Retired JAGs On Waterboarding: ‘It Is Inhumane, It Is Torture, And It Is Illegal’
Retired JAGs On Waterboarding: ‘It Is Inhumane, It Is Torture, And It Is Illegal’
Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey has repeatedly refused to state whether or not waterboarding is illegal. In a legal dodge, Mukasey called the torture technique “hypothetical” and said that he would need the “actual facts and circumstances” to strike a “legal opinion.”
But in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), four retired Judge Advocates General (JAGs) — the judicial arm of the U.S. military — sharply criticize Judge Mukasey’s legal hedging. They unequivocally state that waterboarding is torture. From their letter:
In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under United States and international law. We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal. […]
This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. […]
In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a member of the JAG Corp. in the U.S. Air Force, also once condemned waterboarding as “illegal.” “I don’t think you have to have a lot of knowledge about the law to understand this technique violates” the Geneva Convention and other statutes, said Graham.
Yet Graham has now sold out his principles in return for campaign assistance from President Bush. The South Carolina senator, who recently announced his support for Mukasey, was rewarded with an appearance by the President at a “high-roller fundraiser” kicking off his ‘08 re-election campaign. Bush yesterday said that he has “no better ally than Lindsey Graham” in pushing forward his nominees through the Senate.
View the JAGs’ full letter HERE.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
96 Responses to “Retired JAGs On Waterboarding: ‘It Is Inhumane, It Is Torture, And It Is Illegal’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud<
“…Lindsey Grahamno better ally than Lindsey Graham”
Should be
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:13 pm“…Lindsey Graham”
Don’t tell us! Tell Schumer and Feinstein!
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:15 pmThose unpatriotic b*st*rds!!!!
Coddling the enemy like that… just disgusting!
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:15 pmdigby has a post that jeanne moos at cnn did a comedy segment on waterboarding.
cnn — staying classy.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 11/ too-much-fun-by-digby-i-just-saw-jeanne.html
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:16 pmWaterboarding is not sport. It is most inhumane and illegal. To think otherwise is torturous. People who vote otherwise are unamerican.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:29 pmWhat these senators have done- Graham, McCain, Specter, Schumer, Feinstein- is reminiscent of the classic film The Hustler, when Fast Eddie tells Bert near the end of the film that there is nothing there because he is empty inside. The same thing applies to these senators because they too are empty because they have given up their humanity and bargained it away for political expediency. What one of the senators should do [perhaps Whitehouse?] is to show the clip from Countdown where the volunteer is shown being waterboarded and ask Mukasey point blank:
1) does he believe what he is seeing is torture?
2) would he volunteer to have it done on him so he could determine if waterboarding qualifies as being torture?
Any reasonable, intelligent person would say that trying to simulate drowning on another person is an act of torture but yet members of Congress are actually willing to give Mukasey the benefit of the doubt. Or perhaps they actually believe Bush when he proclaimed that Mukasey is a “good man.” It is no wonder that countries around the world look upon the United States, that alleged bastion of democracy, with such loathing and contempt.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:29 pmThose that do not see water boarding as torture maybe should try it out… especially those two in the picture above.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:32 pm… reminds me of this:
“but if the president does it, it’s not illegal”…
.
i kinda feel sorry for the guy… damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t…
he will have to pursue criminal charges if he states the truth…
probably doesn’t have near enough life insurance…
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:44 pm…
For that matter ANYONE with a mind set that water boarding is OK should try it… you too Feinstein.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:46 pmhttp://www.bloomberg.com/ apps/ news?pid=20601103&sid=apMMOJofS6Q8&refer=us
[…]
“This is the kind of leader America needs to head the Department of Justice at this important moment in our history,” Bush said today in his weekly radio address. “Yet some senators are working against his nomination because they want him to take a position on the legality of specific techniques allegedly used to question captured terrorists.”
[…]
Bush defended Mukasey’s response to the waterboarding issue, saying he “does not know whether certain methods of questioning are in fact used, because the program is classified, he’s not been given access to that information, and therefore he is in no position to provide an informed opinion.”
The president also expressed concern that a Mukasey opinion on torture may give U.S. interrogators the impression that they might be vulnerable to penalties.
`Legal Jeopardy’
“He does not want our professional interrogators in the field to take an uninformed opinion he has given in the course of a confirmation hearing as meaning that any conduct of theirs has put them in legal jeopardy,” Bush said.
Bush said an opinion on waterboarding also might help terrorists train for U.S. interrogation. [ah hahaha!]
“Congressional leaders should not make Judge Mukasey’s confirmation dependent on his willingness to make a public judgment about a classified program he has not been briefed on,” Bush said.
boyoboy… does he wear waders when he says this crap?
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:53 pmit’s pretty deep… doubt those fance boots are enough…
.
So the only question is whether those retired JAGs will get the stress positions before or after they are waterboarded.
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:05 pmSo the nominee and one single Republican senator are the problem here?
In the past 3 days you have posted 2 stories about people using the tactic of pretending they would need to know specific details of the waterboarding techniques used before they could determine whether it would qualify as “toture”, like waterboarding does under ALL circumstances.
In posting both of those articles you included ranking Democrat senators doing the exact same thing. Yet this apparently doesn’t amount to a problem worth mentioning.
You know there used to be a time where the principle was that restricting your criticism to Republicans only was justifiable on the grounds that they held control of the senate and house and therefor they were responsible for shit like this.
What’s the excuse now for failing to level criticism at anyone in control of congress who REFUSES TO BAN TORTURE ?
Balkinization
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:09 pmBush yesterday said that he has “no better ally than Lindsey Graham†in pushing forward his nominees through the Senate. - - Make that, no better allies than Schumer and Feinstein.
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:16 pmThey could certainly do this, because political theatre seems to be a preferred option to simply banning this shit.
The guys who run the SERE training where these techniques were sourced from define it as torture. The military field manual defines it as torture. Every prior legal precedent and policy defines it as torture.
If a nominee for AG said he didn’t know whether fraud was a crime despite several hundred years of precedent and policy confirming it was, would you bother showing them video as though the question of qualified/not wasn’t already answered ?
Either way you are still proposing leaving it up to the Bush administration to decide what defines torture.
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:18 pmWaterboarding IS torture no matter how you dice it and Mukasey’s Bush’s “fall guy” hedging his a$$ off in order to cover Dumbya’s own a$$. Bush knows that once the AG decides unequivocally that waterboarding IS torture, it will send Bush to prison for a very long time.
Waterboarding is waterboarding is waterboarding. How different can one technique which simulates drowning be from another? It’s all heinous and in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
That International War Crimes Tribunal is licking it’s chops as it prepares for the Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Rice trial. They’ll all be in jail when this is finished.
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:21 pmLet’s assume for a second–a really bad, immoral, illogical, and scary second–that waterboarding is not torture. When Bush and Cheney are out of the White House in January of 2009, would it then be logical to waterboard the pair of them to get all the information out of them that they have refused to allow Americans to have during the 8 years of WH terror? If it can be used against terrorists, wouldn’t it be consistent to use it on the two biggest American terrorists?
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:22 pmEr… okay.
And the US tought and still teaches any regime in Sth America how to torture their own citizens.
Much like conducting an invasion, occupation and approving torture techniques on detainees though, whether these get used wasn’t something Israel decided.
Unless you want to suggest those pesky Jews are practicing mind control you need to accept the fact that the US decided to make these things US policy, not Israel.
ps. Whodathunk it’d be the Jews who ended up being proposed as a scapegoat? What a surprise.
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:25 pmOk, as waterboarding is *NOT* torture, then I can grab people off the street, make videos of them being waterboarded, post the videos to the net and sell them
All completely legal. Right ?
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:44 pm#15-Kilo
You made an assumption which is totally erroneous. I was simply trying to get Mukasey to stop equivocating and to get him on the record as to whether he believes waterboarding is torture. Since he is
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:51 pmhedging on this issue of wateboarding, I am then blaming the members of this congressional committee for allowing Mukasey to give ambiguous answers and for then voting Mukasey as the next attorney general. As you correctly point out, the military field manual calls waterboarding torture as well as the Geneva Conventions. This committee has the power to say no to Mukasey but is instead going along with his confirmation. The point is, both Bush’s lackey and members of congress are wrong in the actions that they are taking.
This is from Scott Horton over at Harper’s quoting Jack Balkin, pretty much sums it all up perfectly: Quote” So why has torture emerged as a Bush Administration litmus test? My friend Jack Balkin nails this:
The real reason why Judge Mukasey cannot say that waterboarding is illegal is that Administration officials have repeatedly insisted that they do not torture, and that they have acted both legally and honorably. If Judge Mukasey said that waterboarding is illegal, it would require the Bush Administration to admit that it repeatedly lied to the American people and brought shame and dishonor on the United States of America. If Judge Mukasey were to say waterboarding is illegal and not just “a dunk in the water†in Vice President Cheney’s terminology, he would have announced that, as incoming Attorney General, he is entering an Administration of liars and torturers.
And Jack summarizes the dilemma very accurately:
Which places any Attorney General nominee in a difficult bind: The Bush Admininstration will not nominate anyone to be Attorney General who will state publicly that what the Administration did was illegal or dishonorable. That means that the only persons who can be nominated are those who are willing to be complicit in its illegality and dishonor. For if the nominee admitted that the Administration had repeatedly misled the American people about the legality of its actions, he would not be welcome in the Bush Administration.” End
Here’s the links:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 11/ judge-mukasey-and-groucho-marx.html
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001567
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:58 pmI used it because it was an accurate assessment of you.
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:10 pmYou complained about this, then went on to post 5 links, 2 of which were from whatreallyhappened.com.
A website that suggests OBL is dead and an actor is portraying him in movies directed by the CIA and mossad.
So what, you would have preferred to be assessed as a “lunatic” than an anti-semite?
Well here is something that has some consistencies with what Plunger is stating: http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/memop110207.pdf
Here is Steven aftergood’s summation:
** COURT AUTHORIZES SUBPOENAS OF SENIOR OFFICIALS IN AIPAC CASE
** NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN US POLICY, AND MORE FROM CRS
COURT AUTHORIZES SUBPOENAS OF SENIOR OFFICIALS IN AIPAC CASE
A federal court authorized issuance of subpoenas to more than a dozen
current and former government officials to testify in the case of two
former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who
are accused of unauthorized receipt, transmission and disclosure of
classified information.
According to the defense, the testimony of the subpoenaed officials
will show that the defendants did “nothing more than the
well-established official Washington practice of engaging in ‘back
channel’ communication with various non-governmental entities and
persons for the purpose of advancing U.S. foreign policy goals.”
The government disputes that claim and says such testimony is
irrelevant to whether the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to obtain
and disclose classified information.
The court, however, ruled that circumstantial evidence of the official
use of “back channel” communications could be probative of the
defendants’ state of mind and could show a lack of criminal intent.
Judge T.S. Ellis III therefore authorized issuance of subpoenas to the
following officials:
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State (then-National Security Advisor)
Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State
William Burns, U.S. Ambassador to Russia
Marc Grossman, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
Lawrence Silverman, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. Embassy to the
Slovak Republic
Matthew Bryza, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Marc Sievers, Political Officer, U.S. Embassy to Israel
David Satterfield, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State and
Coordinator for Iraq (then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau
of Near Eastern Affairs)
Stephen Hadley, National Security Advisory (then-Deputy National
Security Advisory)
Elliot Abrams, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National
Security Advisory for Global Democracy Strategy Affairs
Kenneth Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs for the
National Security Council
Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy Secretary of Defense
Douglas Feith, former Undersecretary of Defense
Michael Makovsky, former employee of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Office of Near East and South Asia
Lawrence Franklin, former Department of Defense employee
A copy of the November 2, 2007 Memorandum Opinion in the case of United
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:20 pmStates of America v. Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman is available
here:
I find it hilarious that somehow no matter what batshit insane theory you read on some random white supremacist kook’s website, you inevitably conclude that the way to convince everyone this is trueis to copy/paste as much off-topic crap possible in an unrelated discussion.
Of course, while simultaneously confirming you hold the same beliefs as the author and denying that you are influenced by the same obvious prejudices that spawned those beliefs.
It’s like watching a bad theatre play where only the actor thinks it’s not a comedy.
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:23 pmThe Fly Man is right. If Mukasey admits that waterboarding is torture, and torture is illegal, then the Bush Administration is Guilty of a War Crime. If the justice Dept. is independent, and beholding to the law and not the president….then Mukasey will have to go after the water boarders and those who sanctioned it.
Mukasey may surprise everyone and actually go after Bush, but he is smart enough to know that admitting as much is a non starter.
If Mukasey is not approved by the Senate, which is not likely, then Bush won’t appoint anybody, and an acting attorney General with even less accountability, will run the justice Dept.
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:34 pm.
Our Senate is pleat with “Sissy” Graham’s.
Is torture EVER an American Principle?
Schumer and Feinstein seem to think so too…
.
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:37 pmOne more time Plunger, in between your printing of the Britannica Encylopeida, just know that you’re not some great heralder of some obscure and unknown truth that we are all oblivious to.
You’re just a guy spamming a blog and burying everyones comments with articles you came across on the internet that you found interesting.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 3, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Bartlebee and I have had our tiffs, our differences, our arguments, but on this particular subject we stand united! Arggh!!!
P!ss off, Plunger!
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:56 pmWaterboarding is deceptive because it doesn’t outwardly look like what most people picture torture looking like. After all, how could stuffing a rag in your mouth then constantly pouring a slow stream of water cause pain.
Somebody should wake up and describe the medical aspects of this procedure. Waterboarding triggers the gag reflex. What does repeated gaging do to the body and mind? I don’t think that very many people are buying off on waterboarding as torture because there is no outward appearance of pain being inflicted. No minds are being changed. The debate is being lost. Bush knows that.
Lets get some medical people involved and have them graphically describe what is happening to the person as waterboarding is being administered. Otherwise the debate is lost. In fact, people may have already made up their minds. I can’t believe how poorly this has been handled to date.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:01 pmThanks to ThinkProgress and to these very brave JAGS for protesting this Crime Against Humanity.
Cageprisoners.com and WitnessToTorture.org to stop this nazi horror by the never-elected bush regime.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:02 pmIf Mukasey is not approved by the Senate, which is not likely, then Bush won’t appoint anybody, and an acting attorney General with even less accountability, will run the justice Dept.
Comment by Badger — November 3, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
i’ve heard, and taken some solace in the message, that the US can
survive without an AG, but NOT without the Constitution…
not sure how that fugures with an ACTing AG… would i be naive to think that all the sunshine of late will keep the dept of justice clean?
yes, i suppose…
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:07 pm…
Plunger’s post is not particularly long and we need to remember that these monsters can and will be charged for their war crimes.
link to protest to NPR for their inhumanity at the link.
http://nprcheck.blogspot.com/
So, the Anne Garrels’ story involving torture seems to have gotten a lot of attention at NPR; today they devoted their entire letters section to it. For those who did not hear it, let me synopsize:
Steve Inskeep “elicited” this chilling statement from Garrels:
“The three Detainees had clearly been tortured, Er, There was blood all over their clothes, they were in such bad shape they couldn’t walk, they had to be dragged on to the chairs, and one of them was
just sobbing”
Then Inskeep quotes an astute listener:
“Let me get this straight, Anne Garrels is reporting information obtained from a torture victim, speaking in the presence of his torturers, as if it is credible; has NPR sunk that low?”
But before Garrels can respond to that pithy question, Inskeep throws out the red herring that “a lot of listeners” had a “A more specific Question…were you there for the torture?” Garrels, of course, responded in the negative. In an aside, Inskeep says “…this is how reporting has to be done in this most dangerous situation.”come on.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:07 pmInhumane, illegal, torture?
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:11 pmWHO CARES? Definitely not this administration! They care about nothing. I take it back, they only care about the gain that their little mafiosi gang can earn. That’s all.
We did this already….
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 07/ 22/ karl-rove-was-so-inept/ #comment-3955686
As you can see, in a couple of frames the man in the video looks nothing like OBL when side on. At every other angle he looks exactly like Bin Laden.
Now it takes a certain amount of dishonesty to step through a video frame-by-frame, bypassing the 10s of thousands of frames that look like Bin Laden to find the couple that don’t.
It takes another level of dishonesty to provide a photo array comparison of Bin Laden head-shots where all of them are face-on except the one you are claiming is false which is side-on.
It takes yet another level of dishonesty to claim you are part of a “truth movement” when engaging in this sort of behaviour and complaining about other people lying about the facts.
And above all these there is the level of dishonesty which YOU will exhibit. Which will be to continue refering to this now that you know it is a lie.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:11 pmDo you really find no irony in posting that quote and a link to a website that’s been telling you that you were about to be put into concentration camps and enslaved by Karl Rove for the past 7 years ?
WMDs in Iraq was given around 3 months after the invasion before it was universally accepted as false information.
Do you think the jury is still out on that too ?
5 years not yet enough time to determine whether that source was lying to you just like your triple-chinned buddy at prison planet has been?
Why don’t you say it out loud to yourself for once and see how stupid you sound to everyone else:
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:20 pm“Hi, I’m from the truth movement, would you like to see some lies we recommend you read”
You’re just a guy spamming a blog and burying everyones comments with articles you came across on the internet that you found interesting.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 3, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Bottom line, no one will read reams & reams of text. Post a link & a very brief synopsis. Or better yet, discuss the topic at hand. Every time I see an entire screen of text I know plunger has posted and I skip past it. It could be the most important thing in the world but the way he presents it doesn’t lend itself to serious thinking, so I don’t. So you’re doing yourself a disservice plunger. If you want people to read this stuff come up with a better way… this way is old & doesn’t work. If you won’t listen to your supposed audience then why bother at all?
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:50 pm“I’LL STOP THIS CAR RIGHT NOW!”
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 pmIf Lindsey Graham can lie about his homosexuality, he can lie about anything.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 pmSo does the CDC, the FAA and the IRS.
This might be relevant if it was their job to confirm that.
Or if you needed such confirmation because you couldn’t determine this yourself and know the “fake OBL” claim you posted was false.
Neither is the case.
ps. How on earth did I predict that after being presented with confirmation that one of your sources is lying about something, that you would continue to defend it and present is as though you didn’t know it was discredited ?
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:41 pmPerhaps this is evidence that I have ESP.
I agree with Bigfoot. Waterboarding is designed to make people talk. Waterboarding is not, however, torture. Waterboarding does not cause any physical damage so it can not be torture. Unless torture is defined as anything thing, physical or mental designed to get information, but then almost any form of interrogation is tortue. Waterboarding is no different than an interrogation room. It is a psychological means of getting information. If waterboarding is torture, then so is any form of interrogation. As for legality, I do not know, but logically it is not torture.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 pmBy what definition is it not torture?
International torture treaties, US military codes, historical US legal precedents, historical US policy on it’s use by other nations, etc all define it as torture.
Is there something other than a Bush administration law which exempts it from being so, filed right along side other laws which define domestic surveillence as not being that and congressional oversight as not being that?
But I agree, it is indeed an efficient means of gathering information from your enemies.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:51 pmIn Cambodia it was an essential tool in gathering the names of people to be liquidated by the Khmer Rouge. Without this kind of efficiency in extracting information it would have been hard to get people to give up the names of their families, friends and neighbours to a certain death.
Waterboarding is not torture, and waterboarding is an effective means of gathering information from a stubborn enemy. When the situation demands it, waterboarding should be utilized.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Only if you say so…
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:51 pmSorry, that was supposed to say:
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:52 pm“Without this kind of efficiency in extracting information it would have been hard to get people to give up the names of 2 million of their family members, friends and neighbours to a certain death.”
Kilo, you are arguing moralltiy. In that situation, it was not moral, in this situation, it is. We’re talking about using waterboarding to extract information about terrorist activity. We are trying to save lives when in your scenario it was to end them. We are talking about whether or not waterboarding is torture, so please stick to the topic of the thread.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:56 pmWhat I have always wondered is why some repugs seem to think its cute to sit on their fat asses and cheer on torturing folks.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Because it surely works. That’s why there has not a terrorist attack in the US, nor a Martian Invasion…because waterboarding produces results.
In fact, if you grind the genitals of kids in front of their parents, you will get greater results in your struggle against whatever your military corporate economy talks you into.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:56 pm… it sure took long enough for the troolls to get here…
talking points don’t come along as fast and furious as in the recent past…
and to come along with “it’s not torture” is simply astounding…
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 pmwell, maybe not… nothing surprises me anymore…
…
katy, why is arguing that it is not torture astounding?
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:59 pmBigfoot, I agree. It is not torture if it does not cause physical harm. The argument is not about whether or not torture is illegal, it is about whether or not waterboarding is torture. Since it doesn’t cause physical harm, then it is not torture. It is therefore not illegal.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:10 pmHowever, the United States does not torture.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Is there a Bud light ad in all that Propaganda crap?
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:11 pmRemoveBush, if it is simulated drowning then it is simulated drowning. Maybe we do mischaracterize it by calling it waterboarding. It is obviously simulated drrowning according to you. Someone must have just mislabeled it somewhere.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 pmSince it doesn’t cause physical harm, then it is not torture. It is therefore not illegal.
Comment by Patriot
If you get bombed by an IED, and just die without feeling any pain, it is not illegal.
People on the WTC planes didnt suffer pain, just a flashlight at the temperature range, therefore that act wasn’t illegal.
Got it.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:13 pmWhy are Republicans such IDIOTS?????
Comment by RemoveBush
Is that a trick question?
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:13 pmRemoveBush, I can’t believe you just brought up the Geneva Convention. The people waterboarding is being used on are not covered in the Geneva Convention. They are not part of any uniform army, they are insurgents and terrorists. Also, simulated drowning isn’t torture, so the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply here.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:14 pmAgreed, Patriot. We cannot use kid gloves in dealing with people who want us dead.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Oh, another Christian.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 pmJuan C at 99, I think I would consider death as physical harm. Your argument is irrelevant and pointless.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 pmAlso, simulated drowning isn’t torture, so the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply here.
Comment by Patriot
Welcome to Circular logic time.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:17 pmYour argument is irrelevant and pointless.
Comment by Patriot
Then again, I just used your argument. mmmm…
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:18 pmRemoveBush at 103, we’ve already said that if it doesn’t cause physical harm then it isn’t torture. When classifying something as torture or not, it doesn’t matter what is thought, it only matters what is done .
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:19 pmRemoveBush at 103, we’ve already said that if it doesn’t cause physical harm then it isn’t torture.
Comment by Patriot
Oh, and I was wasting my time thinking they were at least coherent trolls…
Buh Bye.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:21 pm#91 - That is exactly the descriptiveness I was talking about that is necessary to win this debate. The pictures of waterboarding do not support the appearance of torture. It is necessary to get graphic about how the body and mind responds when waterboarding techniques are administered. Say it often and say it loudly.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:25 pmRemoveBush at 111, Yes, it would be illegal to detain your neighbor, unless of course you had a warrant. We aren’t waterboarding our neighbors, we are waterboarding terrorists and insurgents. This takes place outside of the U.S. so U.S. Constitutional rights do not apply, and as stated before, they are not part of a uniformed army, so the Geneva Convention does not apply.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:25 pmRemoveBush at 113, as Bigfoot and I have tried to tell you, waterboarding is not illegal and is not torture. Plus, U.S. laws don’t apply outside of the U.S. Your argument is irrelevant.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:29 pmso, out of curiosity, i have to ask;
bigfool, parrot - did you come here thinking that you would convince anyone that torture is OK? … is that your mission?…
and, TPers, do you think there is any chance of redeeming the lost souls
of the troolls who show up espousing UNamerican, UNcivil behavior?
just curious…
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:29 pm.
RemoveBush at 117, when will you get it? The Geneva Convention does not apply, the U.S. Constitution does not apply. Stop bringing these up. You’re sounding like a broken record. Waterboarding is not torture because it does not cause physical harm. Waterboarding is not illegal because it is not torture and it is done outside of the U.S. The Geneva Convention does not apply because the people waterboarding is being used on are not part of a uniformed army.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:33 pmRemoveBush at 128, the Geneva Convention does not apply to people who are not in a uniformed army. You have not named any other international laws that declare warterboarding illegal. Plus, since waterboarding is not torture no anti-torture laws apply to it.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 pmNo I’m not. I didn’t refer to anything about morals.
You said waterboarding was very efficient.
I agreed with you and pointed out that it was so PHENOMINALLY efficient that at some point you should probably figure out this makes it completely ineffective for obtaining useful intelligence rather than just confessions.
There’s about 12 hours worth of documentaries that show you nothing other than Cambodians who survived the Khmer Rouge recounting how they gave up their family, friends and neighbours to a fate of torture and execution because they were waterboarded.
They gave up these names because these were the names they knew and therefore could give up, not because they knew these were the names of anti-communists.
That’s not a question of morals, it’s a question of you being able to acknowledge the fkn obvious.
So were the Khmer Rouge. There is no difference here. Except of course that the Khmer Rouge faced an insurgency threat in their own country, whereas the US does not.
Again, no. The interrogations in both cases are to discover the names of people who pose a threat to the state, whom the state has a standing policy of killing.
WTF kind of look do you think you would get from someone in the military if you suggested that the US wanted to know who was al Qaeda in Iraq members so we could do something other than kill them ?
I’ve read a lot of people who don’t comprehend the situation in Iraq, but you’re probably the first who’s stumbled on the whole “kill the terrorists” concept.
My response which referred to nothing other than waterboarding was off topic was it ?
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 pmGee I wonder if anyone figured out that was your attempt to avoid discussing the historical success stories of waterboarding.
Kilo at 131, I know we are out there to stop the terrorists. The difference is, in Cambodia it was a government that wanted to opress its people. We are trying to stop fanatics that want us all dead. The people we are trying to find are the ones that want to opress people. Waterboarding is not torture if it is done properly. If the best example of waterboarding being torture is that a communist dictatorship used it, then you have already lost. Communist dictatorships have used plenty of other things I’m sure you don’t think are bad.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:44 pmRemoveBush at 132, you keep coming up with insane arguments. In your example, you are right, it was not physical harm, it wasn’t torture. You abducted someone and held them against their will, but you did not physically harm them. People can not be blamed for phsychological effects, only physical. You did not torture but you did violate constitutional rights which is why you would be punished. As stated before, constitutional rights don’t apply to this waterboarding argument. It is not torture if there is no physical harm. That is what I have stated. Waterboarding does not cause physical harm. Waterboarding is not torture, plain and simple.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:49 pmDumb Question: As our waterboarding is classified and the identies of those under extraordinary rendition are hidden, how do we know that waterboarding and other forms of torture have NOT killed any of them ?
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 pmRemoveBush at 134, have you read what you posted? It says in article 1:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war
They do not have a distinctive emblem, they do not carry arms openly, and they do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. They do not meet Article 1, therefore Article 3 does not apply.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 pmMapleStreet at 136, we do not know, but that is not the question. If waterboarding is done correctly, it won’t cause physical harm and is therefore not torture. If it is done incorrectly, then it is not waterboarding and should not be classified as such. In this dicussion, I am assuming that desert island is taken out of the argument.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 pmI’ll bet there isn’t one American, Republican or Democrat, who would have believed 7 years ago that they’d be arguing over whether or not the U.S. should waterboard captured enemies. Your country is sinking to a new low every month thanks to GWB. The value of your $ is a good indication of the world’s opinion of your govt & your foreign policy.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 pm#
The Geneva conventions apply to the conduct of armies. In regard to the US it relates to the conduct of the US. This includes it’s treatment of the population of an occupied state. This includes occupations where there is no opposing army.
What are you thinking ? That where there is no opposing army and therefore no uniforms and arm patches that you get to use nerve gas too ?
BTW I’ve already referred to International treaties on torture in a reply to you that you have indicated you have read. How well do you think this is going to go ?
Google result #1 for ‘waterboarding’ is its wikipedia entry, which features a section topic titled “Legality”
Waterboarding - Legality
Article 1, point 1, paragraph 1 of that convention is:
Would you like to lie and tell us you do not believe this describes waterboarding people to obtain confessions ?
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 pmDave C at 139, 7 years ago, I never thought I would have to argue about stopping terrorists.7 years ago, I thought the terrorists had to be stooped using any means necesary in order to protect the world from the extreme religous control the terrorists seek. I still believe that they must be stopped using any means necesary.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:00 amDave C at 139, 7 years ago, I never thought I would have to argue about stopping terrorists.7 years ago, I thought the terrorists had to be stooped using any means necesary in order to protect the world from the extreme religous control the terrorists seek. I still believe that they must be stopped using any means necesary.
Comment by Patriot — November 4, 2007 @ 12:00 am
Seven years ago I doubt you would have believed that the U.S. would attack a country that had not attacked it on the basis of flawed intelligence. And then stayed in that country fighting for another 4+ years. The terrorists you’re fighting are not those that attacked the U.S. You’re creating terrorists. Look at how many people have been released from Abu. Are they terrorists? Are you actually believing that you are releasing terrorists to fight again? No, they’re people that you have determined are innocent… after possibly years of isolation, waterboarding, standing on boxes with electrodes on their dicks… this is what you defend. At the point your country waterboards someone they don’t know that they are a terrorist. They’re trying to find that out. So they torture the person to find out if they have information. And you defend that. It’s amazing that you feel it’s ok to decide who is a terrorist, torture that person to find out if you’re right and then release them years later once you realize you’ve made an error.
Tell me this, if waterboarding supposed terrorists is ok to find info then it should also be ok for suspected criminals in the U.S. Why not? It’s not torture, it doesn’t inflict any harm… you’re not wearing any emblems. So your police should be able to waterboard you to find out if maybe you’re the next unabomber. Enjoy your freedom.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:05 amKilo at 140, first off, how is wikipedia reliable? For all I know, you wrote that yourself. Also, if physical or mental interrogation is banned, then is it not illegal for the police to use those dark interreogation rooms? Any form of interrogation is mental. Including waterboarding, but not all interogation is torture. Waterboarding is not torture because it does not cause physical harm. If the Un Convention defines waterboarding as torture, then almost all means of interogation are tortue,so we might as well let the terrorists live their everyday lives until they decide to give up and talk.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:05 amPatriot, you do realize that when these captured folks are being waterboarded they aren’t known terrorists right? They’re often just people in the wrong place at the wrong time. They have no legal rights, there’s no trial, no one determines that they are actually terrorists. It’s no different then picking you up off the street because your neighbor says you’re trouble… next thing you find yourself gulping for air while the police waterboard you to find out if you’re a real criminal. Welcome to Iraq under U.S. occupation. Be proud!!! At least you can sleep better knowing that the potentially innocent folks aren’t being tortured. Sure, you invaded their country on the basis of fake intel (Read that as OIL Lust) but you’re not torturing them.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:14 amRemoveBush at 142, how was it illegal to invade Iraq? I don’t recall anything about it being illegal to go towar with a hostile nation. And about bombing innocent civilians, there are casulties to war. If the enemies would just come out and meet us in the field, there wouldn’t be a problem. But they don’t. The enemy hides in the towns and in order to take out the enemy we have to attack. Sometimes citizens get in the way. It’s a fact of war. By the way, nice job dropping your conventions argument. You do like to drop arguments once you realize you can’t win, which seems to be quite often.
Dave C at 143, once again, I will say this is a discussion about whether or not waterboarding is legal. This is not a morality debate. It is a simple agrument abour whether or not something is illegal. If innocents are interrogated, then it is a problem with the detainment end, not the interrogation end. Innocent people go to jail all the time, but we don’t shut down jails. That is because prisons are both legal and necesary.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:14 amRemoveBush at 145, what are you talking about? Give me links to this evidence, if it exists.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:19 amRemoveBush at 147, you are entirely right. This is the fight of our lives and the entire nation should be behind it. We currently have an all volunteer army, however, and public opinions is against the war, so not enough people are joining. Now, if you’d like to institute a draft, go ahead.
If innocents are interrogated, then it is a problem with the detainment end, not the interrogation end. Innocent people go to jail all the time, but we don’t shut down jails. That is because prisons are both legal and necesary.
Comment by Patriot — November 4, 2007 @ 12:14 am
It wouldn’t be a problem to interrogate innocents if you followed the Geneva Convention. Innocent people go to jail in the U.S….. after a trial. You don’t shut down your jails because those people have a right to defend themselves, their guilt is determined before the punishment is administered.
btw, International law states that it is illegal to attack another country without being attacked. Iraq did nothing to provoke an attack. They were complying with UN inspectors when GWB pulled the inspectors out and attacked. He kept saying that all Saddam had to do was give up the WMDs. It turns out there were none to give up. Go figure.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:20 amNo, it wanted to get rid of the terrorists who threated the government. Just like every dictatorship which kills its citizens does…. using the exact same arguements you have here for why those actions were justified.
What is hard to understand about this?
That’s terrific.
Quick question — what do you think the odds are that throughout recorded history, that the US in 2007 was the first country to face the threat of terrorists/insurgents AND invented this justification yourselves ?
Now either you think that or we really should have made some progress at this point in getting you to drop this “when we do it it’s different to when everyone else has”.
And this is even without considering what this justification is being used for.
Except nobody suggested that was an example of it being torture. As I said, then repeated for your evasive self, a communist dictatorship using it to kill 2 million people was just an example of how wonderfully efficient it is in obtaining false information.
You don’t seem to want to disagree with that.
Apparently you want to pretend I’ve explained something different to you twice.
Yeah…. tell us who has already lost the argument pal. It’s not like it’s not fkn obvious already.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:22 amRemoveBush 152, a friendly chat and interogation are completely different. Judging by how you behave, I’d assumed you knew that, meaning that you’ve been to jail more than once. What I said first about wikipedia still applies. So they give the sources. What is the source used is a whackjob with a degree? Would they turn it down or still count it?
BARTLEBEE at 153, I am not a coward because I want to protect freedom. Are you calling anyone who does not want to live under a oppresive, fanaticallay religious government a coward? That’s what the terrorists want. They want their beliefs to be law and they want to kill all who oppose them. And yes, I would use any means necesary to stop them.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:26 amAs much fun as it has been argueing with a wall, I have to go. It’s pretty late now. Have fun with your little game here on TP. This argument can’t stay on topic, so I’ve got to say I’m done with it. I cna have more meaningful political discussion elsewhere.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:34 amWrote what myself you retard?
You asked for a reference to international law regarding torture.
I linked you to an encyclopedia entry for the UN convention on torture, which quotes it and links to it.
How fkn lame do you think you look pretending to suggest I wrote 2 wikipedia articles and a UN convention in the past 15 minutes ?
Wouldn’t pretending that the words you see there say something different than they do make you look like less of a dishonest fraud than you do now?
Why not just declare that it supports what you want it to instead. Sure you’ll be an irrelevant, lying waste of space, but you’ll look less retarded.
They call it “playing dumb” for a reason you know.
As you are clearly aware because you’ve cited the definition given, physical harm isn’t the defining factor and the UN convention does define waterboarding as torture.
And in answer to my question, you don’t want to claim waterboarding doesn’t qualify for that Article 1 definition of torture, presumably because you know it does.
Looks like we’re done here.
BTW if you make a point of repeatedly demanding someone produce a law that says something specific, then you pretend that the specific relevant part of that law doesn’t apply, or even avoid mentioning it in your rebuttal, it makes you look like a massive wanker.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:41 amRetired JAGs On Waterboarding: ‘It Is Inhumane, It Is Torture, And It Is Illegal’
According to Bush and Mukasey that’s classified!
November 4th, 2007 at 10:57 amHow can those two traitors be allowed to remain in office? CodePink, where are you when we need you, your sensible and dignified presensce is needed in these desperate times.
Comment by Fletcher Morgantown — November 4, 2007 @ 11:12 am
And you’re enlisting when, you brainless coward?
November 4th, 2007 at 11:23 amIt’s time to stop the madness. Kucinich is moving to impeach. You can add your support now by sending an email to Congress: http://rawstory.com/ news/ 2007/ Kucinich_says_he_will_force_House_1102.html
November 4th, 2007 at 11:27 amyour sensible and dignified presensce is needed in these desperate times.
Comment by Fletcher Morgantown — November 4, 2007 @ 11:12 am
Your clown Bush took care of that problem several years ago. Never has he said or done a sensible or dignified thing, never. Code Pink is the model of decorum, compared to the retard in the White House. Come back when the Deserter-In-Chief puts a coherent Engish sentence together, or when he shows the least understanding of the Law and Constitution. So far, he’s struck out completely.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:31 amwell, imagine that… i NEVER get a reply from the bigfool…
even when i address it by the name bigfoot…
still, i’d like to know:
bigfool, parrot - did you come here thinking that you would convince anyone that torture is OK? … is that your mission?…
Comment by katy — November 3, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
…
i’m not counting on an answer…
November 4th, 2007 at 11:41 am…
Yet Graham has now sold out his principles in return for campaign assistance from President Bush.
What…??? A Republican selling out his principles?
What a surprise. NOT. Republicans would sell their children as sex slaves if they thought it would bring them more power.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:47 amBottom line: ‘It Is Inhumane, It Is Torture, And It Is Illegal’
Waterboarding undermines the safety of our troops, it undermines the USA as a benevolent superpower.
We cannot be a moral leader when we act immorally.
When other countries spit on us, don’t be insulted, what’s a little water
November 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pmI was so pleased to see the four retired JAG’s saying what would be OBVIOUS to everyone but blind followers of the current, corrupt, criminal president and his nominee to replace the lying, criminal Gonzo.
So, I started reading the thread to get some ideas of what can be done to be SURE the opinions of the JAG’s gets wide notice and is impressed on the Senators, Democratic and Republican, so that Mukasey’s nomination is rejected, as it should be.
And what did I find? TONS of troll dung! Examples:
A troll who ignores pleas from progressives to shorten posts so that they do not dominate the thread, many times with OFF TOPIC material. The troll’s response to the pleas? Observe:
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 7:44 pm - second longest post on thread
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 7:57 pm - third longest post on thread
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 8:05 pm - longest post on thread
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
plunger — November 3, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
This sums up plunger’s contribution:
You’re just a guy spamming a blog and burying everyones comments with articles you came across on the internet that you found interesting.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 3, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Two trolls who come into this thread, and TOO MANY other threads, and simply regurgitate the current corrupt, criminal president’s talking points:
O. Bigfoot — November 3, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
O. Bigfoot — November 3, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
O. Bigfoot — November 3, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
O. Bigfoot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
O. Bigfoot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:06 pm …the United States does not torture.
O. Bigfoot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:09 pm …There is no law against waterboarding.
O. Bigfoot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:14 pm …We cannot use kid gloves in dealing with people who want us dead.
O. Bigfoot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
O. Bigfoot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
O. Bigfoot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
O. Bigfoot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
O. Bigfoot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
O. Bigfoot — November 4, 2007 @ 12:52 am
Patriot — November 3, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
Patriot — November 3, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
Patriot — November 3, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
Patriot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:10 pm …Since it doesn’t cause physical harm, then it is not torture.
Patriot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
Patriot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
Patriot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
Patriot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
Patriot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
Patriot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
Patriot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
Patriot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
Patriot — November 3, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
Patriot — November 4, 2007 @ 12:00 am
Patriot — November 4, 2007 @ 12:05 am
Patriot — November 4, 2007 @ 12:14 am
Patriot — November 4, 2007 @ 12:19 am
Patriot — November 4, 2007 @ 12:26 am
Patriot — November 4, 2007 @ 12:34 am
And sadly, I found progressives FEEDING the trolls, to the end that we get MORE troll dung.
Please stop feeding the trolls and report them for abuse!
Thank you!
NOTE: I now realize that in listing the troll posts so they can be reported for abuse, I now may have taken the “longest post” title from plunger. SORRY!
November 4th, 2007 at 12:47 pmIf Mukasey is having trouble to figure out what the Geneva convention and International law stipulates on Torture/Waterboarding, he should go through a 5 hours waterboarding/interrogation USA style, against his will. Than, after the ‘waterboarding, the congress should ask him again if he thinks Waterboarding is Torture!
November 4th, 2007 at 9:01 pmi’m not surprised he has difficulty trying to get his head around what is torture and what isn’t - he probably is in the first stages of alzheimer’s….i mean,how old is this guy????…..cant they pick someone younger and more forward thinking?
November 4th, 2007 at 9:21 pmThanks to these four courageous military officers for stating so clearly that water boarding is torture. Who ever would believe that in 2007, in a supposedly advanced nation, Water Boarding would be the subject of discussion or debate?
We should all hang our heads in shame.
November 4th, 2007 at 10:20 pmThis makes me proud to be a former JAG (1986-1992). Honestly, during these days of “creeping fascism,” I sleep better at night knowing that JAG has a long history of standing up TO the civilian leadership and FOR the Constitution.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:42 amIs waterboarding ok?
Questions to right wingers: Are there any waterboarding techniques that you would disapprove being used on our soldiers? If so, what are they?
November 5th, 2007 at 6:44 pmIf not, that’s understandable. You have no objections about the enemy taking such actions against our troops.
And who are the two so-called Democratic PROGRESSIVES who broke ranks with their fellow Democrats and VOTED for Mukasey?
November 7th, 2007 at 6:59 amSen. Charles Shumer and Sen. Diane Feinstein.
In this instance they sure do look like Joe Lieberman types…
Odd how the most vocal proponents of war and or torture seem to be of a particular ethnic group.