determined via "waterboarding." It wasn't. It was already well known. Of course, those affected by "Bush Derangement Syndrome" aren't ever going to agree with that.

[Trish]

Not to throw a wet blanket on all the mean old USA dialogue here, but the US has not admitted to torturing anyone. They admitted to waterboarding 3 people - 3 very bad people. Yes, I know....to many people waterboarding is torture. However, LEGALLY speaking waterboarding has not been determined to be torture and at the time it was used it was a sanctioned interrogation technique for extreme cases. Until there has been a definitive LEGAL determination as to whether or not waterboarding is indeed torture, can we please stick to accurate statements and not insert our own definitions in place of legalities - the US has admitted to WATERBOARDING 3 people - not to torture.

Thank you.


Correct! One of these was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...who after 20 seconds, sang like a canary. They got information from him that thwarted numerous other conspiracies and plots...and helped net a bunch of terrorists. They already KNEW who he was and what he did...but they exploited him via some intense interrogation to get details of other plots.

Some of our pro-terrorist friends here are trying to speculate that his association with the plot was determined via "waterboarding." It wasn't. It was already well known. Of course, those affected by "Bush Derangement Syndrome" aren't ever going to agree with that.



I don't think we have any "pro" terrorists here. We do have differences of opinion on a great many issues and the treatment of suspected terrorists is one of those issues. On any issue our differences run the gamut from one extreme to the other with every position in between. Yet with all those differences, I think that we all sincerely want the best for this country and our fellow citizens. We just don't quite agree on how to achieve that. The passion we each display when discussing all these issues is to me proof of how much we all do care. If we didn't care we wouldn't get so worked up about all these things.

[exigent]

I say we give these guys a trial and execute their sentences AFTER we try and execute Osama.

[Grizz]

Sorry, but we generally hang war criminals and mass murders. The actions of the 9/11 conspirators could fall into either category.


Give me 2 years with you while I use some "interrogation" techniques and I can make you believe you were part of 9/11.


Two years? Shucks, I'd be happy to tell you anything you want after about 2 minutes. 'course, if we ever got to open court, I'd refute that and expect you'd provide some hard evidence other than what you beat out of me.

Trish Wrote:
Not to throw a wet blanket on all the mean old USA dialogue here, but the US has not admitted to torturing anyone. They admitted to waterboarding 3 people - 3 very bad people. Yes, I know....to many people waterboarding is torture. However, LEGALLY speaking waterboarding has not been determined to be torture and at the time it was used it was a sanctioned interrogation technique for extreme cases. Until there has been a definitive LEGAL determination as to whether or not waterboarding is indeed torture, can we please stick to accurate statements and not insert our own definitions in place of legalities - the US has admitted to WATERBOARDING 3 people - not to torture.

This is waterboarding:

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5] Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding)

You may assert, as does this administration that this is not torture, but we have prosecuted people for using this techinque on our troops. And just because the people this was done to were not wearing regulation uniforms does not excuse it. From that same link, I would point out one more paragraph:

Legality
All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition, and as such there exists no legal exception under this treaty. (The treaty states "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.") Additionally, signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are bound to Article 5, which states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Mr. Bush and others in his administration may state that the sun rises in the West, but that won't change reality.

[ViolaLee]

You libs are confused. I believe the fact that these "gentlemen" were identified as being the ones responsible for conspiracy in the attack wasn't established via waterbording. The "waterbording" provided details of further plots which were effectively thwarted... But since you've decided otherwise, and are committed to supporting the terrorists in lieu of America, I doubt you will be receptive to that information.
Got any proof or did you hear Limbaugh tell you those lies?

[apdst]

Torture is not effective enough at gathering information to be trusted at all.

If that were true, the torture wouldn't be a several thousand year old practice.

No. KSM was waterboarded for example.

The evidence that condemned Shake Mohammed wasn't just his confession. There was tons of other evidence that linked him to not only 9/11, but several other attacks.

[Alonzo]

If that were true, the torture wouldn't be a several thousand year old practice.

Right! I mean whats next, are they going to claim sacrificing animals doesn't cause rain to appear? After all, there's no arguing with tradition.

[Trish]

Sorry, but we generally hang war criminals and mass murders. The actions of the 9/11 conspirators could fall into either category.


Give me 2 years with you while I use some "interrogation" techniques and I can make you believe you were part of 9/11.


Two years? Shucks, I'd be happy to tell you anything you want after about 2 minutes. 'course, if we ever got to open court, I'd refute that and expect you'd provide some hard evidence other than what you beat out of me.

Trish Wrote:
Not to throw a wet blanket on all the mean old USA dialogue here, but the US has not admitted to torturing anyone. They admitted to waterboarding 3 people - 3 very bad people. Yes, I know....to many people waterboarding is torture. However, LEGALLY speaking waterboarding has not been determined to be torture and at the time it was used it was a sanctioned interrogation technique for extreme cases. Until there has been a definitive LEGAL determination as to whether or not waterboarding is indeed torture, can we please stick to accurate statements and not insert our own definitions in place of legalities - the US has admitted to WATERBOARDING 3 people - not to torture.

This is waterboarding:

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5] Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding)

You may assert, as does this administration that this is not torture, but we have prosecuted people for using this techinque on our troops. And just because the people this was done to were not wearing regulation uniforms does not excuse it. From that same link, I would point out one more paragraph:

Legality
All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition, and as such there exists no legal exception under this treaty. (The treaty states "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.") Additionally, signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are bound to Article 5, which states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Mr. Bush and others in his administration may state that the sun rises in the West, but that won't change reality.


The link you provided to the definition of waterboarding is from Wikipedia. Normally I wouldn't put too much stress on that fact except for a little note at the top of that particular page - "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved." The content of the page is being disputed. Exactly what is being disputed of course is not identified, however, until the dispute is settled nothing on the page (even if it was not Wikipedia) can be used as a definitive answer for anything.

As to waterboarding being torture, you'll note that I stated that "many" people do indeed consider waterboarding torture. There has been a continuing debate in legal circles in the US as to whether or not waterboarding, as it was used by the CIA against suspected terrorists, is actually torture. From your own source there is this

"Andrew C. McCarthy, a licensed attorney and former U.S. federal prosecutor now serving as director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism, states in an October 2007 op-ed in National Review that he believes that, when used "some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive", waterboarding should not qualify as torture under the law. McCarthy continues: "Personally, I don't believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we've seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils,"[57] though in the same article he admits that "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture".

There is quite a difference of opinion as to whether or not waterboarding, as was used against the 3 terrorist suspects, is LEGALLY defined as torture. From a LEGAL standpoint, what I consider torture or what you consider torture is not relevant. As far as I am aware, the US has never admitted to "torture" of anyone. They have admitted to waterboarding on 3 people. However, if the LEGAL definition of torture does not include waterboarding as it was used on those 3 people, then admitting to waterboarding is not the same thing as admitting to torture from a LEGAL standpoint.

I keep stressing "legal" for a reason. What is "right" and what is "legal" are not necessarily the same thing. In a perfect world they probably would be synonymous, but we don't live in a perfect world. That's why I put such emphasis on precise language use. When we start mixing up what we think is right or wrong with what is legal or lawful we don't have a clear picture of what we're dealing with.

[apdst]

After all, there's no arguing with tradition.

No, there's no arguing with the facts. The fact is, sometimes a coke and smile just isn't going to extract information from a person. IMO, there are alotta folks that are confused as to what torture really is. Leaving the lights on, playing lod music, sleep deprivation, bad food, forcing someone to sleep on the floor, barking dogs, withholding religious articles and no A/C aren't torture. There are some folks that DO consider those things to be torture. You can't put a prisoner up in the Waldorf, give him digital cable, three meals a day and then expect him to sing like a bird. It just don't work that way.

During Desert Storm, we captured a Republican Gaurd officer. We asked him several questions about his follow on forces, which he refused to answer, of course. We toild him that if he didn't start talking, we were going to burn him to death and let his body be eatin by the pigs; then, we were going to find his family and burn all of them, too. I don't know if it's an Iraqi thing, a Muslims thing, or an Arab thing, but he was scared shitless at the thought of being burned to death. It was weird. After that, he couldn't talk enough. It got to the point where we were like, "ok, dude! We get the picture! Shutup!!". I don't consider that to be torture, but some folks--especially most Liberals--would call that torture.

[Alonzo]

AP, torture gets the person to say what they think you want to hear. I could go and grab pres, torture him for a while, and get him to tell me where he hid the bomb at the local chuck e cheeses. Obviously it wouldn't be true, but he'd tell me anyway.

Though modern torture is more psychological than physical torture. Same end result, and you can permanently disable an individual if you do it too intensely or for too long, but you don't have to leave any scars to do it.

[apdst]

AP, torture gets the person to say what they think you want to hear.

That's right and sometimes, it's the truth. Information gained by ANY means from a prisoner has to confirmed. A prisoner can lie to you either way.

This is how I would do it. Prisoner comes in. He's stripped of everything. He's given some basic clothing and tossed into a cell, with the lights on around the clock and some sorta noise that would inhibit his sleep, just enough noise to be aggrevating, like when your stereo speaker buzz all night long. He gives me some solid info, and the noise goes away. He gives me some more solid info and he gets a blanket. More solid info and he gets a pillow, then he gets a mattress, then he gets to have his Koran, then he can have his beannie cap and so on. The first time I catch him in a lie and he's back to nothing but his pajamas, sleeping on a cold floor with no blanket and no pillow. Where am I going wrong?

[Fishingriver]

Not to throw a wet blanket on all the mean old USA dialogue here, but the US has not admitted to torturing anyone. They admitted to waterboarding 3 people - 3 very bad people. Yes, I know....to many people waterboarding is torture. However, LEGALLY speaking waterboarding has not been determined to be torture and at the time it was used it was a sanctioned interrogation technique for extreme cases. Until there has been a definitive LEGAL determination as to whether or not waterboarding is indeed torture, can we please stick to accurate statements and not insert our own definitions in place of legalities - the US has admitted to WATERBOARDING 3 people - not to torture.

Thank you.


Waterboard torture is illegal. ALL torture is illegal. Bush has chosen to abuse the law by using the AG to protect himself. You should be careful here. Bush might start waterboard torturing Democrats!

[Fishingriver]

By the time we find ourselves undecided as to whether or not torture is the the right thing to do, we have already slipped into savagery.

[Grizz]

The link you provided to the definition of waterboarding is from Wikipedia. Normally I wouldn't put too much stress on that fact except for a little note at the top of that particular page - "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved." The content of the page is being disputed. Exactly what is being disputed of course is not identified, however, until the dispute is settled nothing on the page (even if it was not Wikipedia) can be used as a definitive answer for anything.

I'm terribly sorry, Trish, but the "dispute" as you call it, is provided by the administration and their enablers. What is NOT in dispute is the history of this particular torture and the penalties exacted upon those who've engaged in it. I would also point out that there are multiple links on the Wiki article for you to investigate further if you wish.

As to waterboarding being torture, you'll note that I stated that "many" people do indeed consider waterboarding torture. There has been a continuing debate in legal circles in the US as to whether or not waterboarding, as it was used by the CIA against suspected terrorists, is actually torture. From your own source there is this

"Andrew C. McCarthy, a licensed attorney and former U.S. federal prosecutor now serving as director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism, states in an October 2007 op-ed in National Review that he believes that, when used "some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive", waterboarding should not qualify as torture under the law. McCarthy continues: "Personally, I don't believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we've seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils,"[57] though in the same article he admits that "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture".

I'm sure if you ask any criminal whether their actions were illegal or not, most would be able to offer some sort of excuses for their crimes. That does not excuse them in any way. As for Mr. McCarthy suggesting that a little torture is ok, just where do you draw the line? Seems to me that's like being a little bit pregnant.

There is quite a difference of opinion as to whether or not waterboarding, as was used against the 3 terrorist suspects, is LEGALLY defined as torture. From a LEGAL standpoint, what I consider torture or what you consider torture is not relevant. As far as I am aware, the US has never admitted to "torture" of anyone. They have admitted to waterboarding on 3 people. However, if the LEGAL definition of torture does not include waterboarding as it was used on those 3 people, then admitting to waterboarding is not the same thing as admitting to torture from a LEGAL standpoint.

I recall back in the late 50's when President Eisenhower denied overflights of the Soviet Union right up until Gary Powers walked into the spotlight in Moscow. The administration admits the obvious only because they've been found out and to say or suggest that it was "only" in these three instances just beggars the imagination. The sorry lot that's been running this country for the past seven years have done their utmost to promote a seriously flawed agenda and hammered those who point out just how bad it is. It starts at the top and runs all the way down. Neither you nor anyone else can excuse or cover it up any more.

[Easy90]

The flaw in your (and all the conspiracy types) logic is that you claim to know about "secrets" that the government has....And then you go on and on about things that you couldn't know about if they were really "secret."

Look... The government has "secrets." That's acknowledged. But assuming they are plotting against you, or the citizenry in general, is not evidenced by that fact. It's vital that our government has secrets Grizz! There are some really bad people out there....who mean America and our way of life, and YOU...ill.

If you say our government is evil...then you're simply saying the same thing people like Castro, Ahmanutjob, Kim Jong ill in the head, Chavez, and half of the Muslim clerics in the world who have declared Jihad on the US are saying. That puts you into some pretty sleazy company Grizz.

And then, as if to substantiate your conspiracy paranoia, you base your theory that the US is evil on things like Ike's denial of the U2 incident until Powers was produced. OF COURSE he did that. We were convinced the Soviets were building ICBMS and we didn't have spy satellites...I, for one am GLAD we did that. You, apparently think it was wrong. Blah!

[Trish]

The link you provided to the definition of waterboarding is from Wikipedia. Normally I wouldn't put too much stress on that fact except for a little note at the top of that particular page - "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved." The content of the page is being disputed. Exactly what is being disputed of course is not identified, however, until the dispute is settled nothing on the page (even if it was not Wikipedia) can be used as a definitive answer for anything.

I'm terribly sorry, Trish, but the "dispute" as you call it, is provided by the administration and their enablers. What is NOT in dispute is the history of this particular torture and the penalties exacted upon those who've engaged in it. I would also point out that there are multiple links on the Wiki article for you to investigate further if you wish.

As to waterboarding being torture, you'll note that I stated that "many" people do indeed consider waterboarding torture. There has been a continuing debate in legal circles in the US as to whether or not waterboarding, as it was used by the CIA against suspected terrorists, is actually torture. From your own source there is this

"Andrew C. McCarthy, a licensed attorney and former U.S. federal prosecutor now serving as director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism, states in an October 2007 op-ed in National Review that he believes that, when used "some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive", waterboarding should not qualify as torture under the law. McCarthy continues: "Personally, I don't believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we've seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils,"[57] though in the same article he admits that "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture".

I'm sure if you ask any criminal whether their actions were illegal or not, most would be able to offer some sort of excuses for their crimes. That does not excuse them in any way. As for Mr. McCarthy suggesting that a little torture is ok, just where do you draw the line? Seems to me that's like being a little bit pregnant.

There is quite a difference of opinion as to whether or not waterboarding, as was used against the 3 terrorist suspects, is LEGALLY defined as torture. From a LEGAL standpoint, what I consider torture or what you consider torture is not relevant. As far as I am aware, the US has never admitted to "torture" of anyone. They have admitted to waterboarding on 3 people. However, if the LEGAL definition of torture does not include waterboarding as it was used on those 3 people, then admitting to waterboarding is not the same thing as admitting to torture from a LEGAL standpoint.

I recall back in the late 50's when President Eisenhower denied overflights of the Soviet Union right up until Gary Powers walked into the spotlight in Moscow. The administration admits the obvious only because they've been found out and to say or suggest that it was "only" in these three instances just beggars the imagination. The sorry lot that's been running this country for the past seven years have done their utmost to promote a seriously flawed agenda and hammered those who point out just how bad it is. It starts at the top and runs all the way down. Neither you nor anyone else can excuse or cover it up any more.


As to the dispute regarding the Wikipedia entry, we don't know what the dispute entails. Your explanation, or any explanation I can offer, is pure conjecture. Until whatever dispute is resolved the information has to be viewed with a degree of skepticism above and beyond the fact that this info is presented by Wikipedia.

Your question of where one draws the line, is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Until we have a cut-and-dried LEGAL definition of what does and does not constitute torture, and thereby a cut-and-dried definition of what is and is not legal, these discrepancies in opinions will continue. Far from excusing or covering up anything, my position is that rather than use emotional, knee-jerk, inaccurate language in our moral outrage over waterboarding, we need to be extremely precise when voicing our criticisms. IF we want to change something, we have to first know exactly what we're dealing with. Portraying something as "illegal" that may not in fact be "illegal" doesn't help the cause. In fact, it hinders the cause as the whole argument against waterboarding can then be dismissed as being based on a flawed premise.

Whether the CIA has used waterboarding more than the 3 times admitted, wasn't the point of my post. My point was that the US has never admitted torturing anyone - they've admitted only to the waterboarding of 3 people. All the posters that keep saying that the US has admitted to "torture" are not making an accurate statement. THAT was my point.

[Truth Detector]

Seems to me that most of the Lefties here who think these six terrorists are simply innocent victims of Bush's "illegal oil war against the downtrodden masses," would rather see Bush and all his cabinet...and a fair number of high ranking US military hanged, rather than these "freedom fighters."

After all...9-11 was an inside job...(right Patric Henry?) and Cheney blew up the levies around New Orleans during Katrina (because he hates Black people...) And the Marines wanted to practice their illegal "crowd control" techniques in Toledo so they will be ready to put down the riots if Republicans win in November... You know...All that! * All sentiments expressed by our Lefty friends. LOL! Whew! What a den of loonies! The Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and flourishing here! :ecstatic:


I noticed the same thing. It is fascinating to watch an entire political party, along with a large group of loony leftists makes these specious claims.

The REAL irony is when they attempt to claim the intellectual high ground in most of these debates.

[Fishingriver]

Whether the CIA has used waterboarding more than the 3 times admitted, wasn't the point of my post. My point was that the US has never admitted torturing anyone - they've admitted only to the waterboarding of 3 people. All the posters that keep saying that the US has admitted to "torture" are not making an accurate statement. THAT was my point.


If they waterboarded, they tortured. Simply because there is an opinion otherwise doesn't establish a rule for how it should be labeled or make it any less true. Every other nation in the world considers it torture. Even the other nations (aside from the US) who use waterboarding torture are honest enough to call it what it is. That you are not has no relevance to the accuracy of our statements. So your point is mute. You cannot support torture (in this case waterboarding torture) and be less responsible for supporting savagery simply by altering the label. There isn't now and there will never be a collective agreement that waterboarding isn't torture. Simply because you have chosen to side with savages doesn't mean anyone else is going to go along with your folly. Quite the contrary.

[Alonzo]

AP, torture gets the person to say what they think you want to hear.

That's right and sometimes, it's the truth. Information gained by ANY means from a prisoner has to confirmed. A prisoner can lie to you either way.

This is how I would do it. Prisoner comes in. He's stripped of everything. He's given some basic clothing and tossed into a cell, with the lights on around the clock and some sorta noise that would inhibit his sleep, just enough noise to be aggrevating, like when your stereo speaker buzz all night long. He gives me some solid info, and the noise goes away. He gives me some more solid info and he gets a blanket. More solid info and he gets a pillow, then he gets a mattress, then he gets to have his Koran, then he can have his beannie cap and so on. The first time I catch him in a lie and he's back to nothing but his pajamas, sleeping on a cold floor with no blanket and no pillow. Where am I going wrong?


So when he knows nothing he's screwed and has no way of ending it.

[underdawg]

I believe everyone , even the enemy should be given a fair trial by jury. In this country as I was taught that everyone was assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Do we just believe this for ourselves or is it not applicable to people from all over? If we are afraid that terrorists can hire a lawyer and escape punishment in our system of law, then that actually means that we don't even believe in our own system of law. If this is the case, then our problem goes a lot further than the possiblity of terrorists, it goes to the very core in our belief in our own government. If we believe that only the rich and powerful get special treatment and the rest of us are left to the whim of a corrupt judicial system, then the problem is not with terrorism but with our own government.

[Truth Detector]

I believe everyone , even the enemy should be given a fair trial by jury. In this country as I was taught that everyone was assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Do we just believe this for ourselves or is it not applicable to people from all over? If we are afraid that terrorists can hire a lawyer and escape punishment in our system of law, then that actually means that we don't even believe in our own system of law. If this is the case, then our problem goes a lot further than the possiblity of terrorists, it goes to the very core in our belief in our own government. If we believe that only the rich and powerful get special treatment and the rest of us are left to the whim of a corrupt judicial system, then the problem is not with terrorism but with our own government.


I wish the terrorists felt this way before they sawed the heads off of their victims.

How nice would it have been if Hitler had given the Jews that same consideration prior to their incineration?

I am sure the Kurdish civilians under Saddam's rule would have liked to have their day in court before they were gassed.

Unfortunately, terrorists, dictators and despots don't share your sincere beliefs in human dignity and would just assume see you dead than alive.

The reality of the world is that when an enemy is willing to fly an airplane into an occupied skyscraper full of innocent people, the standards we apply to human decency and dignity change.

This is an enemy who lies, cheats, murders, blows up innocents and doesn't give a rats behind about your sense of fairness and human dignity.

Sometimes one has to fight fire with fire, lest one becomes complacent, then dead.

[Easy90]

"I believe everyone , even the enemy should be given a fair trial by jury." (Underdog)

Some of you folks think war is about courtrooms and trials. You're deluded. War is about killing the enemy in such numbers that they find pursuit of their agenda hopeless, and their will to continue is broken! It's not about lawyers and trials. The "enemy" won't give you a trial when you're in their clutches...they will bind your hands behind your back, pull out a knife, and saw your screaming head off. Grow up!

[Fishingriver]

Waterboard torture today, tomorrow the Makita drill. What a slippery slope we have found ourselves on when fear over rides reason.

[Elrathin]

Sometimes one has to fight fire with fire, lest one becomes complacent, then dead. [/color][/size] [/font]


While fighting the enemy, if you become just like the enemy, you already lost. The whole purpose of terrorism is to disrupt life and make people live in fear to the point they act irrational and use methods just like them. Looks like the terrorists are winning.[hr]
War is about killing the enemy in such numbers that they find pursuit of their agenda hopeless, and their will to continue is broken!

If that were true, we would just use nukes and end it. Therefore what you think of war as is delusional.


Grow up!


Take your own advice.

[Truth Detector]

The whole purpose of terrorism is to disrupt life and make people live in fear to the point they act irrational and use methods just like them. Looks like the terrorists are winning.

Once again you are wrong. The whole purpose of terrorism is to terrorize through the committion of mass murder to grab headlines and force/coerce people to see things your way.

9-11 was not an attempt to "disrupt" our lives. It was an attempt to commit an act that would destroy our economy and send a message that if we don't do what the terrorists want, the next strike will be even bigger.

What is naive about you and others like you is the notion that if we completely withdraw from the Middle East and just have a dialogue, the terrorists would stop threatening our way of life.

Nothing could be further from the truth or reality.

It is patently naive to believe that Despots respond to pacifism, appeasement and dialogue.

Here's the bottom line; unless you are willing to give up your beliefs for those of Islam, unless you are willing to allow the likes of Osama to institute Sharia law in the entire Middle East and have control of the vast oil under the ME, unless you are willing to subjugate yourself to them, you will never achieve peace.

The inconvenience we may experience in our daily lives is minor compared to the threat Israelis have to live under every day surrounded by a hate filled enemy who wants their total annihilation.

ANY attempts to pacify terrorists through dialogue or "understanding" their cause, is naive in the extreme and dangerous to our fellow citizens everywhere in the world.

There is only ONE way for the collective world to deal with those who wish to use violence to force their minority views on the rest of us, stomp it out, hunt it down and kill it wherever it can be found. Anything less is dangerous in the extreme.

History is littered with the failed attempts by idealistic pacifists to deal with despots and dictators. The only way you or people like you can believe what you believe is due to your lack of historic reference.

I would recommend studying all the efforts by Britain and France leading up to Hitler’s invasion at pacifying and appeasing him. They bent over backwards, even to the extreme of allowing Hitler to invade and take over the Sudetenland.

The ONLY thing they accomplished was giving confidence to Hitler that they would indeed do nothing, allow him to continue building up his military and leaving themselves unprepared for the assault that was readily apparent to all but those in complete denial and naiveté'.

The lesson to be learned is that the result was not a war just with Hitler’s Nazi's, but a world war that caused the deaths of over 50 million people and the near extermination of the Jewish people. Hindsight would dictate that if Britain and France, and perhaps even the US, had dealt with the problem through a PRE-EMPTIVE collective force of arms, they would have saved TENS of MILLIONS lives.

It's fascinating to me to see people like you never learning the lessons of history.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Main Entry: co·erce
Function: transitive verb
Pronunciation: kO-'&rs
Inflected Form(s): co·erced ; co·erc·ing
Etymology: Latin coercere, from co- + arcere to shut up, enclose -- more at ARK
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat <coerce the compliance of the rest of the community -- Scott Buchanan>
See Force

[Easy90]

If that were true, we would just use nukes and end it. Therefore what you think of war as is delusional.

Ever hear of WW-II?

[apdst]

I believe everyone , even the enemy should be given a fair trial by jury.

I don't think the enemy should live long enough to make it to trial.

Do we just believe this for ourselves or is it not applicable to people from all over?

Those rights should be reserved for American citizens, only; most definitely.

[Truth Detector]

If that were true, we would just use nukes and end it. Therefore what you think of war as is delusional.

Ever hear of WW-II?


Now you are being absurd for the sake of absurdity. But of course, you probably know that already don't you?

What is illustrative of such absurdity is that you cannot respond with any intellectual honesty on what I stated above.

Carry on.

[Trish]

Whether the CIA has used waterboarding more than the 3 times admitted, wasn't the point of my post. My point was that the US has never admitted torturing anyone - they've admitted only to the waterboarding of 3 people. All the posters that keep saying that the US has admitted to "torture" are not making an accurate statement. THAT was my point.


If they waterboarded, they tortured. Simply because there is an opinion otherwise doesn't establish a rule for how it should be labeled or make it any less true. Every other nation in the world considers it torture. Even the other nations (aside from the US) who use waterboarding torture are honest enough to call it what it is. That you are not has no relevance to the accuracy of our statements. So your point is mute. You cannot support torture (in this case waterboarding torture) and be less responsible for supporting savagery simply by altering the label. There isn't now and there will never be a collective agreement that waterboarding isn't torture. Simply because you have chosen to side with savages doesn't mean anyone else is going to go along with your folly. Quite the contrary.


How something is labeled certainly makes a difference from a LEGAL standpoint. What every other nation does or does not do isn't relevant as to what is legal or not here. The statements of the posters who said that the US had admitted to torture were not accurate. As to "siding with the savages" - exactly who are the savages, and who is siding with whom?

And please.....PLEASE.....the phrase is "So your point is moot" not "mute." BIG difference in the meaning of the two words.

And now that the Justice Department is expected to rule that all waterboarding is indeed illegal - the point is indeed moot. Whether or not someone disagrees with that will no longer be relevant - the law of the land will prevail - as it should.

[Labrocca]

I have to assume much of the interrogation was aimed at intelligence not getting them to confess.

[Easy90]

If that were true, we would just use nukes and end it. Therefore what you think of war as is delusional.

Ever hear of WW-II?


Now you are being absurd for the sake of absurdity. But of course, you probably know that already don't you?

You have no concept of the word "absurd." You make an absolutely absurd statement, and seem offended by the reality when it's shown to you.

Essentially, you said...we can sue the people we are in a war with...and beat them in court. If that isn't an example of absurdity...then the word has no meaning. And, for the record, I actually wonder if you know how WW-2 ended. I bet you don't.

[Truth Detector]

If that were true, we would just use nukes and end it. Therefore what you think of war as is delusional.

Ever hear of WW-II?


Now you are being absurd for the sake of absurdity. But of course, you probably know that already don't you?

You have no concept of the word "absurd." You make an absolutely absurd statement, and seem offended by the reality when it's shown to you.

Essentially, you said...we can sue the people we are in a war with...and beat them in court. If that isn't an example of absurdity...then the word has no meaning.


Your post is confusing me, this statement is mine; "Now you are being absurd for the sake of absurdity. But of course, you probably know that already don't you?"

I never argued that we can sue the people we are at war with in court; I have always contended that I am in agreement with the President to keep Guantanamo open and use military tribunals. You must have my comments confused with someone else's.

Care to clarify?