Patterico's Pontifications

Those comments are blistering.

DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/2/2007 @ 7:37 pm

The comments, they are funny. There is a lot of hot air there as well, as there is not a chance in hell that any of them would ever vote for a Republican to get Schumer or Feinstein out of office. Hell, they are so obtuse that they were calling Schumer and Feinstein Republicans.

JD (49efd3) — 11/2/2007 @ 7:43 pm

There needs to be about 100 valium prescriptions sent thataway at the very least.

Al (b624ac) — 11/2/2007 @ 7:56 pm

We waterboard our own servicemen while we train them to resist torture. We have been for decades.

So the Left apparently believes it is OK to torture American servicemen, but not muderous terrorists.

gairie (56a0a8) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:07 pm

gaire,

As has been noted in the comments on other posts, according to a fair amount of U.S. legal precedent waterboarding is torture. In so far as we respect the opinions of past legal authorities it’s not even an interesting question.

U.S. soldiers are volunteers which, to me at least, is an extremely important moral distinction.

What bugs me most about the comments is the rampant anti-Semitism.

Fritz (25fef1) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:19 pm

Come now Fritz, you can’t be so new to the game that you are surprised at the “rampant anti-Semitism” on left-wing blogs. It’s only been that way since — oh, I don’t know — since Irving Kristol first had second thoughts about Stalin.

And I love all the talk about “we’ll never again give another cent to the Democrats.” Like those lowlifes have income or capital to donate. I’m sure Schumer and Feinstein can make do without all those nickels collected from bottle and can deposits.

JVW (951b34) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:30 pm

Fritz – I second JVW’s observation. That stiff is par for the course in fever swamps like that and a contributing reason for the nutroot nickname. The Schumer and Feinstein announcements got the hive a little excited. October was not a good month for the Dems. November is starting to look pretty interesting as well.

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/2/2007 @ 9:34 pm

We waterboard our own servicemen while we train them to resist torture. We have been for decades.

Got any proof of that? I have a fair number of relatives who served in the military and not a single one of them was tortured in any way. In fact, not a single one of them has ever even heard of any military personnel being tortured in any way.

It’s possible that a tiny, tiny group of spies get some sort of torture resistance training, but you’re painting with an absurdly broad brush to say that “we waterboard our own servicemen.”

If you have any sincere interest at all in protecting our men and women in uniform, you should be out there with the Democrats demanding that our next attorney general be someone with the honesty and integrity to say the plain truth: waterboarding is torture and is illegal.

If America doesn’t take a firm stance against torture, then other nations are going to feel morally and logically justified in torturing Americans. It really is as simple as that.

Oregonian (7297b1) — 11/2/2007 @ 9:44 pm

Oregonian,
try these links. The second specifically talks about waterboarding being used as part of training

http://www.training.sfahq.com/survival_training.htm

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/015728.php

voiceofreason (86ae15) — 11/2/2007 @ 9:50 pm

Oregonian, first of all, its called SERE training. Go find out about it because you plainly don’t know what you are talking about.

Second, waterboarding just isn’t torture. You are debasing the word “torture” by applying it. It may be that there are policy reasons not to abuse prisoners with the technique, but calling waterboarding “torture” is just unconvincing. Frankly, it got old long ago with the over-the-top rhetoric. It just smacks of BDS.

Third, in every conflict of the past 50 years, our enemies have had no compunction against abusing and torturing captured US servicemen. So how well does this “firm stance” work? Our current enemy, islamic terrorists, not only feel justified in torturing Americans, they then behead them on video and post it to the Internet. In fact, they do it to civilians – remember Daniel Pearl? William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Lebanon was tortured by Hezbollah, as was Marine Colonel William Higgins who was serving in UN peacekeeping forces in Lebanon. All tortured and murdered. If you don’t remember them, I do. And islamic extremists did so long before there was any issue about waterboarding. That particular argument was stale decades before you ever copied it from anti-administration talking points.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/2/2007 @ 9:59 pm

This link might also interest to some readers here:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/#c000877

eyeball (bc3377) — 11/2/2007 @ 10:04 pm

You’ll have to scroll to the top of the page. sorry for the flawed linkage.

eyeball (bc3377) — 11/2/2007 @ 10:06 pm

this might be of interest too:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/DOJ/story?id=3814076&page=1

eyeball (bc3377) — 11/2/2007 @ 10:19 pm

Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA
Email
Print
Share November 02, 2007 1:25 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

SteveG (4e16fc) — 11/2/2007 @ 10:31 pm

I think the last one got eaten up, so if this is a repost… sorry

Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA
Share November 02, 2007 1:25 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

SteveG (4e16fc) — 11/2/2007 @ 10:33 pm

I’m sorry to hear that the Bush administration has pussied out on waterboarding. They have an extremely effective technique for gathering intelligence on an enemy and they chose not to use it for political reasons. How many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been allowed to die so that Bush can try ineffectively to soothe the alleged prissy consciences of the anti-war left?

I say “alleged” because I don’t believe that the anti-war left even give a damn about rough treatment of prisoners. They only pretend to object to harsh interrogation when it serves to increase America’s security. When innocents are routinely brutalized by America’s enemies like North Korea, Cuba, or Iran, then it’s, “But look at what a great medical system they have!”

Doc Rampage (ebfd7a) — 11/3/2007 @ 12:41 am

That’s a bunch of ankle-biters in those comments…

but funny ankle-biters.

Paul (66339f) — 11/3/2007 @ 2:33 am

“If America doesn’t take a firm stance against torture, then other nations are going to feel morally and logically justified in torturing Americans. It really is as simple as that.”

Please state the time that the US taking the high road has so much as intimated an enemy to do the same.

ANSWER; NEVER!!!

Re-read SPOR’s comments as they are spot on!

I for one, don’t give a hoot in hell what some asswipe is put through. When we are done, send them home, in a row boat, alone. With a GPS so we can track them of course!

TC (1cf350) — 11/3/2007 @ 2:42 am

Oregonian’s comments are what’s wrong with half this country today.

It should be readily apparent that the enemy does what it does REGARDLESS of how we treat their prisoners/fighters/civilians. The only thing taking the high road will get for you is a ‘clean conscience’. It will not stop or slow down the treatment the enemy gives our troops when they capture them.

Unless of course he really thinks that the terrorists only behead people because of our ‘torture’ of Gitmo inmates.

Lord Nazh© (899dce) — 11/3/2007 @ 3:41 am

I did read the comments, and was appalled by the obvious strain of paranoia about Jewish conspiracies to keep the Dems oppressed – but maybe I am naive or cloistered with respect to that bit of nastiness.

I will be honest regarding my own feelings re. the subject of torture during wartime, but present it as a question. Does it really feel, given the Administration and Congressional language used in the last few years, that we really are at war?

Frankly, I would say ‘no’. I get no particular sense of urgency or commitment from any of the parties toward the goal we are supposedly trying to achieve – that of defeating a particular enemy. In fact, the undefined nature of that enemy prevents a declaration of final victory.

Instead, the mindset of perpetual conflict and the assertion that since the enemy cannot be adequately defined as an entity to be defeated, and that we will be at “war” in perpetuity, seems to be the zeitgiest du jour.

That is the troubling part about assurances that all the contraversial measures being used to help with this fight will only be used in extremis.

That is not how governments work, and never has been. The founders knew it, and my belief is that the American mindset is being tuned to accept the word of authority in all circumstances – and frankly, there are plenty of morally unmoored people in positions of power who would like nothing more than to have no questions asked about the methods they employ (and I am not referring to the current administration in particular).

Am I a paranoid for thinking that the precedents set (waterboarding is not torture, caution is cowardice) could eventually be used on American citizens because of the lazy nature of public officials?

JSinAZ (15853d) — 11/3/2007 @ 4:06 am

Am I a paranoid for thinking that the precedents set (waterboarding is not torture, caution is cowardice) could eventually be used on American citizens because of the lazy nature of public officials?

Yes.

dave (903d71) — 11/3/2007 @ 5:07 am

If waterboarding saves lives, is it justified? If there is only a possibility lives will be saved, how about then?

Banjo (b5278d) — 11/3/2007 @ 5:19 am

If waterboarding saves lives, is it justified? If there is only a possibility lives will be saved, how about then?

Yes and yes.

dave (903d71) — 11/3/2007 @ 5:22 am

Am I a paranoid for thinking that the precedents set (waterboarding is not torture, caution is cowardice) could eventually be used on American citizens because of the lazy nature of public officials?

Yes and no. The United States resorted to a large number of very morally shaky methods during the second world war (which, as you pointed out, was a fixed war against a known opponent). I think as long as this war continues in an external “take the war to the enemy” mode, and the public attitude is that we are doing “too much”, there is little danger of these methods being expanded into the domestic arena. It’s if we go isolationist and if the war comes back here, and the public demands more be done in the name of “security” (which it would certainly do) that we’d see these precedents be expanded.

Civilis (fd0c74) — 11/3/2007 @ 5:58 am

“Rampant anti semitism”
Schumer supports the annexation of Jerusalem. He’s an Israel hawk of the first order, and an asshole.

Torture is a very unreliable method of extracting information.
and the US prosecuted people for it in WWII. Pat wrote a post recently about the threat of torture in an FBI case. remember the information that came out of that? Was it the truth?

blah (fb88b3) — 11/3/2007 @ 6:26 am

Schumer supports the annexation [sic] of Jerusalem

It’s Israel’s capital. Deal with it.

Darleen (187edc) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:09 am

“SIC”
Are you trying to correct my spelling now Darleen?
What a charming defender of expulsion and ethnic cleansing you are. A real peach. Truth Justice and the American Way. Give us a lecture on the morality of conquest Darleen. Please

blah (fb88b3) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:15 am

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni: Iranian nuclear arms pose little threat to Israel

Musharraf imposes emergency rule
“Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule and suspended the country’s constitution.
Troops have been deployed inside state-run TV and radio stations, while independent channels have gone off air.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who condemned the moves, has reportedly been sacked and is being confined to the Supreme Court with 10 other judges.”

You’re so fucking smart and so fucking righteous. So why does everything you touch turn to shit?

blah (fb88b3) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:19 am

Right on, SPQR

pataz (56a0a8) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:19 am

Dave, if waterboarding American citizens has the potential to save lives, is your answer still ‘yes’?

If your answer is yes, then clearly (at least with respect to the strain of opinion of which yours may be representative), then I am not paranoid at all.

And if your answer is yes, I hope you are not and never will be a public servant in the US.

JSinAZ (15853d) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:20 am

What a charming defender of expulsion and ethnic cleansing you are.

You misunderstand .. I am neither a supporter of Hamas nor an admirer of Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini.

You shouldn’t be getting your historical “facts” about Jerusalem from dead Egyptian Arafat.

Darleen (187edc) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:26 am

blah: “expulsion and ethnic cleansing”?

Last time I looked, there were plenty of Israeli Arabs.

Or was your point a more subtle one, that might have been overlooked given the addition of your charming and pithy comment, so rich in nuance:

“You’re so fucking smart and so fucking righteous. So why does everything you touch turn to shit?”

You kiss your momma with that mouth?

JSinAZ (15853d) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:26 am

JSinAZ, do you have a reading problem? I said yes. If you don’t want to hear the answers, don’t ask the questions.

And if your answer is yes, I hope you are not and never will be a public servant in the US.

Too late. Now, I’ll sit back and laugh at your phony hand wringing.

dave (903d71) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:30 am

blah’s a little more strident than usual today. His panties must be extra-bunched.

chaos (aad1e2) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:31 am

Wow, Dave’s a dick. Why am I not surprised?

Why is my concern for this country as it will be twenty years from now, “phony handwringing”? What a child you are – or at least childish, since you clearly cannot think past the limited horizon your education or native intelligence allows.

Precedents matter. That is why things like Roe v. Wade matter – they set precedents, upon which further works are piled. And if you cannot understand that your problem is not ignorance, but stupidity.

No cure for that, unfortunately. But please feel free to continue to make your sorry condition apparent to all. I might even laugh.

JSinAZ (15853d) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:43 am

Last time I looked it up there were 3 million people in refugee camps.

blah (fb88b3) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:48 am

The argument that America must not “torture” – torture being defined down to include whatever people like JSinAZ want it to include – because it will make Americans less safe if they are kidnapped or captured is simply nonsense. There’s no evidence to support it. I suppose JSinAZ has a “limited horizon” thanks to his education and not the “native intelligence” to know that Hezbollah was torturing kidnapped Americans in the 1980s and that the Iranian embassy hostages were also tortured, all of it well before September 11th, and that there has never been an American kidnapped or captured by al-Qaeda since September 11th that has not been tortured, mutilated, and killed – not always in that order, sometimes the mutilation comes after the murder. None of it had anything to do with waterboarding or other interrogation techniques. Terrorists torture as a matter of policy regardless of our own actions, the same as the North Koreans and Chinese did in the Korean War, the Japanese in WW2, and the North Vietnamese. There was no connection between American policy and enemy policy then, and there isn’t now. We could set al-Qaeda prisoners up in beachfront condos and their still-free comrades would still torture and murder the people they kidnap.

Ignorance? Stupidity? Limited horizons? Lack of native intelligence? JSinAZ is pretty damn good at describing himself.

chaos (aad1e2) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:52 am

Last time I looked it up there were 3 million people in refugee camps.

And why are they there, blah?

clue: it isn’t a JOOOOOOOOOO conspiracy.

this is mildly entertaining … reveals a whole lot of your mindset.

Darleen (187edc) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:52 am

Hit post button by accident.

Slippery-slope arguments are always funny. In six years, 3 people have been waterboarded by the government, all of them foreigners, all of them war criminals. This is enough to start wailing about how in “20 years” the government will simply ignore the Military Commissions Act, the Sixth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment and begin using coercive interrogation techniques on American citizens. Nevermind that the police regularly use coercive interrogation techniques on American citizens – the police are allowed to lie to suspects in any number of ways and use coercion: claim they have evidence they don’t, claim that the suspect will get a much harsher punishment than he could under statute if he doesn’t confess, refuse to allow him to go to the bathroom for the entire day, do the whole good-cop bad-cop my partner is going to beat the crap out of you if you don’t confess, put jailhouse snitches in the suspects cell to wheedle information out of him, etc.

The 8th and 6th Amendments clearly make things like waterboarding illegal for use against American citizens and the Military Commissions Act clearly states that habeas corpus cannot be denied American citizens in any situation. But use a non-lethal interrogation technique on three war criminals in six years and you have idiots like JSinAZ screaming from the rooftops about absolute nonsense, wrapped up in their lies about being concerned about precedent and presenting themselves as holding the moral high ground based on absolute bullshit.

JSinAZ’s condescension is even more hilarious in light of his not knowing anything about what he’s talking of.

chaos (aad1e2) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:02 am

Blah;

Like it or not, the refugees are enjoying that status because the Arab countries in the Middle East don’t want them. Given the chance to take care of themselves they choose Hamas and the way of the Arab, namely, blame everyone but yourself for your situation!

The fatal weakness of the west is not only the insane fear of accountability espoused by people such as yourself, but our pussy footing around the prosecution of assymetrical war versus symetrical war in the 21st century.

The Jews build a garden of eden out of a wasteland in 50 years or so. The so-called palestinians spend a millenia in the same geographic location and watch the world pass them by too busy whining about who owes them what.

Sounds like an Arab problem to me. Your whining just solidifies their feelings of entitlement. But that is what people like you do best, here and abroad.

vet66 (56a0a8) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:10 am

Yes, anyone who disagrees with JSinAz is a “dick”, “childish”, “stupid”, “ignorant” etc. In other words, if you don’t agree with JSinAZ he will throw a tantrum. If we’re lucky, maybe he will hold his breath and turn blue. lol!

dave (903d71) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:10 am

If you have been through SERE then you more than likely have been waterboarded.

Gabriel (4ced83) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:12 am

choas, perhaps I was too oblique. I don’t really give a rats’ ass if a combatant is shoved under a faucet until he coughs-up intel or coughs-up a lung. Really, not even a hair off that rats’ ass.

What I care about are morons like Dave who offhandedly toss-off suggestions that doing the same to US Citizens is a good thing if it might stop a killing somewhere.

Get it? American. Not AQ? Clear enough? Now Dave, feeb that he is, claims to be a public servant and seems to feel just fine about applying the technique on Americans.

Is the potential issue getting any clearer yet? I am not referring to AQ or any other terrorist captured on the field of battle. As has been said many times before, they are not qualified as legal combatants under the Geneva accords, so those rules have no application.

I am talking about the ease of which the intellectually challenged (such as Dave) seem to find in applying these same techniques on US citizens – after all, it’s not torture, so what’s the beef? And if it’s not torture, and we can get some useful nugget of info from some obvious criminal, what precedent is really set?

If that is not clear enough for you, then obviously I have not the rhetorical skills necessary to point out what a evil bit of casuistry that is.

See: doing it to Americans in America == bad. Doing it to Tangos whereever == don’t give a tiny bowel movement. Is that scatological enough to penetrate?

JSinAZ (15853d) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:15 am

BTW, chaos: if in your mind condescension == large vocabulary, fuck off.

JSinAZ (15853d) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:17 am

“Slippery-slope arguments are always funny. In six years, 3 people have been waterboarded by the government”
And rendition is responsible for what exactly?
That’s why liberal nitpicking is so annoying.
—

“clue: it isn’t a JOOOOOOOOOO conspiracy.”

No, dear it’s the result of expulsion, and of local ethnic groups not allowing the newcomers or their descendants full rights in their new “home.” But you say, “they’re all arabs.” But not all arabs are the same. There are countries. You know what countries are dear? Nations? Did you know they speak French in Belgium and Switzerland too? And German is spoken in Austria and Switzerland and even parts of Italy. Did you know that. Sure you did. Hey I just thought of the obvious one. Absurd it took me so long: How many countries speak Spanish in South America! And South Americans are all the same, right? Argentineans are just like Colombians and Ecuadorians are all Bolivians. Have there ever been wars in South America.
Hm?
Arguing with idiots

blah (fb88b3) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:20 am

CrazyinAZ: You asked a yes or no question and I gave you a yes answer. Whine away. If a threat is serious and imminent enough, I have no objection to the waterboarding of a US citizen. Unlike you, I prefer to act to save American lives. Now, throw another tantrum. They amuse me.

dave (903d71) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:32 am

blah

you’re either delusional or anti-Semitic

I’d say “get help” but heck, you probably think psychiatry is a JOOOO conspiracy, too.

Darleen (187edc) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:34 am

Dave let me make sure we are talking about the same thing. Are you saying that, in the US with a US citizen that you would perform near-torture to extract information because you thought you might be able to prevent the crime of murder?

Or are you talking about stopping a mass-casualty event of the ticking-time-bomb variety?

If it’s the latter, we have no argument.

If it’s the former, then you are a colossal self-righteous dick of the morally deficient variety who really ought not serve the public or even ice cream to children.

JSinAZ (15853d) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:48 am

Oh, no! BabyinAZ throws another tantrum! Thank you for the laughs. 🙂

dave (903d71) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:51 am

It certainly gets very old hearing the torture cries and threats from the Left; those who live in a make believe world can’t seem to bring themselves to believe that we are at war with an enemy who knows no limits. Yes, we should have limits for our conduct during war, but using methods employed during training of our troops does not fall beyond our limits. I remember from our history that the Greatest Generation field executed the Germans troops who were caught attacking us in civilian clothes or in American uniforms; something NOT in our ROE today. Fancy that. We now have cries for lawyers and other such legal guarantees for those captured on the battlefield fighting in violation of the rules of war. It will be interesting to see the reaction of Americans if we are seriously attacked again with mass casualties resulting and we lacked intelligence because of criminal like legal restrictions on questioning terrorists. Will we have demands from the Left to turn the other cheek?

I am very, very tired of excuses given for enemy actions and unwarranted attacks on my county by those who are American citizens being protected by our military, our legal system and the congressional immunity under the speech and debate clause of our precious Constitution. They are not that blind not to realize that they are providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

As I have told anti-war demonstrators face to face, if the President has taken away our freedoms why is it that the NYT is still in business and citizens such as them are not in a gulag for criticizing our government/country. If they want to see when Americans really lost freedoms, they just have to review the actions of President Woodrow Wilson, a devoutly religious and leading intellectual of the time and our Democratic president during WWI. Or even what our revered Republican President Lincoln did during the Civil War by having civilians arrested, tried and executed under orders of military courts. Fortunately in each case our liberties were returned after the conflict. Unless possessed with BDS, you can’t have returned what you have not lost.

Somehow I don’t see our Leftist citizens receiving any preferential treatment by al Qaeda, only the sharp edge of a knife as any from the West would receive. I guess that the Left doesn’t realize, while living in their fantasy world, that no one respects perceived traitors; actually regimes have a habit of disposing of those they believe were traitors to the previous government. The Islamic Republic of Iran is an example in modern times.

It is apparent that in America far too many have a withered survival instinct and believe that no sacrifice is too great provided someone else does the sacrificing.

amr (d671ab) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:52 am

Seriously, dickhead, this topic was in reference to terrorism. Don’t try to change the facts now to make you look less like an ass. Be a man (even one who acts like a 3 year old) and apologize for being such a foul mouth and immature loser.

dave (903d71) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:54 am

The fact remains that torture does not work very well.
There are extreme cases, such as the hypothetical “ticking bomb case” where it’s safe to assume people would just go ahead and do it, legal or not. But it’s record is a record of failure.

blah (fb88b3) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:03 am

OK, Dave. You win. Obviously you are not an asshole. Your last comment so clearly shows just that.

JSinAZ (15853d) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:06 am

These days intentional and unintentional cultural insensitivity is considered inhumane treatment and thus torture.

I wrote on another thread how male baggage handlers in Burma were terrified of handling womens panties and beyond terrified of tampons.
Evidently the handling of these items leads to irreversible impotence.
Women are not allowed to hold jobs like baggage checker so there was a problem…
So women from NGO’s, from Amnesty International etc would usually pack their backpacks by topping it off with some panties, a few loose tampons, all covered by a tshirt or two so inspector guy’d probably touch one or the other.

They thought it was hilarious…. but then at Guantanamo those same people claim it is torture to make a guy touch a dog, or have a woman handle a Koran

SteveG (4e16fc) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:09 am

No JSinAZ, my definition of condescension is your style of posting, not “using a large vocabulary.”

But to try to steer away from your incessant whining, here is the relevant Constitutional passage on treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Congress has the power, according to the Constitution, to set proper punishment for treason. I would suggest that this power trumps the liberties set up in the Bill of Rights, as the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was never intended to be one, and it is not one now.

The government, as I’m sure someone with your broad horizons and native intelligence knows, also has the power to declare martial law in areas of insurrection / rebellion and govern the territory by military rule, which doesn’t include the nice Constitutional protections we enjoy.

The question is, can the government only declare the Constitution to not apply to a geographic area that is rebelling, or can it be applied to individuals – like, say, terrorists – who are American citizens and engaged in plots to try to destroy the American government? I would suggest that if the government had an American citizen in custody with information vital to stop future terrorist plots or prevent an imminent one, no court in the land would rule that the government was in the wrong if they deprived him of his Constitutional rights.

Twenty years from now, we’ll be just as free as we are now when it comes to things like this, as we are just as free from them now as we were before September 11th. The government, for reasons of national security, has all kinds of completely legal ways to circumvent the limits placed it on by the Constitution. For 230 years we have not stumbled down the slippery slope to fascism despite, numerous times, engaging in limited violations of the Constitution for the purposes of national security.

One of the very first government offices opened after Pearl Harbor was the Office of Censorship. The authority for this creation was the First War Powers Act, passed into law on December 18, 1941. The First War Powers Act was basically completely unconstitutional from top to bottom; it gave the Executive Branch authority to do almost anything it wanted to to defeat Germany and Japan, the Constitution be damned.

The Office of Censorship was formally closed on November 15, 1945. Its head during the war? Byron Price, acting general manager of the Associated Press at the time.

The United States again has, in the past, taken numerous limited actions during war that the Constitution blatantly says are big no-nos. There is literally no chance that the United States in its current form could, even after twenty years of incrementalism, turn into even a covert police state. The government simply doesn’t have the manpower or the will necessary to suppress 300 million people, and it never will. American politicians are raised with the same political indoctrination as the rest of us. The idea of turning the US into a police state is foreign to the vast majority of the political class.

chaos (aad1e2) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:16 am

The fact remains that torture does not work very well.
There are extreme cases, such as the hypothetical “ticking bomb case” where it’s safe to assume people would just go ahead and do it, legal or not. But it’s record is a record of failure.

This is directly contradicted by the evidence. Coercive interrogation techniques have been tremendously successful, particularly in the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Stop wasting our time with your pathetic lies.

chaos (aad1e2) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:18 am

I have to wonder how many of the commenters who are against methods used to obtain vital, life-saving information from enemy combatants are the very same people who believe that electrocuting gentials for sexual pleasure is enlightened experience?

syn (7faf4d) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:25 am

Those that claim that physical interrogation methods don’t work do so by setting a ridiculous standard, that any false evidence invalidates the method.

This is just a silly argument. We are not talking about a criminal justice standard where false confession is a legitimate concern. We are talking about intelligence work. Intelligence has to sort through false and unreliable reports as a matter of course. Its part of the analysis.

The question of effectiveness is just whether or not some useful intel is produced that we would not otherwise have.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:26 am

I said some pretty rude things up there, most of which I don’t take back but wish I’d said less rudely. Things seem to be coarser around here the last few days and I’m a little sorry to see it, since instead of my brilliant (of course I’m biased haha) insults people are resorting to swearing and middle-school names =)

chaos (aad1e2) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:39 am

If you have any sincere interest at all in protecting our men and women in uniform, you should be out there with the Democrats demanding that our next attorney general be someone with the honesty and integrity to say the plain truth: waterboarding is torture and is illegal.

I was asked the other day what I would think if a US Citizen was captured in Iraq/Iran/insert-arab-country-here and they were watrboarded…

My response was “Thank god they weren’t beheaded, with the entire thing videotaped and played on TV?”

I mean, come on… When you use the “what if they did it to our peole” arguement, make sure you aren’t talking about people who think burning people and hanging their bodies off of an overpass is a a fine idea.

Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/3/2007 @ 10:41 am

Blah:

Stop wasting our time with your pathetic lies.

Or Patterico’s bandwith.

Next time, do some real research…y’know, like you told me?

Otherwise, your arguments are just…blah.

Paul (66339f) — 11/3/2007 @ 10:58 am

I mean, come on… When you use the “what if they did it to our peole” arguement, make sure you aren’t talking about people who think burning people and hanging their bodies off of an overpass is a a fine idea.

No kidding, Scott.

Another thing: you lefties out there like to argue that we aren’t following the Geneva Conventions.

If we followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter, we’d be lining up and shooting the insurgents as spies for lack of a uniform.

I’ll bet you’d really love that.

Paul (66339f) — 11/3/2007 @ 11:05 am

Paul, #62,
You’ve got my vote.

blah,
In case you haven’t noticed, the Pal refugees are under the care of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and have been since 1948, when they voluntarily left Israel, and were refused admittance to any Arab state.

At the same time, Israel accepted into its’ heart all Jewish refugees that were forcibly expelled from Muslin countries throughout North Africa and the Middle East.

BTW, a whole lot of you need to grow up, and discuss things as responsible adults.

Another Drew (8018ee) — 11/3/2007 @ 1:48 pm

The problem with torture is not that it’s unreliable, the problem with torture is the urge to continue the torture until you get what you want to hear because you’re certain the subject has not told you the truth.

Alan Kellogg (1dd858) — 11/3/2007 @ 2:37 pm

#63 Another Drew,

In both threads I’ve noticed a healthy population of drama queens. Nice to know the species is not restricted to just one location in the blogosphere.

Alan Kellogg (1dd858) — 11/3/2007 @ 2:39 pm

“when they voluntarily left Israel”
No. And we’ve had this conversation before. The expulsions were forced and it’s all in the military records. David Ben-Gurion: “The old will die and the young will forget.”
The young didn’t forget, but you have.

blah (fb88b3) — 11/3/2007 @ 3:17 pm

If we followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter, we’d be lining up and shooting the insurgents as spies for lack of a uniform.

After a nice drum-head court martial? What’s the case? Remember Ex Parte Milligan? Yes, in many ways a fair execution after a fair court martial would be less wrong than torturing them.

Torturing is a wrong worse than death.

Fritz (4acfa8) — 11/3/2007 @ 4:17 pm

Ex parte Quirin, too.

Fritz (4acfa8) — 11/3/2007 @ 4:43 pm

Torturing is a wrong worse than death? An odd comment that I don’t find very accurate.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/3/2007 @ 4:58 pm

No. And we’ve had this conversation before. The expulsions were forced and it’s all in the military records.

No, they were not forced. Or rather, they were not forced by Israel. The Arab armies that crossed the borders executed many Palestinian Arabs who refused to act as fifth columnists, and when they retreated they did not allow Palestinian Arabs under their control to stay behind. Palestinian Arabs in other parts of the country fled fearing Israeli reprisals. After the fighting ended, the Israelis encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to return to their properties and lands. The Arab armies would not allow refugees back through the lines as a way of maintaining the tension..

It’s all in the records.

A lot of blame goes on Israel’s ledger for actions later on, but the originators of the Palestinian Arab refugee problem were the Arabs in the countries surrounding Israel.

Just Passing Through (d7a06d) — 11/3/2007 @ 5:59 pm

The whole waterboarding issue in the Mukasey confirmation process is just more political theater on the part of the Dems in an attempt to club Bush. See it for what it is and move on.

They attempted to get Mukasey on record saying it was illegal. If he does. Eureka. They confirm him quickly. Right man for job all along. AG say Bush authorized illegal acts. Impeach Bush now.

Mukasey wouldn’t play ball for valid reasons and the some Democrats (Schumer) have pretty mixed track records of prior anti-torture statements they probably don’t want coming back to bite them if they hold up the nomination purely for a position on waterboarding. They also forget that as AG, Mukasey doesn’t make the law, Congress does. If Congress doesn’t have the stones to pass a law explicitly making waterboarding illegal, isn’t it pretty hypocritical to hold up a nomination over the issue?

I realize avoiding hyopcrisy is not a strong point of the Democrats, but after suffering through a really bad October, embarrassing themselves over this nomination would have continued the trend in November. Just think of all the fun we’re going to have with the funding bills.

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:34 pm

THIS IS YOUR BRAIN(EGG)THIS IS LIBERALS POLITICS(FRYING PAN)THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON LIBERAL POLITICS ANY QUESTIONS?

krazy kagu (4ca035) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:18 pm

So you bloodthirsty “ends justify the means” enablers cite the claim that “only” three detainees have been waterboarded. And you even seem to believe that statistic. Even so, whether three or three hundred, we waterboard. We torture. And given the next high profile target, no reason why we won’t do it again.

Those who would give up some liberties in favor of security will have neither.

I pledge alliegiance to the flag,
Of the United States of America.
And to the torture, for which she excuses…

nosh (53dd5b) — 11/4/2007 @ 10:39 am

nosh – Many do not accept your definition of torture, and including waterboarding within that definition. Turn up the AC too high. Torture. Too low. Torture. Loud music. Torture. No cable TV. Torture. Your definitions have rendered the term meaningless.

JD (49efd3) — 11/4/2007 @ 11:32 am

It would be nice if waterboarding’s defenders could take the trouble to acquaint themselves with he most basic facts surrounding the practice. The US considered waterboarding a war crime in 1947.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

Moops (444e9b) — 11/5/2007 @ 10:11 am

Gee Moops, was waterboarding the only war crime Asano charged with? Isn’t that WaPo article being a little misleading about the laundry list of things he was accused of doing? Can you attribute the sentence specifically to the waterboarding out of that list? Was the water boarding done for intelligence gathering or pure sadism?

Nice try.

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/5/2007 @ 12:32 pm

Is everything that was illegal in 1948 illegal today, moops? Is everything that was legal in 1948 legal today? Silly, silly point of reference.

JD (49efd3) — 11/5/2007 @ 12:49 pm

What an odd paragraph (from the same WaPo story):

In the post-Vietnam period, the Navy SEALs and some Army Special Forces used a form of waterboarding with trainees to prepare them to resist interrogation if captured. The waterboarding proved so successful in breaking their will, says one former Navy captain familiar with the practice, “they stopped using it because it hurt morale.”

Hurt morale? Is that, like, some sort of long-term consequence?

What is torture? The infliction of pain and suffering to gain some end. Waterboarding works because the subject suffers.

If waterboarding is so necessary to preserve the safety in this country, you would think that you would leave the punishments currently applicable for torture in place, if not make them harsher?

What’s that, you may ask? Leave the punishments in place? Why, yes, so that when you felt that waterboarding or other tortures were so necessary that you were willing to act outside the law, you would have a chance to present yourself before the relevant legal authorities, plead your case, and accept your punishment as one small sacrifice for the cause of freedom. Since torture is horrifying, and in opposition to the basis of the rights that we enjoy as Americans, you would want the punishments for it to be harsh so that only in the most desperate circumstances would anyone every conceive of employing it. Heck, if the ticking-bomb really was there, and your actions really did save thousands, if not millions, of lives, you might even get probation or a pardon.

Wouldn’t a man do what’s necessary and then face the full consequences of his actions forthrightly? Are you man enough to break the law, accepting your punishment in the full knowledge that you advanced the common good?

Maybe the punishment for using torture should be death, so that you too can give your life for your country in a good cause. Of course, if your torture actually worked, and you did save millions, the President could always embody the mercy of the community and pardon you or commute your sentence.

Jack Bull? Michael Kohlhaas?

Fritz (d62210) — 11/5/2007 @ 12:57 pm

Fritz, actually your definition of torture:
“The infliction of pain and suffering to gain some end.”

is not shared by all and oversimplifies the issue. That definition would mean that every time the police arrested someone, and that person resisted, the police would be torturers. Everytime someone defended themselves from attack with pepper spray, they would be torturers. Every time tear gas was used by police, they would be torturers.

The rest of your rhetoric is a good example of the frothy rhetoric that makes rational discussion of the issue impossible. Certainly your logic is silly, no real professional would engage in this conduct thinking they would be prosecuted, regardless of the stakes.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/5/2007 @ 1:07 pm

How about “the infliction of pain and suffering against a defenseless person for the sake of provoking terror”? Terror, say of drowning, is then used to break the will of the person and make them a witness against themselves.

Certainly your logic is silly, no real professional would engage in this conduct thinking they would be prosecuted, regardless of the stakes.

How is it silly? Torture is horrifying. Torture violates the rights of a human being (even the guilty have rights and rights inhere qua human being, not on the basis of citizenship). Torture is sometimes necessary (the lesser evil for the sake of preventing a greater evil).

If it remained illegal it would then only be used in cases of the utmost necessity by people who recognized the consequences of their actions. Think of Lincoln breaking the law to protect the Constitution and Union and then presenting himself to Congress for their judgment and approval. I would say that torture is so horrifying and so anti-American (in so far as it invalidates the very basis of our human rights and is contrary to the natural law that is the ground of our Constitution), that you would have to be willing to give up your life and liberty to prove to me that you thought what you were doing was justified.

Soldiers risk their lives every day for our freedoms. Shouldn’t would-be tortures be willing to risk their lives and freedom as a small price to pay for their assault against basic human dignity for the sake of a greater good? Since torture is only used in the gravest cases perhaps it should have the gravest consequences. Shouldn’t a torturer be man enough to face the consequences of the law?

Please, SPQR, tell me how my analysis breaks down. I would love to hear it.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/5/2007 @ 1:25 pm

Your analysis does not break down, it never gets started. Intelligence professionals don’t make those kind of calculations. They are professionals and not cowboys. You’ve been watching too many episodes of “24”.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/5/2007 @ 1:39 pm

SPQR – Their definition of what constitutes torture is such that it renders the term meaningless. The rest is simply arguing from their self proclaimed moral high ground.

JD (49efd3) — 11/5/2007 @ 1:39 pm

JD, yep.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/5/2007 @ 1:44 pm

See, I can be nice when I try.

JD (49efd3) — 11/5/2007 @ 1:48 pm

Intelligence professionals don’t make those kind of calculations.

If intelligence professionals can’t or won’t make a judgment of whether the ends justify the means when their necks are on the line, what makes you think that they are going to be sufficiently constrained to limit torture to the gravest cases when they have the protection and acquiescence of the law? Do you think a general law is going to make them wiser in the application of torture in specific circumstances when they have no personal stake?

Maybe I’m too much of a libertarian, but, in my opinion, the government is, at best, barely competent. To give some officious prick in the executive branch the power to torture and then expect them to exhibit the wisdom of Solomon in its application is, to me, dangerously naive. If the ends really do justify the means then those who have the duty to make those decisions should have something at stake. A man, a brave man, a macho man, would be willing to face the full force of the state to justify himself for doing something as horrific as torturing. If what he did was really right then he could hope that no jury in the land would convict him.

And yes, if faced with the ticking bomb or the girl locked in the box with two hours of air or any other extreme ethical case you could think of, I would torture. And then I would face my punishment. Like a man.

Aren’t you man enough to break the law in order to save the Constitution?

For the record, I have never seen this show called “24”.

H/T Noah Levitt:

Here is the Torture Convention’s definition of “torture”: “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

Fritz (d62210) — 11/5/2007 @ 1:52 pm

You still don’t understand my point about people who work in intelligence, and frankly I don’t think you ever will. Your view of how they operate is just fantasy.

And have you noticed yet, how your definitions differ from the Convention? And since you have not found the reservation that the US applied when ratifying the Convention, you still are not up to date on the appropriate legal definitions.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:00 pm

Fritz – Arguing from emotion and self proclaimed moral superiority is no way to win over the hearts and minds on this issue.

The “can’t or won’t” meme is a false choice. That they do not do so is a function of their job. That you do not trust them to do their job within the parameters does not mean that they are all acting like they are on 24.

By that definition, the one that you supplied, your self preening posts constitute torture, as they are inflicting severe emotional pain on me.

JD (49efd3) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:05 pm

I was just suffering during their reading. torture.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:06 pm

JD and SPQR,

I find it illuminating that neither of you have grappled with my argument. You’ve just dismissed it out of hand.

Well, you did exhibit some pedantic preening about my definition of torture with no real grappling with the underlying point. That’s something, I suppose.

Odd, that.

If torture is reserved for the gravest cases shouldn’t it have the gravest consequences for mistakes? A soldier who screws up gets himself and his buddies killed. Shouldn’t an intelligence operative who screws up get himself and his buddies sent to prison at least?

See the horns of the dilemma aren’t whether torture is necessary, it’s whether it’s gravely wrong or not.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:15 pm

Nothing pedantic about your definition of torture, Fritz, it was so broad and vague that it was useless for any rational discussion. You still haven’t figured out what the difference was, if you think it pedantic. And that alone shows you are not serious.

The rest of your stuff, with its weird heroic mode of lawbreaking, is just not a professional attitude, its cowboy Hollywood stuff and silly.

Requiring people to guess how they’ll be judged after the event in a politically charged climate is irresponsible nonsense of the highest order. Its not an adult answer to the issue.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:21 pm

Plus you’ve got idiots like Jack Murthatard and the media all riled up to make examples of people “doing their duty” just as Fritz described getting railroaded into show trials. Have you been following the Haditha media generated scandal Fritz? Did you read about the rwo snipers who did their duty, followed orders, only to be brought up on charges by a General. As SPQR stated, your method is a nonstarter.

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:22 pm

From Torture (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As we saw above, torture is a terrorist tactic. Indeed, arguably it is the terrorist tactic par excellence. Detonating bombs that kill the innocent has come to be regarded as the quintessential terrorist tactic. But this is presumably because terrorism has implausibly come to be identified only with non-state terrorism. At any rate, the point to be made here is that torture is a terrorist tactic, and for a liberal democracy to legalise and institutionalise it, i.e. weave the practice of torture into the very fabric of liberal democratic institutions, would be both an inherent contradiction — torture being an extreme assault on individual autonomy — and, given what we know about the practice of torture in military, police, and correctional institutions, highly damaging to those liberal democratic institutions. It would be equivalent to a liberal democracy legalising and institutionalising slavery on the grounds, say, of economic necessity. Legalised and institutionalised slavery is inconsistent with liberal democracy, as is legalised and institutionalised torture. So if legalised and institutionalised slavery and/or legalised and institutionalised torture are necessary because morally required, then liberal democracy is not possible in anything other than an attenuated form. But of course neither legalised/institutionalised slavery nor legalised/institutionalised torture is morally required, quite the contrary. At best, torture is morally justified in some one-off emergencies — just as murder and cannibalism might be morally excusable in a one-off emergency on the high seas, or desertion from the field of battle might be morally justifiable given a one-off emergency back home — but absolutely nothing follows as far as the legalisation/institutionalisation of torture is concerned.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:24 pm

Fritz – I did not address your points, because they are not really points, they are simply appeals to emotion, not actual positions.

No, there should not be grave consequences for mistakes. Maybe there should be grave consequences for people who use it for pleasure, but waterboarding with good intentions should not have grave consequences. Intelligence does not work that way, not that you give a shit. You can supply definition after defintion, if that is your wish, but you have yet to actually make an adult point.

JD (49efd3) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:30 pm

Ah, a philosophy text, well that ends the debate.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:30 pm

Yes, a philosophy text from a university … Yet another meaningless definition of torture.

Loud music? Torture
Cold? Torture
Hot? Torture
Ham sandwich? Torture
Naked women? Torture
Panties with ketchup? Torture

In good faith, can you even begin to see that your definitions of torture are so broad and vague as to be meaningless?

JD (49efd3) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:33 pm

Fritz – “and for a liberal democracy to legalise and institutionalise it, i.e. weave the practice of torture into the very fabric of liberal democratic institutions”

Maybe I should have a tie made with illutrations of three people being waterboarded on it to symbolize how deeply this horror has become woven into the fabric of our society.

Has our constitution also been shredded Fritz?

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:36 pm

Damn, JD, that list sounds like quite a party to me.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:36 pm

My favorite paragraph (same source):

Accordingly, what might be, all things considered, the morally best action for an agent to perform in some one-off, i.e. non-recurring, situation might not be an action that should be made lawful. Consider the real-life example of the five sailors on a raft in the middle of the ocean and without food. Four of them decide to eat the fifth — the cabin boy — in order to survive.[17] This is a case of both murder and cannibalism. Was it morally justifiable to kill and eat the boy, given the alternative was the death of all five sailors? Perhaps not, given the cabin boy was entirely innocent. However, arguably it was morally excusable, and indeed the sailors, although convicted of murder and cannibalism, had their sentence commuted in recognition of this. But there was no suggestion that the laws against murder and cannibalism admit of an exception in such an extreme case; the sailors were convicted and sentenced for murder and cannibalism. Again, consider an exceptionless law against desertion from the battlefield in time of war. Perhaps a soldier is morally justifiable in deserting his fellow soldiers, given that he learns of the more morally pressing need for him to care for his wife who has contracted some life-threatening disease back home. However, the law against desertion will not, and should not, be changed to allow desertion in such cases.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:37 pm

Yes, a philosophy text from a university … Yet another meaningless definition of torture.

Obviously you didn’t read it. That’s a shame.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:39 pm

Actually, I wasted my time reading both quotes. Now I want those minutes back.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:41 pm

Fritz – Despite your favouring that ‘graph, it really does not change anything. You are still, either intentionally or unknowingly, not understanding that intelligence gathers should not be forced to risk grave consequences in these kinds of actions. No matter how hard you wish it to be so. We would have NO intelligence agents were they forced to choose between people dying and a felony in order to simply do their job.

JD (49efd3) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:43 pm

SPQR – That was clearly a case of projection on Fritz’s behalf. It seems abundantly clear that Fritz keeps on charging ahead not reading anything to the contrary. Simply assert the moral high ground, and then make up some movie scenarios.

JD (49efd3) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:52 pm

We would have NO intelligence agents were they forced to choose between people dying and a felony in order to simply do their job.

That’s simply not true. There are always brave men and women who are willing to give their lives to defend the cause of freedom. Are you saying that our intelligence operatives aren’t willing to risk their lives for the cause of freedom?

After all, torture will only be utilized in the most exceptional cases right? It’s kind of hard to craft a general law for an exception case, isn’t it?

Torture is a grave wrong. Sometimes a grave wrong is morally justified to prevent a worse wrong. Being morally justified and being legally justified are two different things.

When the Israelis legalized torture it became more widely used than bare moral necessity justified. As they are lovers of liberty, this repulsed the Israelis and they have since curtailed the practice. Let us learn from their mistake.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:52 pm

I am trying to conserve the traditional American repugnance to assaults on personal autonomy (even the autonomy of the filthiest, evilest terrorist) against an attempt to progress to a new understanding of torture and what force the state may bring to bear against the individual.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:56 pm

No, that is not what I am saying, and you well know it. That you attempt to distort my position to one that suits your emotions simply tells me that there is no possiblity to discuss this is good faith with you.

JD (49efd3) — 11/5/2007 @ 2:58 pm

Fritz – You’re not scoring too many points here. Are you planning to keep lobbing out lame definitions of torture all day?

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/5/2007 @ 3:01 pm

progress to a new understanding of torture and what force the state may bring to bear against the individual.

Would that were true, would that were true. Your stated intentions run contrary to the definitions you choose to utilize, which again, are so broad and vague so as to make them worthless.

JD (49efd3) — 11/5/2007 @ 3:05 pm

Fritz – “When the Israelis legalized torture it became more widely used than bare moral necessity justified.”

Moral necessity in whose opinion? Have you got something to support the above including the “more widely used” because it was legalized contention?

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/5/2007 @ 3:05 pm

daleyrocks – Sure he has support. He believes it to be immoral. He has claimed the moral high ground. Everything else simply services those positions.

JD (49efd3) — 11/5/2007 @ 3:07 pm

I really don’t like to descend to namecalling but Fritz’ heroic mode of torture is just juvenile and can’t be prettied up with any higher level of argument. The idea that the answer for the issue is for people to just “heroically” decide to dare prosecution is simply comical. As in born from comic books.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/5/2007 @ 3:08 pm

I am trying to conserve the traditional American repugnance to assaults on personal autonomy against an attempt to progress to a new understanding of torture and what force the state may bring to bear against even the autonomy of the filthiest, evilest terrorist who operates outside the laws of war and man, wantonly killing innocent men, women and children in pursuit of his goals.

Comment by Fritz — 11/5/2007 @ 2:56 pm

Fixed that for you.

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/5/2007 @ 3:10 pm

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel vs. State of Israel

Fritz (8d1293) — 11/5/2007 @ 7:06 pm

Like in Israel our intelligence agents could claim “necessity” in instances of torture. It would be up to the judiciary to determine whether the executive met those standards of “necessity.”

Fritz (8d1293) — 11/5/2007 @ 7:11 pm

Fritz,

We could do that but it seems to me it’s asking intelligence agents to assume a big risk just to do their jobs.

DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/5/2007 @ 7:26 pm

Is everything that was illegal in 1948 illegal today, moops?

What a silly, silly comment. If you can, please explain how the law surrounding war crimes has changed since 1948, and why the US, having taken the position that waterboarding is a war crime when carried out on US soldiers, can now seriously argue that it is not when US agents carry it out on others.

Moops (444e9b) — 11/6/2007 @ 7:03 am

moops – I made a mistake. I responded to your comments. Please forgive me. I shall refrain from doing so.

JD (49efd3) — 11/6/2007 @ 7:15 am

After WWII, the British formed assassination teams who went into Germany and covertly killed Nazis who had managed to escape capture and war crimes trials. The Russians wholesale slaughtered captured German soldiers, and raped and looted East Germans.

In the Iraq War, we sent American MPs to Leavenworth for posing Iraqi prisoners for nude photos. Like JD, I have no interest in discussing America’s morals with some unknown asshole who, for all I know, managed to find this site with his or her keyboard from Kiev or Riyadh.

nk (334528) — 11/6/2007 @ 7:41 am

We could do that but it seems to me it’s asking intelligence agents to assume a big risk just to do their jobs.

Torture is a grave wrong. We have been presented on numerous occasions with the conceit that torture would only be used in the gravest circumstances, i.e., the ticking-bomb scenario. It’s my considered judgment gained from review of various historical examples that if torture were legalized or made part of the culture of military, police, or security services, its use would become more widespread than would be strictly necessary in the gravest circumstances.

There is something to be said for the argument that on occasion one may be morally compelled to commit a lesser evil in order to prevent a greater evil.

In order to prevent the creation of a torture culture, while still allowing for the possibility of torture in the gravest of circumstances, I have proposed a system where after the fact the use of torture is reviewed by legitimate judicial authorities. Any intelligence agent who determines that the situation is dire and the danger is great will use torture to prevent a greater evil. She will then present herself to legal authorities for prosecution. Her defense will be that her actions were necessity. The use of torture is, essentially, the bleeding edge of the executive’s prerogative power. It is a grave risk because torture is a grave evil. In Taming the Prince Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. writes,

“The generalities of law do not conform to the particularities of human beings, and when law is applied to them, such force may be necessary that the enforcer becomes a challenge and a danger to the law (xxi).”

Fritz (d62210) — 11/6/2007 @ 8:36 am

Fritz, the opposite is true. Having a mentality that circumstances will excuse a violation of law, rather than a clear, narrowly prescribed procedure of approval, actually promotes the out-of-control application of extraordinary measures. This is because it empowers each individual to decide themselves when to apply such techniques, based on their own individual decision that their particular case is worthy of it.

It would increase the inappropriate use, not decrease it because of the nature of the ad hoc process.

Coupled with the fact that professionals will not employ a system that creates a lottery of prosecution, your “system” is not serious.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/6/2007 @ 9:10 am

SPQR – You are giving his “considered judgment” too much credit. That is not a system, in any way shape or manner. It is a way to not make decisions, to avoid tough decisions, and a way to proclaim their moral superiority from on high, while ignoring real life scenarios. It would be laughable, but this is a common mantra on the Left.

Should they ever take power, hopefully there will be some responsible ones running the ship.

JD (49efd3) — 11/6/2007 @ 10:57 am

I do not think that “circumstances will excuse a violation of law”, though they might justify its violation. In the best case one should be found guilty of torture and then pardoned in recognition of one’s service to the country. I have as my model Lincoln’s actions after Ft. Sumter was bombed on April 12, 1861, especially the suspension of habeas corpus and the calling into service the militias of the several states, and how he rectified his extra-constitutional seizure of power by appealing Congress when it was finally brought back into session. See D. Nichol’s The Myth of the Modern President for more on this argument.

Also, the justification given for internment of the Japanese during WWII, which was done because of a claim of military necessity (the executive being the sole judge thereof if Congress refuses to speak).

So the option are, in my view (given that torture is sometimes necessary to prevent a greater evil):

1. torture as extra-legal (which you think is corrosive to the rule of law, but which I contend is the only way to preserve the law while recognizing necessity)(a kind of Machiavellian use of tyrannical means for democratic ends)

2. torture as legal (which I think has been shown to be corrosive to the rule of law in a number of different circumstances such that it always is used more than in the gravest ticking-bomb scenarios because it brings a seed of totalitarian rejection of human rights into the bosom of liberal democracy)

JD,

America is a country based on the recognition of certain universal principles. Articulation of those principles, and judging the particular in the face of the universal, is part and parcel of our form of government. The story of America is the story of the discovery and application of the natural law.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/6/2007 @ 11:21 am

SPQR – This is an example of the people that I hope never are at control of the wheel when the Dems take power.

Fritz – If your considered judgment allowed you to arrive at a position where judicial russian roulette is the only way for intelligence officers to do their jobs, you might want to tinker with that judgment part.

JD (49efd3) — 11/6/2007 @ 11:29 am

Fritz, you continue to fail to confront the core problems with your “system”. And your historical examples fail, and you demonstrate a failure of understanding of the fundamental history, because in none of them was either Lincoln nor Franklin Roosevelt threatened with criminal prosecution.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/6/2007 @ 12:03 pm

SPQR,

Uh, let’s see. The answers are no, no, and no. Sorry, please try again. Also, RTFM.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/6/2007 @ 12:09 pm

?????????????????????????????

JD (49efd3) — 11/6/2007 @ 12:22 pm

yes, well that’s as in-depth as I guess we’ll get.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/6/2007 @ 12:23 pm

That one could not count as torture, unlike Fritz’s other missives. I tried, Fritz, I really tried, to follow your tortured and torturous logic. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend how it would be a good idea to make the intelligence community choose between “grave” criminal offenses and doing their jobs.

Somehow, I think you are conflating intelligence gathering in a time of war from unlawful combatants with police or law enforcement actions. Either way, it does not make sense.

JD (49efd3) — 11/6/2007 @ 12:27 pm

JD,

Your mistake was not in responding, but in responding with idiotic sophistry instead of addressing the point. I’m beginning to suspect the latter is beyond your capabilities, so please continue with your new policy.

Moops (444e9b) — 11/6/2007 @ 1:00 pm

As opposed to your sophistry? Something was illegal (though you neglect to mention the countless other things that particular individual was charged with as well) in 1947 so it must be illegal today as well?

JD (49efd3) — 11/6/2007 @ 1:04 pm

SPQR,

If you want me to answer you then you have to say something worth responding to.

JD,

You wrote, “Yes, a philosophy text from a university …” as if that was dismissal enough. I take that to mean you’re not trying that hard.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/6/2007 @ 1:10 pm

I am not going to use a definition of torture that is so broad and vague so as to make the term meaningless. That you are referencing psychology textbooks rather than the applicable laws, shows how far you have to reach.

JD (49efd3) — 11/6/2007 @ 1:16 pm

Odd, Fritz, but I think I identified that problem with your material not being serious first.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/6/2007 @ 1:20 pm

SPQR,

The difference, of course, is that you’re mistaken.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/6/2007 @ 1:38 pm

Fritz – Please explain to us, in a coherent manner, sans emotion, why our intelligence agents, in a time of war, when dealing with unlawful combatants, should have to choose between doing their jobs and saving lives and committing a “grave” offense. Why should intelligence agents be forced to play judicial russian routlette?

JD (49efd3) — 11/6/2007 @ 1:49 pm

Having a mentality that circumstances will excuse a violation of law, rather than a clear, narrowly prescribed procedure of approval, actually promotes the out-of-control application of extraordinary measures. This is because it empowers each individual to decide themselves when to apply such techniques, based on their own individual decision that their particular case is worthy of it.

Uh, again, no.

As the Stanford article explains, this argument is spurious. For example, as the article states, it may be the case that perjury is necessary in some extreme one-off case. However, legalizing perjury in extreme cases would strike at the heart of the legal system.

Torture may be necessary in some extreme case. However, legalizing torture would strike at the heart of our system of human rights.

What should be done to the military officer, police officer, or other public official who tortures the terrorist if — after saving the city — their crime is discovered? Quite clearly he (or she) should resign or be dismissed from their position; public institutions cannot suffer among their ranks those who commit serious crimes. Further, the public official in question must be tried, convicted, and sentenced for committing the crime of torture.[21] Obviously, there are (to say the least) mitigating circumstances, and the sentence should be commuted to, say, one day in prison. Would public officials be prepared to act to save thousands of innocent lives, if they knew they might lose their job and/or suffer some minor punishment? Presumably many would. But if not, is it desirable to set up a legalised torture chamber and put these people in charge of it?

Fritz (d62210) — 11/6/2007 @ 1:50 pm

Fritz, it seems obvious to me that you don’t even understand your own proposal. To claim that you think that intel professionals should just decide to heroically dare to violate the law when they think its justified and believe that they will be excused from this if they correctly guess that others will see their excuse requires that such a legal process exist. Then you tell me that I’m wrong based on some incoherent claim about perjury and the legal system.

You’ve set up a claim that there is a necessity defense but then imply that a necessity defense is not a legalization. This is just incoherent.

Probably because you can’t tell the difference between the law and philosophy.

I am not mistaken, you are not serious.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/6/2007 @ 2:16 pm

Torture is: (a) the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenceless person; (b) the intentional, substantial curtailment of the exercise of the person’s autonomy (achieved by means of (a)); (c) in general, undertaken for the purpose of breaking the victim’s will.

If you read the Stanford article, you would see my argument in its full form. This maps it out:

Torture is a grave wrong.

Sometimes a lesser grave wrong is necessary to prevent a greater grave wrong.

Torture is incompatible with our liberal democratic institutions because torture is an authoritarian, terroristic tactic.

The law is a blunt instrument (hard cases make bad laws): legalizing torture would do irreparable harm to our liberal democratic institutions by creating a culture of torture.

Morality is a sharp instrument.

Sometimes what is morally necessary and what is legally permitted must be kept separate.

Anyone who decides that torture is morally necessary in a specific situation should be willing to face the moral judgment of their fellow citizens and must be willing to place themselves in the greatest legal jeopardy. They must be willing to argue necessity as a mitigating circumstance.

If torture is as horrible as we think and is, in some particular case, as necessary as we fear, it is only by placing herself in jeopardy do we see that the intelligence agent is taking the situation with its deserved seriousness.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/6/2007 @ 2:20 pm

such a legal process exist.

A court-martial would do just fine. I’m sure federal court would work just as well.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/6/2007 @ 2:24 pm

Something was illegal (though you neglect to mention the countless other things that particular individual was charged with as well) in 1947 so it must be illegal today as well?

Unless there is some reason to think otherwise, yes. You’re also missing the point. The United States government, having previously taken the position that waterboarding is a war crime, cannot be expected to be taken seriously if it now takes the diametrically opposed position that waterboarding is not a war crime, simply because its former position is no longer convenient. Sauce for the goose.

Moops (444e9b) — 11/6/2007 @ 2:34 pm

Fritz, you still don’t understand. If there is a legal rule applicable in court stating that the crime of torture can be excused, then it is legalized. You can’t claim that it can’t be legalized and then depend upon a legal rule in the same breath.

Or maybe you can, but I try to avoid such blatant oxymorons myself.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/6/2007 @ 2:39 pm

SPQR,

You plead guilty. In the penalty phase you present your mitigating circumstances.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/6/2007 @ 2:41 pm

Are you really that clueless? A legal rule that allows “mitigation” of the crime is a legalization.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/6/2007 @ 2:50 pm

But this remains a fatuous fantasy, no intelligence professional will play your silly judicial lottery.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/6/2007 @ 2:51 pm

In two seconds on LexisNexis I found this from Army Lawyer, (2002 Army Law. 44)

ARTICLE: Recent Developments in Sentencing: Tying Up Loose Ends

The court stated that in non-capital cases the military judge complies with his duty by providing the following instruction:

In determining the sentence, you should consider all the facts and circumstances of the offense(s) of which the accused has been convicted and all matters concerning the accused (whether presented before or after findings). Thus, you should consider the accused’s background, his/her character, his/her service record, (his/her combat record,) all matters in extenuation and mitigation, and any other evidence he/she presented. You should also consider any matters in aggravation.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:14 pm

The United States government, having previously taken the position that waterboarding is a war crime, cannot be expected to be taken seriously if it now takes the diametrically opposed position that waterboarding is not a war crime, simply because its former position is no longer convenient.

Cite that position, would you, Moops?

Pablo (99243e) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:28 pm

So you spent two seconds finding a completely irrelevant quotation. That’s great.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:29 pm

SPQR – Are your eyes tired of rolling yet ?

I have yet to see a position that is not based on the purely emotional “torture is a grave wrong” premise. The idea that we should put an intelligence officer in the position of choosing between doing their job, and saving lives, and pleading guilty and hoping that their case does not land in the 9th Circuit is laughable. Notice how courts martial are alright in this case, according to Fitz, but the military cannot be trusted with tribunals?

And moops, I thought you guys were the party of nuance. Standards can change over time, no? Certainly our laws have evolved since 1947. No?

This entire discussion revolves around the Left’s moral cry that waterboarding is torture. Period. since we never really get past that point, the rest of the discussion is just academic.

Your Dems control the House and Senate. Why don’t they simply pass a bill that bans waterboarding. Apparently, even they can be adults from time to time.

JD (388d32) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:37 pm

JD, yep, I’ve seen a lot of the ceiling.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:41 pm

Anybody here ever been exposed to CS gas?

Uncle Sam gave me a snootful of it to further my training and given the choice, I’d rather be waterboarded.

But I’m just a neanderthal, and war should be a cozy, friendly affair. That said, I’d rather be waterboarded than shot in the head. I’m all for tactice that allow you to walk away from them in one piece that isn’t puking and crying uncontrollably.

Pablo (99243e) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:44 pm

That whole “we argued that waterboarding was a war crime in 1947” is hogwash. The case moops is referencing, without actually doing so, involved a person charged with a whole heck of a lot of crimes, not only just the alleged waterboarding. He makes it out to be some finding on waterboarding, when it simply was not.

JD (388d32) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:44 pm

Yeah JD, but he should lay his cite out anyway. He might learn something.

Pablo (99243e) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:46 pm

How did the law change, JD? What happened to make waterboarding no longer a war crime?

This entire discussion revolves around the Left’s moral cry that waterboarding is torture. Period.

You saying it doesn’t make it so. I don’t think the US government qualifies as “the Left.” Or have you accepted that waterboarding is a war crime and now seek to draw a distinction between war crimes and torture in this instance?

Moops (99fd9d) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:47 pm

Fritz – Your link from last night did not present evidence that legalizing torture increased its frequency in Israel, creating a culture of torture, and I think this is where your theory breaks down. The Court essentially said several procedures used by GSS were illegal, but the necessity defense was available and frequently used. The court also made it a point to say that the procedures it deemed illegal were not used on a regular basis. The court said one option available would be to legislate rules for aggressive interrogation.

You outline your argument in steps above:

“The law is a blunt instrument (hard cases make bad laws): legalizing torture would do irreparable harm to our liberal democratic institutions by creating a culture of torture.”
The creation of a culture is sheer speculation on your part as is the irreparable harm to our institutions. Your argument, IMHO, falls apart right here and really requires no further development, but does have additional flaws.

“Anyone who decides that torture is morally necessary in a specific situation should be willing to face the moral judgment of their fellow citizens and must be willing to place themselves in the greatest legal jeopardy.”
The people conducting the interrogations may be bound by oaths and standards of duty and honor not shared by the other citizens you suggest they should be judged by. Were they standing in the same shoes and bound by the same thinking, I don’t believe we would have any issues. It is the divisions that have arisen in our country over foreign policy and the use of the military, ignoring arguments over ethics, that are really at the root of most of these debates.

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:53 pm

Pablo – that whole gas mask training sucked, no? Waterboarding was worse. I gave up quicker than France could surrender. I knew that despite the circumstances, they would not kill me, which offered a microscopic bit of hope. I cannot imagine what it would be like if you did not know that they would not let you die. Still, not torture. You get up, and walk away.

JD (388d32) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:53 pm

Moops – If you’re still stuck on Asano, you’re stuck on stupid. Google him.

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:54 pm

moops – Show us where we have taken the position that waterboarding, by itself, constitutes a war crime, or is torture. Until you can do so, all you are doing is asserting that it is. Are we torturing our troops when we train them? Is that a war crime? Never mind. You have made up your mind a long time ago. I bet we would not even be having this discussion if a Dem were in office.

JD (388d32) — 11/6/2007 @ 4:00 pm

daleyrocks – thanks. I could not think of that name.

JD (388d32) — 11/6/2007 @ 4:04 pm

Where’s your cite, Moops?

You saying it doesn’t make it so.

Pablo (99243e) — 11/6/2007 @ 4:09 pm

JD – I pointed the same thing out to moops last night. He didn’t listen.

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/6/2007 @ 4:14 pm

Pablo, daleyrocks, SPQR – It is abundantly clear that folks like Fritz and moops just wish to declare waterboarding torture. They make me think of Colonel Nathan Jessup. They feel superior because they are against “torture” but then deceitfully use defintions of torture that allow the unlawful combatants to determine what is torture. Their position is emotion and superiority. Nothing else.

JD (388d32) — 11/6/2007 @ 4:30 pm

JD, most of the people who want to discuss the topic do exactly what you describe.

But Fritz seems to want to propose something that I find rather incoherent, but far more troubling. The idea that our government would operate by creating legal prohibitions and then expect to be able to violate those prohibitions and turn each court case into a fresh policy dispute to justify the illegal conduct on a case by case basis with each individual charged and subject to imprisonment if they guessed wrong.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/6/2007 @ 4:35 pm

SPQR – Given the scenario that Fritz would apply, there would essentially be no need for the law in the first place, as each would break it as they deemed necessary. This whole judicial lottery seems absurd.

JD (d5bd6e) — 11/6/2007 @ 5:38 pm

SPQR, they advocate the Clintonian model.

“If you look at the show, every time they get the president to approve something, the president gets in trouble, the country gets in trouble. And when Bauer goes out there on his own and is prepared to live with the consequences, it always seems to work better.”.

In other words, let’s have a firm policy against it and then do it anyway, so that we can have the benefit of it and yet I can distance myself from authorizing it.

That’s just fucking cowardly.

Pablo (99243e) — 11/6/2007 @ 5:43 pm

I already posted the link. Here’s the relevant quote for the clicking-impaired.

Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

Do I have to remind you what happened last time you two tried to debate a legal topic with me? I believe the subject was Libby’s sentence at Protein Wisdom and you got your asses handed to you, to the point that JD had to apologize. I would think you would have learned something from that.

Moops (444e9b) — 11/7/2007 @ 7:15 am

Thanks, Moops. Now let’s look at what really happened.

Defendant: Asano, Yukio

Docket Date: 53/ May 1 – 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

And let’s not miss this in your quote:

Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian.

So, we’re not talking about the same thing at all, are we? Asano was strapping prople to a board and sticking their heads underwater. Oh, and notice the charges against Asano being for mistreating and torturing POW’s, not civilians. Thanks for playing, Moops. Better luck next time.

Do I have to remind you what happened last time you two tried to debate a legal topic with me?

Yes, please do.

I would think you would have learned something from that.

I have learned from dealing with you, Moops. That’s why I insisted that you put your cards on the table. Again, thanks for playing.

Pablo (99243e) — 11/7/2007 @ 7:28 am

Moops – You were right, once, and I gracefully acknowledged it. Had I known you would continue to be a dick … Having been right previously does not make you right on this one. Pablo pointed out the differences between waterboarding and what Asano was actually charged with – ie. a different form of waterboarding, amongst a whole host of other things. Nice try.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 7:41 am

So, moops, were you lying, or were you just wrong?

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 7:42 am

Fritz – Your link from last night did not present evidence that legalizing torture increased its frequency in Israel, creating a culture of torture, and I think this is where your theory breaks down.

Sure it did. The GSS was using these pressure techniques against every schlub who ever heaved a rock at an Israeli soldier whether they could possibly know anything or not. The point was that while necessity and the “ticking-bomb” were the starting point of justification, tying everyone arrested to a small, pain-inducing chair with a vomit-stained hood over their head for days at a time was the result. I’ll admit, they presented evidence that they managed to break one guy who allowed them to roll-up a pretty substantial network.

Now, here’s the hard part for you: the Public Committee Against Torture (PCAT) in Israel has presented evidence that tens of thousands of people were arrested and that tens of thousands of people were subjected to these torturous techniques. Nobody is claiming that there were tens of thousands of ticking-bombs. You can dismiss PCAT out of hand (they are, after all, left-wing nuts) or you can begin to see that what was necessary for the hardest cases began to become par for the course for all cases.

I think that with a 20 year sentence at Leavenworth in the offing, torture will be exceedingly rare and reserved for actual ticking-bomb situations. Under my conditions I think that torture will never occur because the ticking-bomb scenario is a fatuous, intellectual fraud.

I think that the laws against torture should be strengthened, that the penalties should be increased (including making it a special circumstance for the purpose of capital crimes), and that water boarding is obviously a torture technique and should be recognized as such by statute.

Juries in the penalty phase of a trial are allowed to consider mitigating factors without somehow legalizing the behavior that garnered the conviction in the first place. That was the purpose of my quote from the Army law journal which you managed to miss.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:49 am

Fritz, you really are undermining your own arguments with every word. Your proposal just isn’t serious as evidenced by your attempts to explain it.

Literally no one would every use such techniques now that you have made it a death penalty crime regardless of your claims. It is now obvious that you are not seriously discussing this.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:54 am

Oh, and by the way, Fritz, juries don’t sentence defendants, judges do. Your use of a quote from a publication that discusses the law of an organization that has a completely different criminal process shows your confusions.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:59 am

Pure unadulterated BS. Now there were tens of thousands “tortured”? This is what we meant by the meaning of torture being defined away. If hostile questioning is torture, than the word torture no longer means anything like what it originally did.

water boarding is obviously a torture technique and should be recognized as such by statute

Nancy and Harry are free to pass that legislation. Take it up with them. However, just because your hyper superiority allows you see this issue so clearly, does not mean that you are right, just really damn sure of yourself.

You are asking for a system of jury nullification, and making intelligence officers risk their lives and careers on the whims of the judicial system. That you do not understand the role of the intelligence community says much about how you arrived at your bright line determinations.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:59 am

Uh, the “another form of waterboarding” referred to in the article was that depicted in the picture from Vietnam. Two forms of waterboarding discussed in the article. One was that done by US troops in Vietnam, and the other was of the form done by Asano. Nowhere does the article draw any distinction between either type and that performed by the United States more recently. Try to read for understanding rather than to confirm your pre-conceived ideological positions, gentlemen.

Asano’s other crimes are a red herring. As Pablo’s quote shows, the charge of torture and war crimes encompassed multiple types of activity, including waterboarding. If the US did not consider waterboarding a war crime, why was it included in the specifications? Thanks for making my case for me, Pablo!

Moops (444e9b) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:06 am

So, moops, were you lying, or were you just wrong?

So now that I’ve held your hand and explained what the article actually says, JD, were you lying or just wrong?

Moops (444e9b) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:10 am

Fritz – “Sure it did. The GSS was using these pressure techniques against every schlub who ever heaved a rock at an Israeli soldier whether they could possibly know anything or not.”

I must have missed it if it did. Can you except it or point people to it.

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:13 am

Pablo and JD, one follow-up. Both of you have attempted to argue that US waterboarding practices differ in some relevant way from what Asano was accused of. Since even Judge Mukasey has not been briefed on the details of the practice, I’m curious as to how you two savants gained such specific knowledge.

Moops (444e9b) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:16 am

More pure unadulterated BS from Moops. That form of “waterboarding” is not what is being discussed, and not what we have done to 3 people. Your position is that waterboarding, in and of itself, is torture, because you say so. We do not accept that, and pointed out that despite your claim that Asano backs you up, showed how his various other activities, in totality could constitute torture, or sadism. You are attempting to compare apples to elephants.

beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

The totality of these circumstances apparently did represent torture in 1947. You are trying to take one aspect, a variation of which is used today, and make it out to be torture and a war crime in and of itself. That is either dishonest, or ideological discipline. It is a wonder that non-lawyers get tired of lawyers trying to tell us that we do not see what we are seeing.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:21 am

Moops, of the laundry list of crimes of which Asano was accused, do you know which ones secured his conviction? Have you read the transcript? How do you know in the final analysis which charges resulted in the guily verdict since there wewre so many?

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:24 am

Don’t juries sentence defendants in death penalty cases? Don’t juries sentence defendants in military cases? Isn’t torture in an intelligence capacity a military case? Don’t judges when sentencing in other cases take mitigating factors into account?

Now, in Federal law I understand that the sentencing guidelines offer little discretion. Why don’t you think of the pardoning power of the President? Isn’t that intended for these excessively rare cases?

Fritz (d62210) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:25 am

Moops, I have never seen, nor heard of today’s practices being done as described in Asano, with a stretcher. If you have information that shows that is the way we currently conduct this practice on THREE people, please feel free to supply us with that information. It is your claim, and thus, your burden of proof.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:29 am

Fritz – You have demonstrated that your argument is not the least bit serious. All emotion, all the time. I am done attempting to discuss this matter with you, as you do not actually discuss it, you just continue to claim that waterboarding is torture, and anyone that does so, should be forced to plead guilty to a capital offense and hope that a jury nullifies a law, that the Dems have not even proposed yet, or a Judge sets aside a verdict. Who in the world would be willing to take those kinds of chances?

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:32 am

From, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel vs. State of Israel

36. In the Court’s opinion, a general authority to establish directives respecting the use of physical means during the course of a GSS interrogation cannot be implied from the “necessity” defense. The “necessity” defense does not constitute a source of authority, allowing GSS investigators to make use physical means during the course of interrogations. The reasoning underlying our position is anchored in the nature of the “necessity” defense. This defense deals with deciding those cases involving an individual reaction to a given set of facts; It is an ad hoc endeavor, in reaction to a event. It is the result of an improvisation given the unpredictable character of the events… Thus, the very nature of the defense does not allow it to serve as the source of a general administrative power… The principle of “necessity” cannot serve as a basis of authority… An investigator who insists on employing these methods, or does so routinely, is exceeding his authority.

They also make a distinction between “justification” and “necessity” which I think would be useful for you.

I could go on, if you like.

For more reports see: Public Committee Against Torture in Israel

Fritz (d62210) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:54 am

JD:

Special circumstance. So if you’re torturing a guy and then you dead him, it’s then a capital case.

Odd that you think no one will ever be put into the position of having decide between saving innocent lives and putting their own life at risk when, of course, that is what people in our armed forces do all the time.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:57 am

Fritz – What our men and women in the military and intelligence services do is drastically and dramatically different than choosing to subject oneself to the whims of the judiciary and juries. Your refusal to recognize that shows the lack of sincerity and seriousness on your part.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 10:39 am

“Don’t juries sentence defendants in death penalty cases? Don’t juries sentence defendants in military cases? Isn’t torture in an intelligence capacity a military case? Don’t judges when sentencing in other cases take mitigating factors into account?”
No. No. No. And only mitigating factors recognized by law.

Again, Fritz, you don’t know what you are talking about.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/7/2007 @ 11:21 am

SPQR:

Source, please.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/7/2007 @ 11:26 am

SPQR – I suspect you know the contours of your ceiling quite well by now.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 11:29 am

whims of the judiciary and juries

So, is what you’re saying that we can trust one part of the government to torture and effectively administer torture programs but we can’t trust another part of the same government to judge torturers or judge torture programs? What possible oversite of torture programs would there be, then?

My second question begs the question of how corrosive allowing legalized torture would be to our laws and institutions.

I’m no lawyer, but I thought this was interesting, from 108 EASY MITIGATING FACTORS:

In United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738, 2005 WL 50108 (Jan. 12, 2005), the Supreme
Court held that the sentencing guidelines are advisory only, not mandatory. The other factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3555 (a) must also be considered in fashioning the appropriate sentence. See
United States v. Ameline, ___ F.3d ____, 2005 WL ______, U.S. App. LEXIS 2032 (9th
Cir. Feb. 9, 2005) (advisory guideline range is “only one of many factors that a
sentencing judge must consider in determining an appropriate individualized sentence”).
These factors include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics
of the defendant, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to
promote respect for law and to provide just punishment for the offense, to afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; to
provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other
correctional treatment in the most effective manner, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing
disparities, and to provide restitution to the victims. Booker at 19; Hence, this paper now uses
the term “mitigating factors” instead of “downward departures.” See Dissent of Justice Stevens
in Booker at 35 (“there can be no departure from a mere suggestion.”).

Fritz (d62210) — 11/7/2007 @ 11:40 am

Fritz – As WLS pointed out in the other thread, and you proposition is a picture perfect example of it, it is the “judicialization of warfare”. Our court system is not the place for these actions to be carried out. It seems as though you have a fundamental mistrust of the intelligence services, and their ability to monitor these actions. You act like we will be waterboarding (not torture) jaywalkers rather than interrogating unlawful combatants who are trying to kill the men and women of our military, and innocent civilians both at home, and abroad.

I do not know why I bother. I could cut and paste your last 43 comments, and arrive at your next non-response.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 11:49 am

JD, that and the texture of the nearest brick wall.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/7/2007 @ 11:51 am

SPQR – Go yell at that brick wall for a while. There is a better chance of it understanding the differences between war and criminal prosecution than Senor Mondale.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 11:58 am

That form of “waterboarding” is not what is being discussed, and not what we have done to 3 people.

How do you know? Are you privy to classified information that Judge Mukasey is not?

nor heard of today’s practices being done as described in Asano, with a stretcher. It is your claim, and thus, your burden of proof.

Actually, my claim, which you are unable to dispute with any persuasiveness, is that the US has previously taken the position that waterboarding is a war crime. You are now flailing about and asserting that there is a relevant distinction between what Asano did and your idea of what the US does now. Thus it is actually your burden to explain the distinction and establish its relevance. Apparently you think the stretcher somehow makes the difference, though of course you are unable to explain why and do not even attempt to do so.

How do you know in the final analysis which charges resulted in the guily verdict since there wewre so many?

This question is completely irrelevant to my claim that the US took the position that waterboarding is torture. Consult with JD. He appears to understand this at least some of the time, though he gets confused himself sometimes, as we see here:

Your position is that waterboarding, in and of itself, is torture, because you say so.

Wrong again. My position is that the US government has taken the position that waterboarding is a a war crime, and can not now claim that it is not without a compelling justification.

It is a wonder that non-lawyers get tired of lawyers trying to tell us that we do not see what we are seeing.

Yes, defending your partisan and emotional position against someone deploying cold facts and logic can be frustrating.

Moops (444e9b) — 11/7/2007 @ 12:59 pm

Waterboarding is torture.

As a conservative, I fundamentally mistrust all government equally.

“Unlawful combatants” is already a kind of judicial determination stemming from a treaty (which the Senate had to approve).

Congress has the duty to regulate (make rule for the Government and Regulation) the military. Intelligence services are military in nature (signals intelligence is fundamental to military activities). The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over cases between “a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects” in addition to disputes arising from treaties that the United States is party to.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/7/2007 @ 1:11 pm

Wrong, moops. You may choose to read the findings in such an expansive way, but that does not make it correct. Moops, the US did not take a position that waterboarding was a war crime. It took the position that Asano was guilty of war crimes, and specified a laundry list of activities, that in conjunction, amounted to war crimes.

Why must there be a compelling justification for the government to change its position over a 60 year time frame (assuming your erroneous argument is correct) ? Is that the Moops standard?

Who is partisan other than you? You are taking an uber-expansive interpretation of a finding 60 years ago, claiming that they are the same when they are demonstrably not, and using that flawed basis to serve your pious “torture is wrong” meme.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 1:22 pm

Fritz – You are useless. At least Moops goes to the effort of trying to make us not believe that which we can see right in front of us. You just keep on asserting.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 1:23 pm

Fritz @ 181 – As I indicated in the other thread, you should have gone on, paericularly to paragraph 37 of the same document, which recommends a legislative solution to the dilemma faced by Israel.

How are you coming finding that citation or excerpt to the thousand of tortured terrorists from the document?

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:24 pm

daleyrocks – Minor correction. It was not thousands that were tortured, it was tens of thousands, according to Fritz. It was a torture party, with people just running around torturing each other.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:30 pm

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Torture already is a special circumstance!

Fritz (d62210) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:38 pm

From The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel’s reports:

Until the High Court of Justice ruling of September 1999, Israel’s security forces annually tortured hundreds of Palestinian detainees. According to official data the security forces interrogated approximately 23,000 Palestinians during the Intifada (1987-1993). The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel estimates that almost all the above detainees suffered from some form of torture during their interrogation.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:42 pm

Of the people who were party to the Israel supreme court case only one met the criteria of a “ticking-bomb” terrorist. The other six individuals were also tortured. Two were released without charges. Extrapolate from there. It’s clear to me from reading the case that the techniques used by the GSS were endemic and that everyone or nearly everyone who came into their custody was subject to those techniques. If they arrested tens of thousands of people and what came to be recognized as torture was SOP, then tens of thousands of people were tortured.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:46 pm

Fritz – You should be commended on your message discipline. You have not even attempted to look outside the bounds of that which you have presented.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:52 pm

And basically, Fritz’ source just made up the numbers.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:04 pm

JD, actually Fritz has not even bothered attempt to understand when its been pointed out that he is misunderstanding something.

SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:05 pm

I am not going to bother with him any longer, I promise. I know I said that before, and failed, miserably. He cites psychology textbooks, The Committee Against Torture, and http://www.stoptorture.org as dispassionate sources of material.

In the end, as WLS pointed out well, we never even have the discussion of whether waterboarding is torture, as they assume it to be, and proclaim it to be, and simply skip right on past that question.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:11 pm

Fritz @189 – What page of the Court case is that quote from?

“Of the people who were party to the Israel supreme court case only one met the criteria of a “ticking-bomb” terrorist. The other six individuals were also tortured. Two were released without charges. Extrapolate from there.”

The terrorists claim they were tortured, correct? Nothing was proved in court in all instances. Let’s get the facts straight. Rxtrapolating from a sample of three is not exactly a well regarding statistical methodology unless you’re the Lancet/Johns Hopkins trying to overstate Iraqi casualties.

Basically, you made your claim up.

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:30 pm

It took the position that Asano was guilty of war crimes, and specified a laundry list of activities, that in conjunction, amounted to war crimes.

No, it took the position that Asano committed war crimes, and listed the acts considered war crimes. There’s no evidence whatsoever for your assertion that somehow all those acts aggregated to constitute a single war crime. Is it really your position that the US thought that waterboarding by itself was ok, but when combined with a cigarette burn and a beating rose to the level of a war crime? If that’s the case then why does the specification say “water torture”, rather than “waterboarding and beating and cigarette burning aggregating to torture”.

Why must there be a compelling justification for the government to change its position over a 60 year time frame (assuming your erroneous argument is correct) ? Is that the Moops standard?

If by “Moops” you mean “rational”. Usually if you change your position you have to give a reason for doing so if you want anyone to take you seriously. Has something about human physiology changed in the last 60 years?

using that flawed basis to serve your pious “torture is wrong” meme.

Surely you can do me the favor of pointing out where I actually said that.

I’ll spell the point out for you yet again. The US claimed waterboarding was a war crime/torture in 1948. Now it claims the opposite. If it can’t provide a compelling justification, the rational conclusion is that there is no reason other than expediency.

You keep whining about how the libruls are passing over the question of whether waterboarding is torture, and here I am giving you a reason to think that it is, and all you have in response is empty hand-waving.

Moops (444e9b) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:35 pm

You can only hold that position by ignoring all of the other factors that went into one 60 year old finding.

JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:47 pm

Fritz’s The Public Committee Against Torture In Israel appears to be an affiliate of Anmesty International. The quote Fritz included in comment 198 conveniently excluded the types of things the PCATI considers torture immediately below it from the website. The prisoner numbers are not sourced to any government document, although the website claims they are government figures.

Until the High Court of Justice ruling of September 1999, Israel’s security forces annually tortured hundreds of Palestinian detainees. According to official data the security forces interrogated approximately 23,000 Palestinians during the Intifada (1987-1993). The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel estimates that almost all the above detainees suffered from some form of torture during their interrogation.

The methods of interrogation and torture frequently used by the GSS include:

Tying up detainee in painful positions for hours or days on end.
Solitary Confinement.
Confinement in tiny cubicles.
Beatings.
Violent “shaking”.
Deprivation of sleep and food.
Exposure to cold or heat.
Verbal, sexual and psychological abuse.
Threats against the individual or the individual’s family.
Lack of adequate clothing or hygiene.

Fritz – The problem with taking people like you seriously is your dishonesty in presenting claims and information. A staightforward presentation, revealing biases and sources is always better than the way you have conducted yourself.

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:04 pm

Moops,

Pablo and JD, one follow-up. Both of you have attempted to argue that US waterboarding practices differ in some relevant way from what Asano was accused of. Since even Judge Mukasey has not been briefed on the details of the practice, I’m curious as to how you two savants gained such specific knowledge.

I read the testimony against him. And you?

Yet again, thanks for playing.

Pablo (99243e) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:12 pm

Oh, and thanks for completely ignoring that “water torture” was just one part of what Asano was convicted of.

Pablo (99243e) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:14 pm

Daleyrocks,

Please note, your out of hand dismissal of the Public Committtee Against Torture in Israel is an informal ad hominem fallacy. If you have something dispositive, please enlighten us.

From, Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human
Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, Interrogation Procedures Section:

If the Government wished to permit GSS to utilize such methods, the justices added, the Knesset would have to enact the relevant legislation. However, any such legislation would have to accord with the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, which stated that any infringement on human liberty was permitted only with legislation “befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for an appropriate purpose, and to an extent no greater than required”.

How many innocent people against which no charges have ever been brought are you willing to torture? 2, 20, 200, 2000?

News story: Israeli government report admits systematic torture of Palestinians.

Fritz (d62210) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:10 am

Fritz – I didn’t dismiss rhem out of hand. You claimed you figures had some authoritative support rather than having been manufactured by the fevered imagination of an advocacy group known for distortion. I guess you could say it’s my fault for not recognizing the name as an advocacy group, but you were not forthcoming in the source of your information or the laughable definition of “torture” you omitted from below your pull quote.

AI was putting out report about torture and conditions at Guantanamo wothout having ever visited the facility, as were other human rights groups. They have just about zero credibility with me based on their conduct. If they want to be taken seriously, they should act seriously not not issue propaganda.

daleyrocks (906622) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:22 am

From Ha’aretz, January 18, 2000, by ARYEH DAYAN

The Landau report did restrict the use of physical force to those exceptional cases in which it was necessary to save human lives, but B’Tselem has determined that according to estimates, in the 12 years that have passed since the Landau Commission sought to limit the scope of use of force during interrogations, GSS interrogators have tortured thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Palestinians. According to official figures, from 1987 to 1994, the GSS interrogated some 23,000 Palestinians. Based on a survey of cases handled by Hamoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual in 1996-1997, B’Tselem estimates that some 85 percent of persons interrogated by the GSS were interrogated by methods constituting torture. In an interview with the Voice of Israel, quoted in Ha’aretz of July 30, 1995, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that “shaking” had been used against 8,000 detainees.

From, Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, Spring, 2001 (9 Cardozo J. Int’l & Comp. L. 41), by Amnon Reichman:

The failure of the courts and neighboring legal institutions to effectively monitor the GSS (at least in the absence of clear legislation) is exemplified in the attempt of the State Comptroller to address the matter in a report on the GSS interrogation facilities. The report, covering 1988-1992, was submitted to the Knesset in 1995 and made public only in February 2000, n67 after the GSS decision was handed down. The State Comptroller at the time, Mrs. Ben-Porat, a retired Supreme Court justice, conducted a thorough investigation of some GSS facilities and found large-scale violations of the directives (the Landau Report guidelines) by GSS investigators. According to the report, GSS investigators employed force not only in ‘ticking bomb’ situations but also when no immediate danger was perceived. Moreover, they lied about the circumstances to their superiors and to the courts.

From Reichman’s paper, footnote #67:

The irregularities were not, for the most part, the result of not knowing the line between the permissible and the forbidden, but rather were committed knowingly. Veteran and even senior interrogators in the facility in Gaza committed severe and systematic deviations [from the regulations]. During the inspection period, senior Shin Bet commanders did not prevent these irregularities, whether by allowing the use of pressure methods not included in the file compiled by the Landau Commission, by ignoring restrictions with which the Landau Commission qualified the permits [for using ‘moderate physical pressure’] or by refraining from rooting out these practices, as required by their position (quoting from the State Comptroller’s Report).”

From, Emory International Law Review, Fall, 2006 (20 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 699), by Jordana S. Rubel:

As the Commission pointed out, Israel could have simply turned a blind eye to the GSS’s activities, which would have allowed GSS interrogators to continue to use physical means of interrogation and then perjure themselves in court. n135 Instead, the Commission recognized that GSS officers had used physical means of interrogation in the past and were going to use them in the future. n136 The Commission sought to create a coherent theoretical justification for the use of physical means of interrogation, while at the same time placing limits on the scope and severity of physical and psychological means of interrogation that would be permitted. The Israeli Knesset adopted the Landau Commission’s recommendation in full in November of 1987. n137

Despite the Commission’s good intentions, during the time period in which the Landau Commission’s recommendations were in place, many Palestinian detainees were subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment. n138 Surveys of detainees showed that as many as 85% of detainees were interrogated using torturous or inhuman methods. n139 A report by former Israeli State Comptroller Miriam Ben-Porat, written in 1995 and made public in 2000, stated that under the policies recommended by the Landau Commission, there was widespread [*717] use of techniques that exceeded the moderate physical pressure the Commission permitted. n140 Veteran interrogators used these techniques and systematically permitted their subordinates to use these techniques. n141 These techniques were not used only on detainees suspected of planting bombs or committing criminal offenses; they were allegedly used against political activists, religious leaders, relatives of persons listed as “wanted,” and other people the GSS was trying to label as collaborators. n142

Fritz (d62210) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:45 am

I read the testimony against him. And you?

Yep, and it clearly supports my position. Next time try actually making an argument rather than just ignoring that the testimony clearly indicates that pouring water over a prisoner’s mouth and nostrils was considered torture. Clearly you don’t understand the role of specifications in a criminal trial. Thanks for playing the Washington Generals’ role yet again!

Moops (444e9b) — 11/8/2007 @ 2:22 pm

Oh, and thanks for completely ignoring that “water torture” was just one part of what Asano was convicted of.

Considering the argument is about what he was charged with, not convicted of, thanks for bringing up an irrelevant point! How arrogant of me not to address something that has no bearing on my claim!

Moops (444e9b) — 11/8/2007 @ 2:24 pm

Wrong again, Moops.

! [We] were strapped to stretchers and warm water poured down our nostrils until we were about ready to pass out

! [They] strapped him to a stretcher and elevated his feet and then poured on his face so that it was almost impossible for him to get his breath.

! [The victim] was then taken into the corridor, strapped to a stretcher, which was tilted so
that his head was toward the floor and feet resting on a nearby sink. Water was then
poured down his nose and mouth for about twenty minutes…

KSM, the world record holder, went 2 minutes. Are you really stupid and dishonest enough to equate what Asano and Co. did (while dutifully ignoring the rest of the list) with what was done to KSM, Moops?

Considering the argument is about what he was charged with, not convicted of, thanks for bringing up an irrelevant point!

Are you an idiot or just reading comprehension challenged? I’m going to say both. The entire point of your argument is that we convicted Asano for doing it, therefore it must be illegal. The facts that 1) it isn’t the same thing, 2) it was done to Uniformed POW’s in violation of the GC’s and 3)that it was but one item in a list of abuses notwithstanding.

You are an interminable tool, Moops, but you make a nice piñata.

Pablo (99243e) — 11/9/2007 @ 6:31 am

11/2/2007

Re those NeoCon GOP Senators from New York and California — Schumer and Feinstein

215 Responses to “Re those NeoCon GOP Senators from New York and California — Schumer and Feinstein”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out