Live by the Dish, die by the Dish.

Live like the Dish, die like the Dish...FIFY

by his Japanese captors.[71] At their trial for war crimes following the war, he testified "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again... I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."[31]

The Khmer Rouge at the Tuol Sleng prison in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, used waterboarding as a method of torture between 1975 and 1979.[81] The practice was documented in a painting by former inmate Vann Nath, which is on display in the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum. The museum also has on display boards and other actual tools used for waterboarding during the Khmer Rouge regime

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.

Interesting article from Sullivan's misapplied source. WARNING! Not a win for the torturistos.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6201378.ece

Great article bryanD

a letter from:

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.)
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88

"We write Because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal."

You lefties say tomayto and I say tomahto. ww

Great article bryanD
7. Posted by jmc

It's funny. The torturistos at Powerline are reduced to arguing "Obama is basically right, but TECHNICAL FOUL!"

In waterboarding a large amount of water enters the victim's body such that at the end of the process the victim suffers the aftereffects of someone who was drowning as documented in the war crimes trials following the WW2. In the CIA's simulated waterboarding little if any water enters the victim's body such that they don't suffer any of the aftereffects of drowning such as coughing up or vomiting water.

Waterboarding is torture, simulated waterboarding is not torture. Obama's aircraft doing a flyby over New York simulated a terrorist attack, and while it caused panic, it wasn't a real attack. Simulated waterboarding causes the same panic as real waterboarding, but there is no drowning.

Stealthily lobbing hellfire missiles into Packistani homes with women and children present is an atrocity. Subjecting the very masterminds of terror to enhanced interrogation techniques is a simulated atrocity.

jmc: "The Khmer Rouge at the Tuol Sleng prison in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, used waterboarding as a method of torture between 1975 and 1979"

Yup. We all recall how they always made sure that there was a physician standing by...and how they had those strict guidelines on how many time...and for how long the method could be applied. The Japanese also took great pains to ensure no harm was done as well...right?

By the way, the Khmer Rouge ate rice...and the Japanese eat rice...and I eat rice! Does that make me a torturer???

As I mentioned before, whether you are imprisoned in an AMERICAN prison or on Devil's Island during its "heyday", in both cases you would be IMPRISONED! The vast difference in the two experiences is pretty important!

Even if you have no qualms about torture shouldn't our stated public policy be that we don't -- even if just for the sake of public relations? It puts a big burden on our allies. It's just not accepted around the world -- it hasn't been for centuries and our allies can't change that anytime soon even if they wanted to (as nutty as that sounds).

"America does not torture."
~George Bush

Bush said that torture wasn't going on. As an average voter, if you supported George Bush no one holds you personally responsible for things that happened secretly and things he subsequently lied about once they became public knowledge.

Sometimes leaders have to fall on their own swords. That's the risk they take.

Adrian Browne: "Even if you have no qualms about torture..."

Your Strawman needs more STRAW!

I have HUGE qualms about "torture".

I have also have HUGE qualms about Y-O-U (and/or any of your misbegotten ilk) being the judges of what CONSTITUTES "torture"

You and your misguided brethren like to throw around the "Geneva Convention" as the guide for what we can and cannot do. Right? Of course that says we can ONLY ask them for:
"surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number"

And as far as asking prisoners subject to the Geneva Convention ANYTHING else, that's covered too:
"Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

so the question for you, Adrian Browne is this: do you believe the TERRORISTS we capture (sorry, the new cutesy-pie term escapes me) should be allowed to clam up without fear of any "unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind"???

Because if you ascribe to the f**ked up notion that these vermin ARE entitled to those protections then that's all we can do.

Winston Churchill stated they do not torture despite that this war is unlike any war in history.

Torture and Cannibalism were the only two expedients that the civilized, Scientific, Christian States had been able to deny themselves: and these were of doubtful utility.

You can read it below in its full context.

The Great War through which we have passed differed from all ancient wars...No truce or parley mitigated the strife of armies. the wounded died between the lines; the dead mouldered into the soil. Merchant ships and neutral ships and hospital ships were sunk on the seas and all aboard left to their fate, or killed as they swam. Every effort was made to starve whole nations into submission without regard to age or sex. Cities and monuments were smashed by artillery. Bombs from the air were cast down indiscriminately. Poison gas in many forms stifled or seared the soldiers. Liquid fire was projected upon their bodies. Men fell from the air in flames, or were smothered, often slowly, in the dark recesses of the sea. The fighting strength of armies was limited only by the manhood of their countries. Europe and large parts of Africa and Asia became one vast battlefield on which after years of struggle not armies but nations broke and ran. When all was over, Torture and Cannibalism were the only two expedients that the civilized, Scientific, Christian States had been able to deny themselves: and these were of doubtful utility.

President Reagan had Obama and the rest of the far left pegged so long ago:

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."

Even if you have no qualms about torture shouldn't our stated public policy be that we don't -- even if just for the sake of public relations? It puts a big burden on our allies. It's just not accepted around the world -- it hasn't been for centuries and our allies can't change that anytime soon even if they wanted to (as nutty as that sounds).

For the sake of public relations? '
Adriane, I never thought I'd see
even you low rate the struggle of winning
against terror to such a superficial level.

Watched the RINO party at the strip mall in Virginia. Your party is humming on all cylinders . . . in admitting they are out of power and out of ideas. I think I liked them better when they bitched and moaned. This was pathetic.

You must be so proud.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."

How ironic that you posted this right after post #15!

Post #15 proves the premise of Kims' article isn't so.

Tina S,

Of course the British didn't use torture in WW2 according to Winston Churchill just as the United States didn't use torture according to George Bush. The British did use enhanced interrogation techniques and many of the same ones the United States used under Bush. It all goes back to the definition of torture, which continues to change. Under current U.S. law kids in school detention are coming close to being tortured. A few more years and a parent sending their kid to bed without supper will be considered torture.

I am very proud of my beliefs Dickhead. It has nothing to do with popularity. That is your party. "Please like me, pretty please." What kind of sad self esteem makes you cower and flinch in the presence of our enemies. You lefties are doing what Osama said we would do. And North Vietnam come to think of it. Our enemies know that a certain segment of our society are more concerned about image than winning. ww

I understand what Adrian is saying.

The leadership of this nation should not implicate the People in whatever extremities the leadership feels itself bound to take.

Does that help, Maggie?

Bush said that torture wasn't going on. As an average voter, if you supported George Bush no one holds you personally responsible for things that happened secretly and things he subsequently lied about once they became public knowledge.

Bush didn't lie, Obama just redefined torture. The next President could redefine torture to include some of the techniques in the Army Field manual and then we could all say Obama lied about using torture. It's nothing but a transparent political ploy by Obama to sedate those on the left still suffering from BDS. If there's another 9/11 type attack anytime soon Obama and the left in general will pay a high political price for indulging in their mindless Bush bashing.

So, in summary, JMC and BrianD give us this argument in response to Kim's posting, "Fake, but accurate". Can anybody remind me of where I've heard that before?

BTW, unlawful combatants are not afforded protection under the Genvea Conventions. Interrogation followed by summary execution is in-bounds. It seems to me that a bunch of those detainees at Gitmo were classified as Unlawful Combatants, and yet they still live.

The Agency also seems to have told the OLC that the waterboarding technique was routinely used by the U.S. military to train thousands of service personnel in Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) -- and that those who went through the training had not suffered any lasting physical or mental health effects. In the 2002 memo, Bybee notes the CIA's assurance that "a medical expert with SERE experience will be present" when Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded, to prevent severe mental or physical harm. However, the IG investigation found that the waterboarding technique used on the CIA's detainees was significantly different from that used in the SERE program: most notably, the Agency's interrogators used much larger volumes of water.

The IG also cites the CIA's Office of Medical Services (OMS) in saying that the "the expertise of the SERE psychologists/interrogators ... was probably misrepresented." The IG concluded: "Consequently, according to OMS, there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used ... was either efficacious or medically safe." In fact, the IG report also hints that the CIA didn't consult the OMS on waterboarding until quite late: "OMS was neither consulted nor involved in the initial analysis of the risk and benefits of [enhanced interrogation techniques]."

Those damn pesky facts keep getting in the way of what the far-right wants to believe.

Who knew Reagan also thought the far-right had to be stopped?

"By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture."

-Ronald Reagan on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Justrand,
Nobody thinks that our government doesn't do things like torture every day -- I'm sure that the Obama Administration is doing all sorts of illegal things far worse than that. But the problem is that the Bush Administration didn't keep it secret. They allowed people to take photos and write letters home about it. You can see the photos. You can see the letters. You can read the memos. You can read the reports. It's too bad but there is the perception that it happened -- that's the problem that we have to deal with now. You can't just tell people that their eyes are lying to them.

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

It's good to know that Reagan had the foresight to try and reign in the far-right.

Those damn pesky facts keep getting in the way of what the far-right wants to believe.

The CIA's warterboarding technique doesn't force ingestion of water unlike real waterboarding. That damn pesky fact keep getting in the way of what the far-left wants to believe.

a browne - "Nobody thinks that our government doesn't do things like torture every day

Then your misinformed via not reading anything except U.S. based news outlets.

It's a very common theme for editorial boards and news sites across Asia, the EU and the Middle East.

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental. . .

Obviously, less than severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental is NOT torture. Good thing Reagan had the foresight to try and reign in the far-left or we would be charging school administrators with torture for putting kids in detention.

Now it looks like mac in his desperation to avoid those pesky facts, is lying about the method of waterboarding used.

Thanks bryanD for your interpretation, I'm
sure Adriane will also want to give his
meaning.

Obviously, less than severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental is NOT torture.

In Chile, they called it submarino, a form of simulated drowning that has much the same effect as what we call waterboarding. During Augusto Pinochet's 17-year-long dictatorship, thousands of Chileans were detained by the military and subjected to torture. During the submarino, they were forcibly submerged in a tank of water, over and over again... After Pinochet's fall in 1990, the new civilian government in Chile investigated incidents of alleged torture, and found deep scars. Years after they were tortured, submarino victims were still haunted. A 2007 study in the International Review of the Red Cross found that "the acute suffering produced during the immediate infliction of the submarino is superseded by the often unbearable fear of repeating the experience. In the aftermath, it may lead to horrific memories that persist in the form of recurrent 'drowning nightmares.'"

Kinda shoots your argument to hell doesn't it mac? I think Hitchens has those nightmares now.

Now it looks like jmc in his desperation to avoid those pesky facts is pretending there's no difference in the methods of waterboarding used. Self-imposed ignorance just so he can play his game.

Did anyone else know that Reagan was such an obama bot? Looks like he would have followed the one.

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

In Chile, they called it submarino, a form of simulated drowning that has much the same effect as what we call waterboarding.

The CIA tecnique is simulated waterboarding, not simulated drowning. Kinda shoots your argument to hell doesn't it jmc?

Now it looks like jmc in his desperation to avoid those pesky facts is pretending there's no difference in the methods of waterboarding used. Self-imposed ignorance just so he can play his game.

translation: I mac, have no proof that htere is any difference..

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

But of course simulated waterboarding is not torture.

marc,
I used a double negative and, as usual, my sentence was poorly worded. I meant "everyone knows that our government does things like torture." And not just our government but every government. They have to.

We know that from history books, as well as, international news sources, as you say.

The problem here is that because of the electronic media we found out about these things as soon as it happened. My first post, #13, asked the question -- should our public policy be that we're okay with torture? Isn't it to our benefit to disavow it publicly even if that means throwing the Bush Administration under the bus? And if the Obama Administration doesn't keep their illegal activities secret we'll have to do the same with them.

translation: I mac, have no proof that htere is any difference.

translation: I jmc, have no proof that there is not any difference.

Maggiee,
I hope #40 helps clarify my original comment. I'm just asking the question.

The CIA tecnique is simulated waterboarding, not simulated drowning. Kinda shoots your argument to hell doesn't it jmc?

Luckily for mac, he makes up for a lack of facts, with bad logic.

If the methods are different in each kind of waterboarding(which you won't show any evidence for), what makes a person talk? Ahh, the common denominator, the victim thinks feels like they are drowning in both cases.

Now what was causing all that mental anguish again? Reoccuring dreams of suffocation and drowning!!! So it is the belief that you are drowning that causes the mental anguish. and mental anguish as we know according to the obamabot reagan is torture.

Kinda shot your argument right back to hell didn't I mac?

translation: I jmc, have no proof that there is not any difference.

In an effort to further demonstrate he doesn't understand logic mac will now show his ignorance of the burden of proof.

See mac in logic the burden of proof is to prove something is true. The burden of proof is not on a person to prove something is not true.

meaning since it is established waterboarding was used and you are claiming a special very nice method of waterboarding is being used it is up to you to prove it.

jmc: "The burden of proof is not on a person to prove something is not true.
."

Exactly. The details of our meticulous method of extracting information using a technique we call "water-boarding" have been released by the Obama regime. As detailed, the method does not constitute "torture".

In THIS country we believe a person is "innocent until proven guilty". Therefore we must presume those who performed the procdeure are "innocent"...and it is up to you, High Inquisitor, to prove them "guilty".

have at it, boyo

If the methods are different in each kind of waterboarding(which you won't show any evidence for), what makes a person talk? Ahh, the common denominator, the victim thinks feels like they are drowning in both cases.

I explained the difference back in post #11. The common denominator is panic. In real waterboarding the victim is ingesting water and is in fact drowning. In simulated waterboarding the victim ingests little water and so they are not drowning.

Kinda shot your argument right back to hell didn't I jmc?

and let me paraphrase what I posted on the other thread...since it now applies HERE!
********

How do we KNOW that no crimes were committed??? Because Eric Kolder (AG) and Barak Hussein Obama (Prez) say no crimes were committed!! There are only 3 choices as to why they would say such a thing:
(a) they're LYING about no crimes having been committed
(b) they're SHIRKING their responsibility even though they believe crimes WERE committed
(c) they're TELLING THE TRUTH that no crimes were committed!!

There's no (D).
I choose (C)...because if either (A) or (B) is the case then these "honorable" men would be in violation of the oath they took!

Exactly. The details of our meticulous method of extracting information using a technique we call "water-boarding" have been released by the Obama regime. As detailed, the method does not constitute "torture".

Good then you will be happy to backup your claim with those meticulous details.

In THIS country we believe a person is "innocent until proven guilty". Therefore we must presume those who performed the procdeure are "innocent"...and it is up to you, High Inquisitor, to prove them "guilty".

Another one who neither understands, logic nor our justice system. Uh no. The only thing that has been established is that waterboarding occured, and that water-boarding is a certain method. (I am happy to provide evidence if you don't beleive) You, who are playing games, are making a claim you refuse to backup with evidence(That the CIA didn't do real waterboarding) it is not my resposability to prove your claims for you. I claim the CIA waterboarded, and I make claims as to what weaterboarding is. If you are saying they did something different you have to prove it.

have it... Boyo!

I explained the difference back in post #11. The common denominator is panic. In real waterboarding the victim is ingesting water and is in fact drowning. In simulated waterboarding the victim ingests little water and so they are not drowning.

Hmm, good point... now what causes that panic again ? Hmm... what could it be? oh right! the victim feels like they are drowning. Now what was the mental anguish again...? Re-occuring nightmares and panic attacks of suffocation and drowning!!

oh btw since panic is mental anguish, and mental anguish is torture, you proved yourself wrong without my refuation.

Looks like you shot your own argument back to hell. You didn't even need me to do it for you this time.

meaning since it is established waterboarding was used and you are claiming a special very nice method of waterboarding is being used it is up to you to prove it.

From post #3: "The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on." The towel wrapped around the face prevents the water from running away quickly. As water is poured on the level rises and starts to cover the victim's mouth and nose. At that point the victim starts to ingest water and is in fact drowning. The CIA doesn't use the towel wrapped around the face, only over it, and thus, the water runs away quickly and the victim ingest little more water than they would while taking a shower. Drowning is torture, simulated drowning is not torture.

If you knew anything about proof I wouldn't need to show you the difference, and from your own post. Now according to your own rules the burden of proof is on you to show that the simulated waterboarding technique used by the CIA is torture.

I am absolutely positive that had Reagan had to face an enemy that wants to die to kill us would need special techniques to win that war. You extreme lefties are looking at 1980 eyes where all wars up to that time were from a nation, wearing a uniform with a country behind them. You extreme lefty putz's are either playint dumb or are dumb. ww

jmc: "mental anguish is torture"

Golly...then just THINK of all the "mental anguish" we saved good ole Khalid Sheik Mohamen from! Since THOUSANDS of Americans would have died in the destruction of the Library Tower and that would certainly have caused him "mental anguish".

oh btw since panic is mental anguish, and mental anguish is torture, you proved yourself wrong without my refuation.

You forgot that only severe mental pain is torture. If simulated waterboarding caused severe mental pain we wouldn't be using it on our own elite troops.

Looks like you shot your own argument back to hell jmc. You didn't even need me to do it for you this time.

last add from, jmc...the details of the CIA water-boarding procedures are ALL OVER THE NET (sadly). "Sadly, because now the enemy knows just how GENTLE the procedure is, compared to what others do.

If it is your claim that those procedures were NOT followed then PROVE IT! But since we have to assume they WERE followed (else our "splendid" AG and Prez would be prosecuting!) then no crime was committed! QED

From post #3: "The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on." The towel wrapped around the face prevents the water from running away quickly. As water is poured on the level rises and starts to cover the victim's mouth and nose. At that point the victim starts to ingest water and is in fact drowning. The CIA doesn't use the towel wrapped around the face, only over it, and thus, the water runs away quickly and the victim ingest little more water than they would while taking a shower. Drowning is torture, simulated drowning is not torture.

Now all you need to show is that,

a)the CIA method doesn't use towels
b) the method they do use doesn't cause water to be ingested
c) and that the method used doesn't cause mental anguish which according to Ronald Reagan is torture.

See logic is fun. You too can learn it if you apply yourself.

If you knew anything about proof I wouldn't need to show you the difference, and from your own post. Now according to your own rules the burden of proof is on you to show that the simulated waterboarding technique used by the CIA is torture.

First off the rules of logic are not my rules. they are the rules of logic and I suggest you read about them to prevent yourself from looking anymore idiotic. Secondly here is your proof:

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

Does the CIA waterboard?
CIA director Michael Hayden confirmed in an open session of Congress Tuesday his agency's use of an interrogation technique many consider torture -- a technique at the center of a national debate on the treatment of U.S. detainees in the war on terror and in the war in Iraq.

In acknowledging that CIA officers and contractors used waterboarding on three "high-value" detainees, Hayden revealed information nearly identical to that shared by a former CIA officer last December with ABC News, which prompted the CIA to request a criminal prosecution.

So what I have proven for those who don't understand logic. I have demonstrated what waterbarding is and that the CIA does it. Now mac comes along without any evidence and says the CIA didn't waterboard they did something else, like waterboarding, but not waterboarding. then not understanding logic like he is incapable of, asks me to go look it up for him.

last add from, jmc...the details of the CIA water-boarding procedures are ALL OVER THE NET (sadly).

Oh good. I'm sure you will be happy to post a ink to prove it.

that is link

JMC

"Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment. "

A. Generals cant designate something as illegal. It has be to stated as such in the UCMJ. They can however give orders to not do specific things.

b. Regardless if the military system says something is illegal the military was not waterboarding anyone at GITMO. It was done by civilians so your statement is not only incorrect but is a total red herring. There are plenty of things against the UCMJ where someone can get courtmartialed for (and as such have a felony on their record) that do not apply in civilian life. Not obeying special orders on guard duty come to mind as just one of dozens of examples that I could come up with if I wanted to waste my time.

c. "A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment. ""

SO THE HELL WHAT? This has NO bearing on what happened at GITMO. You do not mention the circumstances, reasons, or anything else of what took place nor do you even mention what the exact charges were against the soldier. As to "severe punishment" it could have been loss of pay for 2 weeks and 2 weeks extra duty. You might as well say that a soldier got punished for running a red light in 1922 and as such it means that everyone should get punished exactly as the soldier did.

Your statement is assinine. (as usual)

You forgot that only severe mental pain is torture. If simulated waterboarding caused severe mental pain we wouldn't be using it on our own elite troops.

Hmm, maybe we should ask a navy seal instructor if waterboarding is torture.

Navy Seal instructor Jim Nance

1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator. Our service members have to learn that the will to survive requires them accept and understand that they may be subjected to torture, but that America is better than its enemies and it is one's duty to trust in your nation and God, endure the hardships and return home with honor.

2. Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

And Nance knows what he's talking about. As an instructor at the Navy's training program for its special forces, Nance (full disclosure, a TPMm pal) confesses that he "personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people" -- not detainees, of course, but would-be SEALs, so they could learn how (hopefully) to resist torture. That training program, known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE), became a template for how to abuse detainees in U.S. custody.

Uh-oh it looks like the the logic that the U.S. forces didn't shoot my argument back to hell after all. That's too bad. I'm sure your arguments could use the company.

Now all you need to show is that,

a)the CIA method doesn't use towels
b) the method they do use doesn't cause water to be ingested
c) and that the method used doesn't cause mental anguish which according to Ronald Reagan is torture.

I gave proof of the difference between the two techniques. Torture is a legal definition and you are the one making the accusation of torture. The burden is on you to prove your accusation. Also, apparently you can't read as I wrote the CIA uses a tow over the face.

CIA director Michael Hayden confirmed in an open session of Congress Tuesday his agency's use of an interrogation technique many consider torture

Why don't you learn to read? "many consider torture" doesn't mean what the CIA did was actually torture. The discription you posted says "...over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water..."

Apparently the part about ingestion of water is beyond your ability to understand. Without ingestion of water there can be no drowning. If it were only about suffocation they could us a pillow.

JMC

Post 3

"by his Japanese captors.[71] At their trial for war crimes following the war, he testified "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again... I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."[31]"

Again SO WHAT.

Let's see.

Folks who parachute can claim that they feel like they were falling to their death.

People in amusement park rides can suffer heart attacks and die on thrill rides.

I dont see you calling either of the above 2 things torture or calling for arrests for folks doing either of those things.

Adrian Browne: "Even if you have no qualms about torture..."

Reading anythnig you write is torture. So go away before Obama's goon squads get you.

Navy Seal instructor Jim Nance . . .

It's just an opinion, not a legal finding. Likely Jim Nance never suffered real waterboarding or he would know the difference.

If I post the opinion of someone who says the CIA technique is not torture will you accept that as proof. If so I'll do that. If not, then your argument falls flat on it's face once more.

Rm,

the quote was ABCnews. If you have evidence that proves they were wrong about what the generals did I would like to see it.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870

The siolder was court martialed. Which is also covered in the article. I assumed severe punishment would be enough to figure it out. I was wrong apparently about that you need much more to figure things out.

As for the fact that military prosecuted for waterboarding that is only meant to be one piece of evidence to get through that thick skull of yours. Take it with Reagan signing against torture. Take it with U.S. prosecuting the japanese for war crimes for it. Take the fact that freaking PoL Pot did it and maybe the through all that density a small part will reach your brain.

As for the fact that military prosecuted for waterboarding that is only meant to be one piece of evidence to get through that thick skull of yours. Take it with Reagan signing against torture. Take it with U.S. prosecuting the japanese for war crimes for it. Take the fact that freaking PoL Pot did it and maybe the through all that density a small part will reach your brain.

That's why the CIA found a way to simulate waterboarding.

It's just an opinion, not a legal finding. Likely Jim Nance never suffered real waterboarding or he would know the difference.

Said to rebut your opinoin that this isn't torture, because the military does it. Also explain to me why I should take your word over what is 'real' waterboarding over that of a navy seal instructor who has performed hundreds?

If I post the opinion of someone who says the CIA technique is not torture will you accept that as proof.

The expert Jim Nance, said it is not only torture it is not simulated. So if you could post something that shows the CIA is doing simulated waterboarding (Something you refuse to do because you know it is bullsh**t) Then sure I will at least listen to it.

but since we know you will never do that, (you wern't lying about it were you?) We will just look at the floor where arguments seem to live.

Here's real waterboarding. Note that water ingestion is always part of it.

During World War II, water cure was among the forms of torture used by Japanese troops (especially the Kempeitai) in occupied territory. A report from the postwar International Military Tribunal for the Far East summarized it as follows:

"The so-called 'water treatment' was commonly used. The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach until he lost consciousness. Pressure was then applied, sometimes by jumping upon his abdomen to force the water out. The usual practice was to revive the victim and successively repeat the process." [19]

The tribunal also reported the case of a prisoner being tortured in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies: ]

"A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.

The expert Jim Nance, said it is not only torture it is not simulated.

It's still just an opinion and others are on record saying it's not torture. If you'll accept my posting their opinion as proof then I'll do that. If not, then you agree that an opinion is not proof and your argument takes yet another hit.

I've noticed a trend in these comments.

Wizbang blogger posts a thread, in this case, "Obama was wrong about quote from Churchill" and what happens?

"Fake but accurate!" becomes the meme, gets tossed aside quickly, and the subject is changed.

Folks, quit falling for it, please?

I wish I could edit Wizbangblog. I'd start removing all off topic comments and deleting everything that was an attempt to shout, "Hey, look over there!"

Obama read Sully who pretended that Churchill said something he didn't.

Get over it lefties.

I gave proof of the difference between the two techniques. Torture is a legal definition and you are the one making the accusation of torture. The burden is on you to prove your accusation. Also, apparently you can't read as I wrote the CIA uses a tow over the face.

You demonstrated the Japanese put a tow over the face. You did not demonstrate. that the CIa doesn't do that. You did not demonstrate that thire method is any different at all are you lying or just scared to post a link?

Why don't you learn to read? "many consider torture" doesn't mean what the CIA did was actually torture. The discription you posted says "...over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water..."

Yes, Waterboarding, is forced suffocation and the inhalation of water, the CIA waterboards..

it's kind of like those IQ tests you scored so low on mac:

Q) If the Waterboarding is suffocation and forced inhalation of water. And Jimmy waterboards little Sarah then:

a) Jimmy, caused suffucation and inhalation of water on Sarah
b) mac struggles iwth logic.
c) the CIA caused suffocation and water inhalation in those they waterboarded.
d) all of the above.

Apparently the part about ingestion of water is beyond your ability to understand. Without ingestion of water there can be no drowning. If it were only about suffocation they could us a pillow.

But they cause the inhalation of water that is what waterboarding is. and CIa Waterboards. Again basic logic.

It's still just an opinion and others are on record saying it's not torture. If you'll accept my posting their opinion as proof then I'll do that. If not, then you agree that an opinion is not proof and your argument takes yet another hit.

Good lord, now you don't even understand your own arguments.

Mac argues, "Waterboarding is not torture we do it to our troops"

This is an opinion which Mac admits proves nothing.

I then counter with expert opnion: Which has more weight because it is the opnion of an expert and now Mac cries about it inadvertenly destryoing his own argument...again.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim's face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

I just received this e-mail from Emily Litella of the Obama White House Verisimilitude Division:

Wade Churchill, folks, he meant Wade Churchill.

Never mind, OK?

Now jmc, I am a doctor, I have NOT observed waterboarding American style, but I have read extensively from reputable sources on the techniques, and your description is inaccurate. No, its a lie.

I have repeatedly trained completed HEEDS Training, Underwater Egress Training, and I've been trapped under my sailboat in a storm on Lake Michigan for several minutes (no air pocket) tangled in rigging. You don't have to get water in your lungs to experience terror of drowning, and it takes a certain mindset as well as training to overcome that terror and behave rationally to save yourself and others.

Thanks to the release of memos and undying media attention, there is no question that our enemies can train themselves in a detailed fashion to tolerate American Style waterboarding. Aren't you all proud and happy?

Now jmc, I am a doctor, I have NOT observed waterboarding American style, but I have read extensively from reputable sources on the techniques, and your dt i thinescription is inaccurate. No, its a lie.

Why do you hate the military? Why would you call a navy Seal trainer who has performed ovre 150 waterboarding training sessions a liar? You know what I think he is an expert and you are a liar.

As a Defender of Torture, Mr Lorry is obligated to defend the position that, if a specific interrogation practice is slightly less horrific than those practiced by Stalin, Pol Pot, or Torquemada, it's perfectly acceptable.

After all, the Comanches used to flay captives alive. And don't even get me started on the Huns. So what's the big deal about a little "simulated" drowning?

Because if you are the guy that the "simulation" is being practiced on, you're in on it, right?

Mr Lorry, pardon me, but do you even know what "simulation" means?

Because the Air Force guy in the Flight "Simulator" knows that he's not really flying, and the SERE candidate KNOWS he's not really being tortured, but a detainee doesn't.

Bruce Henry sticks his head up out of the hole he has been hiding in.

Dont you still owe Kim an apology from when you claimed she was pulling things out of her ass and was promptly proven that you were full of crap.

BTW I still need your address so I can send you the $2 that were confiscated in tax money to help pay my benefits, salary, retirment pay, and job training.

For all the service members who have given their lives so that you can exercise your free speech on these boards to state your tax dollars goes to their job training in civilian life I wholeheartedly say

SCREW YOU.

Bruce Henry
"Because the Air Force guy in the Flight "Simulator" knows that he's not really flying, and the SERE candidate KNOWS he's not really being tortured, but a detainee doesn't"

Gee are you speaking about guys whom are getting benefits from your tax dollars to better their civilian job training?

Why dont you shut your pie hole as your dishoner their service by even mentioning them.

ASSHAT

JMC

"Rm,

the quote was ABCnews. If you have evidence that proves they were wrong about what the generals did I would like to see
"

I dont need proof to know when they are wrong.

Try serving in the freaking military and you would know they are wrong. Stop BLINDLY following what ABC NEws (oh they dont have an agenda now do they) tells you lock stock and barrel.

"The siolder was court martialed"

What was he courtmartialed for? What were the EXACT charges? Oh wait they dont say. THey give a generic statement. "he was courtmartialed for waterboarding:

SHOW ME IN THE UCMJ WHERE WATERBOARDING IS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBETED> YOU CANT BECAUSE IT ISNT THERE.

You are an idiot. It shows.

You demonstrated the Japanese put a tow over the face. You did not demonstrate. that the CIa doesn't do that. You did not demonstrate that there method is any different at all are you lying or just scared to post a link?

I see the problem now, you can't read! I Quoted your post that explained how the Japanese did it with a towel around the face to retain the water, and that's the key, but you can's seem to understand why that's important even when it's pointed out to you in detail. Are you just that stupid or are you just acting stupid? The CIA doesn't use the towel around the face, only over the face. Here's your link to a Top Secret memorandum that explains the CIA technique in detail.

"In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth... During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths... The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout... You have... informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application."

If you can read you'll note that there is NO TOWEL AROUND THE FACE, only over the face. Without the towel around the face the water can't build up as in real waterboarding, and thus, there's little water ingestion, and thus, there can be now drowning, and thus, it's a simulation.

But they cause the inhalation of water that is what waterboarding is. and CIa Waterboards. Again basic logic.

Besides not being able to read you don't understand logic either. Only a dunce like you would think everything called waterboarding has to be exactly the same thing. The CIA technique does not cause ingestion of water and without ingestion of water there can be no drowning. It's the physical drowning that makes real waterboarding not only very dangerous, but torture.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water.

Not according the than CIA's top secrete memorandum I linked in post #80. The only water a person ingests is from the fine spray as the water splashes on the towel. Next time you take a shower you can simulate that effect for yourself.

I've provided a link to what the CIA did, so until you provide a link to backup your statement I'll just consider it's something you made up or misrepresented.

JMC

Your vaunted ABC article states

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.
"

Okay was he even court martialed for ANYTHING relating to the pictures? You have no clue because IT DOESNT SAY. It could be he leaked the pictures and got court martialed for that. It could be he got court martialed for something else entirely and it is a coincidence that the court martial was a month after the pictures were released.

He could have been court martialed for sleeping on guard duty, failure to repair, striking an officer, any one of a number of things.

You have a biased news service quoting some unknown poly sci profesor from some unknown college commenting on this.

That is the only fact that you have.

NOTHING ELSE but the ass hat association that you want to preach as truth until someone challenges you and it falls apart.

IDIOT.

JMC

"As for the fact that military prosecuted for waterboarding that is only meant to be one piece of evidence to get through that thick skull of yours."

Well I have disproved your so called "fact" is nothing more than a bunch of worthless assumptions unless you have some CONCRETE facts to back up those assumptions other than a vague ABC news article.

Yeah I didnt think so.

" Take it with Reagan signing against torture. "

Really did Reagan include waterboarding as part of that?

"Take it with U.S. prosecuting the japanese for war crimes for it."

Oh you mean the one or two Japanese that were prosecuted for about 2 dozen things with waterboarding thrown in there for good measure. Things like beatings, rape, physical abuse, etc.
Waterboarding prisoners for fun with no authority to do so, without any intelligence value, without having a purpose other than to have fun.

"Take the fact that freaking PoL Pot did it and maybe the through all that density a small part will reach your brain."

Yeah and I am sure POL Pot had it in his mind to have doctors present along with psychologist.

BTW Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini nationalized industries, took over banks, things which Obama is doing. Are you comparing Obama to Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin?

Yeah somehow I didnt think that you would

Again you are a kool aid drinking, robot thinking, idiot.

BTW JMC

"Well I have disproved your so called "fact" is nothing more than a bunch of worthless assumptions unless you have some CONCRETE facts to back up those assumptions other than a vague ABC news article.

"

Now if by chance you can provide those CONCRETE facts to back up your abc news "hate Bush" article to my satisfaction than I at least have the balls to say I was wrong about something.

Unlike your KOMRADE in Arms - Ballless, Clueless, and Big Mouth Bruce Henry.

As a Defender of Torture, Mr Lorry is obligated to defend the position that, if a specific interrogation practice is slightly less horrific than those practiced by Stalin, Pol Pot, or Torquemada, it's perfectly acceptable.

One argument is that if defending the United States justifies stealthily lobbing hellfire missiles into Pakistani homes with women and children present, which Obama as ordered, then defending the United States also justifies the use of enhanced interrogations techniques on the very masterminds of terror for the purpose of gaining information to save American lives. It's a long sentence, but until you prove otherwise I'll assume you can read and comprehend better then jmc.

The second argument is that all interrogation techniques, even the ones civilian police use, can be considered torture by someone if they are done in excess. This is particularly true if the people claiming torture have an ulterior motive, such as the left for political purposes.

Thing is, it's not a game. If the CIA and others fear retribution from some future administration they are not going to stick their necks out in gathering information. If there should be another 9/11 attack on the U.S. and some "truth commission" finds that Obama's chilling effect is in part responsible, then Obama and the left will pay a heavy political price for their Bush bashing. Not only that, they will have vindicated Bush's use of enhance interrogation techniques.

It's in vogue now to use the Army Field manual for interrogating prisoners, but the Army Field manual was designed or use in military situations. It's whole inadequate for protecting a civilian population from terrorists who don't play be the rules of war. How may Americans must die on American soil before the left will collectively pull their head out of their ass and face reality? I hope the answer is something less than 10,000.

Tell me what US STATUTE states specifically that waterboarding is illegal. Show me where it defines waterboarding and how that definition compares to what happened at GITMO.

Come now. We have laws against spitting on the sidewalk, laws that define everything from fraud and prostitution to adultery (speaking of which adultery is still illegal in several states). We still have laws on the books in some places against stupid things like tying horses up on main street.

Surely someone somewhere can point out the US STATUTE that defines waterboarding and makes it illegal.

MacLorry dont waste your time responding to Bruce Henry. Even when people show him concret examples with links and direct quotes to prove that he has his head up his ass not only does he not admit he was wrong but he doesnt apologize to the writers on Wizbang when he accuses them of pulling things out of their ass when he pulled his accusation out of his.

Good lord, now you don't even understand your own arguments.

No, your reading comprehension is not adequate for follow a logical argument. It's a reoccurring pattern of yours plain for all to see.

Mac argues, "Waterboarding is not torture we do it to our troops"

Not only can't you read, nor apply logic, you're not even intellectually honest. If you look you'll see that nowhere did I write what you attributed to me in quotes. Best learn what quotes mean if you are going to use them.

I then counter with expert opnion: Which has more weight because it is the opnion of an expert and now Mac cries about it inadvertenly destryoing his own argument...again.

I offered to post an opinion from some other expert if you would consider that proof. Being you have never accepted that offer it's apparent you don't consider opinions to be proof. Fine, then opinions you post are not proof either, only opinions. Is that too much for you to comprehend AGAIN.

Also, your expert is not an expert in torture nor a medical doctor. When a doctor offered their opinion in post #74 and gave a first hand account of a drowning situation you called them a liar. I see you're closed minded as well as a poor reader and a dunce. Not surprised you're a liberal

JMC

If a soldier in the 1960s got courtmartialed for waterboarding and it was illegal then how about gay sex. THere were soldiers who got courtmartialed in the 60s for that and it was illegal in just about all the US. So are you saying that gay sex should be illegal based on that?

How about marriage between the races? That used to be illegal. Are you proposing that we go back to it being illegal?

They used to lobotamize mental patients, give eletro shock therapy, etc back in the 1960s. Should they be brought back?

Or do you just like to pick and choose the "laws" (if there were any against waterboarding then) from the 1960s that you want to follow because they fit your idealogical bent (and of course make Bush look bad).

Dont say red herring either. It is a legitimate question and comparision.

I thought the tele[prompter] encouraged him to say that?

He wants to pick and choose the laws just like the activist judges want to pick and choose which part of the constitution they want to bend and twist to their sick whimsy.

JMC your a fucing idiot

Uh-oh it looks like the the logic that the U.S. forces didn't shoot my argument back to hell after all. That's too bad. I'm sure your arguments could use the company.

Uh oh. There goes jmc, trying to feign the logical mind again. I'll bet if he found a post about the illegal and unethical practices of the State Water Resources Control Board, he would ignore its importance. Then he would find a way to tie the words into his "final death spiral" of torture logic, which would be taking the long way to a short conclusion. But that's his style. The free-associating links and typos he throws in has him hoping people won't debate him out of lack of interest.

The Churchill "We don't torture" thing is kind of like "Yes we can!" Obama was probably trying to pick something simple that appeared to have no origin.

Compromise:

Obama can pardon Bush.

How about we pardon you?

Newsweek is reporting that CIA agents will begin giving evidence to a grand jury about *certain* tapes that were destroyed.

Next up: Its' the Coverup!!! meme

Adriane Browne starts another masturbatory liberal fantasy. Yet another left wing magazine comes out with accusations about CIA agents.

Lets see how the last one worked out.

One person indicted.

THe democratic senators who were screaming for folks to go to jail and be prosecuted shut the hell up when they found out it was Armitage that leaked Plame's name.

Since you are so against tortue Adriane please stop posting as reading your worthless drivel is torture to a lot of us.

Newsweek is reporting that CIA agents will begin giving evidence to a grand jury about *certain* tapes that were destroyed.

If the CIA was trying to cover anything up they would have also destroyed the transcripts of what was on the tapes, but they didn't. Police departments all over the nation destroy evidence when there's no continuing investigation or pending case. Hard for liberals to believe, but it's perfectly legal to do so. Is it now a crime to follow the law?

It is a crime when the tapes are destroyed shortly after Judge Brinkema orders them to be produced.

It's called "obstruction of justice."

You can add that to the growing list of crimes.

Here's the information from Newsweek.

At the time, then-CIA director Michael Hayden insisted the tapes were destroyed only after "it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquiries--including the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui." But since then, declassified filings in the Moussaoui case show that around the time the tapes were destroyed, Moussaoui's lawyers were seeking CIA records about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah--who, according to recent disclosures, was waterboarded 83 times. On Nov. 3, 2005, Judge Leonie Brinkema even ordered government lawyers "to confirm or deny that it has video- or audiotapes" of interro-gations of potential witnesses. But CIA officials supplied only "intelligence summaries" of Abu Zubaydah's interrogation. (The CIA declined to comment. Rodri-guez was unaware of any judicial orders for the tapes and "did absolutely nothing wrong," said his lawyer, Robert Bennett.)

For there to be a crime there would have had to been a judicial order for the tapes before they were destroyed and Michael Hayden would have had to have been aware of that order. Until both those elements are proven there is no crime. Note, lawyers seeking something is not a judicial order.

MacLorry you are interupting Adriane's concentration on his fantasy. That isnt nice.

Dont try to confuse the fantasy with facts it makes their heads hurt.

Adriane

Your posts should be called "Obstruction of logic", or "Obstruction of the truth"