Obama Team Feared Coup If He Prosecuted War Crmes

[Empty Hands]

Edited: **** it, I'm not getting into an argument for whether or not the sky is blue. Everyone can see the justifiers and defenders for what they are. What Good Germans they would have made.

 

[billc]

And then he had a nice dinner and a smoke. As if an overweight journalist would know the differnce and a shock jock would know the difference. Anything that allows you to enjoy a nice meal afterwards is not torture, unpleasant and not something you would want to do again, but not torture.

 

[billc]

The actual technique used is described in more detail in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Courting-Disaster-America-Barack-Inviting/dp/1596986034/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315620238&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Courting-Disaster-America-Barack-Inviting/dp/1596986034/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315620238&sr=1-2

 

[billc]

It would help if people actually knew what was really done when these monsters were waterboarded rather than reacting to the hype generated by the media and other anti-bush outlets. Real torture should never be done to prisoners held by U.S. forces. Waterboarding should be reserved for the leadership of unlawful enemy combatant groups captured on the battlefield with the belief that they may have vital intelligence that may save lives. I know that people will ignore that last bit and focus on the words torture and waterboarding, but it is the same thing when ILLEGAL immigration is discussed. If you say you are against ILLEGAL immigration and are all for LEGAL immigration, the ILLEGAL AND LEGAL words are ignored and then you are called a racist, even if you are against ILLEGAL immigration from Norway, Sweden, Russia or even, parish the thought, Great Britain.


Remember, we used to do this to our own soldiers and sailors for training. They weren't harmed and went on to be pilots and the toughest of the tough Special Forces, Navy Seals and Marine Recon and Army Rangers. They stopped doing it, except I think the seals may still do it, because all of the candidates failed to resist it and it became counter productive to building up the confidence of our guys in resisting coercive techniques.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ser...g_and_torture/

However, that wasn’t the point, as psychologically the waterboard produced capitulation and compliance with instructor demands 100 percent of the time. During debriefings following training, students who had experienced the waterboard expressed extreme avoidance attitudes such as a likelihood to further comply with any demands made of them if brought near the waterboard again.

And this was in training, when our guys, at some pschological level, knew they were not going to be killed or have this treatment go on indefinetly, unlike Leo Thoprsness and Bud Day did when they were held by the Vietnamese monsters.

More info. that waterboarding has been stopped by everyone except the Seals, because it worked...

http://my.firedoglake.com/valtin/2010/03/05/waterboarding-too-dangerous-internal-dod-memo-reveals/

The Clare memo stated, in part:

3. Area of Concern: The JPRA official stance is that the water board should not be used as a physical pressure during Level C SERE training. This position is based on factors that have the potential to affect not only students but also the whole DoD SERE program. The way the water board is most often employed, it leaves students psychologically defeated with no ability to resist under pressure. Once a student is taught that they can be beaten, and there is no way to resist, it is difficult to develop psychological hardiness. None of the other schools use the water board that leaves the San Diego school as a standout.

​

In an attachment to Colonel Clare’s memo, "Observations and Recommendations," JPRA indicates that the waterboard technique as used in the SERE schools is "inconsistent" with the JPRA philosophy that its training and procedures be "safe, effective" and provides "a positive learning experience."

The water board has always been the most extreme pressure that required intense supervision and oversight because of the inherent risks associated with its employment…. Forcing answers under the extreme duress of the water board does not teach resistance or resilience, but teaches that you can be beaten. When a student’s ability to develop psychological resiliency is compromised… it may create unintended consequences regarding their perception of survivability during a real world SERE event. Based on these concerns and the risks associated with using the water board, we strongly recommend that you discontinue using it [underlined in the original].

​

And these guys still went on to graduate from the SERE course and continued to be pilots and Super Soldiers. They also probably went on to have a nice dinner after the course was over.


​

 

[billc]

I'm a free market captialist, so there wouldn't be anyway that I would participate in socialist methods of torture.

 

[Twin Fist]

nut up or shut up

dont claim it, PROVE IT

Where did this come from? Bloody nose?

You know there is plenty of picture evidence, right? Injured detainees, mock executions, the whole shebang. To blindly assert that no abuse or torture happened is willfully blind, even if you quote some soldiers words to do it.

 

[Twin Fist]

actual lawyers, not photographers disagree. now do lawyers tell you how to take better pictures? no

why? they know that that isnt thier line of work.

not everyone does..

The Bush Administration is guilty of war crimes. They are guilty of violating international treaties, as well as US law by ordering torture in violation of those laws. Waterboarding IS torture, by every definition, and only apologists and the blind willfully overlook that and justify it. All that was argued in depth to death here previously. Bush, Cheney and the rest should face trial, and if found guilty suffer the same fate as their victims.
Just because many of those victims are pieces of ****, doesn't change the fact that the law was broken, torture happened and the act was wrong.
The results do not justify it. The effectiveness (which was debunked in depth) does not excuse it.

Bush and Cheney should if found guilty, be punished appropriately.

That said, I'm out of here, let the justifications continue.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

actual lawyers, not photographers disagree. now do lawyers tell you how to take better pictures? no

why? they know that that isnt thier line of work.

not everyone does..

Debunked previously in older discussions.:deadhorse:s425::s424:

 

[billc]

Oh, and I'll take your Christopher Hitchens and Mancow Mullen and raise you Leo thorseness and Bud Day. An overweight Journalist who probably smokes too much and a shock Jock vs. two congressional medal of honor winners who were waterboarded during SERE training and then relentlessly tortured by the vietnamese socialists when they were actual P.O.W.s.
They both support the use of waterboarding against terrorist murderers.

 

[Twin Fist]

and that carries some weight, but more importanty, real actual lawyers, not just keyboard commandos did the research and made the judgement, I will take their word for it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Again, Debunked previously in older discussions.:deadhorse:s425::s424:

 

[Twin Fist]

declaring it debunked doesnt make it so. Seems like it is one politically motivated lawyer on one side, and another politically motivated lawyer on the other, and since none of us are lawyers, we dont really know

 

[Bob Hubbard]

People here have short memories.

mmmm, Torture, er I mean "enhanced interrogation techniques"
Cookies, not torture, convinced al Qaeda suspect to talk, FBI interrogator
Mancow Waterboarded - says "it's torture"
Dubai police use enhanced interrogation on NYer.
The real question: Did waterboarding work?
what exactly is waterboarding?
Bush's book
There's a few links.
The debunk, including comments from those who were tortured, who said what the US did was torture, are in there somewhere.
There are more links.
Search.
Or don't. I don't really care past this point. But if I want a repeat, I got Netflix and my STTOS collection.

Like I said, dead horse debate, the 'it was ok' argument was defeated. The 'wasnt really torture', same. The 'we got good intel', same.
All smacked down, pulverized, dusted, atomized, and then the atoms split.
All the laws, treaties, insiders, from the guy who jammed the dildo in Akmed, right up to Senator McCain.
All there, under the pile of atomized horse flesh.

*yawn*

 

[Twin Fist]

if i cared what a diskjockey said,i would have said so, so thats irrelevant, cookies working doesnt exclude other things from working, waterboarding DOES work and it did on KSM, denial of that fact is retarded, and so on and so on

in your own way Bob, you are every bit the close minded partisan hack you accuse me of being.

so you are again, just up and declaring victory when there was no such thing.

you think what you think, facts you dont like be damned

just like everyone else

 

[Bob Hubbard]

John, denial of the experts, the guys with the experience, the inside story, etc, is rather dumb, imo.
Links I posted to previous discussions here refuted -every- point being made now.
Right down to the insiders who said that it didn't work on KSM, that it was torture, and so on.
John McCain said it was torture. I think he's qualified to make that call.
Guys who ran the program called it so.
Dick Cheney even said it was so.

But keep explaining how it does, keep citing whatever it is that makes you feel good about it.
Keep ignoring the law when convenient.

I base my position off law, fact, and the experiences of others, and the views of experts.
I highly doubt you or Bill are experts in waterboarding.
Unless you've been through it.
So, some lame *** diskjockey here is more of an expert than you smart guy.

So cite all the apologists you want. The facts, as clearly cited in the links I posted, say you are wrong.

I could, yet again for what, the 12th time?, go through and cite, post, link, but why? You aren't interested in the reality, the truth.
Just the fantasy that it wasn't torture, that we're the good guys, that it worked, and no one got hurt.
Sorry, don't have time for that anymore. It's boring.

Links are there. Read them, or stick your head back in the hot Texas sand.
I don't care.

 

[Sukerkin]

I do agree there is no point in retracing those arguments we have had before and I do have to say that I concur with the conclusions Bob highlights with regard to water-boarding.

But what this thread is about, at least to me, is recognising that, along some shameful incidents (which we hope are vanishingly rare and for which (some) of the guilty parties were punished), there are many members of the US military doing a 'warders' job for some pretty nasty people. Tarring all of them with the same "Baby killers" brush is not only unhelpful but deeply unfair to those people.

 

[billc]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/is_there_waterboarding_in_hell.html

As I understand it, he was one of only three people we waterboarded. (I cannot be sure because the CIA does not keep me informed on these matters. Ask Nancy Pelosi for real details -- she was briefed .)
In KSM's case he gave up the "names and addresses of people who were involved with al Qaeda in this country and in Europe" as well as a plot to run an airliner into the Library Tower in Los Angeles In all, more than "a dozen al Qaeda plots to kill people were stopped because of the information they got from coerced interrogation."

Senator McCain is against waterboarding. He says it is torture and thus a war crime. And thanks to him, "there will no such thing as waterboarding" any more. It doesn't kill. It doesn't injure. It doesn't leave a mark. It's all over in a minute in most cases. It has been shown to provide information that has saved lives. And Congress, where Senator McCain serves, has never outlawed it, despite at least some members receiving classified briefings on it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/water_boarding_the_view_from_t.html

Whatever you think, I believe two points can safely be stated on this subject -

1. The use of the word "torture" as a catch-all phrase which makes no distinction to severity, intent, or other context is a smokescreen meant to end the conversation and stifle any meaningful dissent or perception of legitimate moral ambiguity.
2. [FONT=times new roman,times]Even if you decide that water boarding is torture, it's much closer to a scene from Law and Order than an Al Qaeda snuff film. In short - if it's torture - it's barely over the line, and the minimum amount of non-lethal force necessary to achieve success.[/FONT]

 

[billc]

From the above article, I gave it a seperate post because it goes to the heart of the differnces here:

Water boarding -- whether torture or not -- is the infliction of psychological pain on someone to get them to give you information you need to prevent a much greater infliction of pain on innocent civilians. Pacifism, by definition, is morally relative and adamantly opposes drawing distinctions between innocent and guilty, victim and perpetrator. etc. If you're a doctrinaire Pacifist, the guy who sucker punched some bystander in a pub and the bystander fighting back in self-defense are both essentially the same - just two misguided people trying to solve their problems with violence instead of dialogue This explains the crazy quotes Gandhi made during WWII about the "most heroic" course of action for European Jews being mass suicide to illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the Nazis. Come again? This is the Alice and Wonderland world of orthodox pacifism. This is the world of people who would rather see a nuclear bomb detonated in Cleveland than KSM water boarded.

[FONT=times new roman,times]At this point in the conversation the pacifist usually says something like, "No - I don't support either thing. They're both bad!" This statement reveals the ultimately narcissistic nature of extreme pacifism - If I believe something strongly, I define the rules. In reality any interaction with another, by definition, is not unilateral. Even if you don't believe in mugging people, the mugger defines your relationship, (usually at the point of knife), and you are confronted with the choice of accepting or rejecting this definition. His knife makes your "perfect world" irrelevant.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]This is the context that the use of force which is water boarding must be viewed. Would you rather be "morally pure" and have thousand die in the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Library Tower Attack in Los Angeles[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] sometime in 2002, or would you rather inflict a little pain on a hardened mass murderer and prevent this loss of innocent life? Those are the choices - and viewing it any other way is naïve at best, or more likely, cynical, short-sighted and extremely disingenuous.[/FONT]

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Congress ... has never outlawed it".
Wrong.
Previously cited, and debunked.
Waterboarding is torture, and torture is illegal.

"It works and saves lives"
Wrong.
Previously cited, and debunked.

" It doesn't kill. It doesn't injure. It doesn't leave a mark. It's all over in a minute in most cases."
Wrong.
Previously cited, and debunked.


Ah geeze, it's another guy in a mask. 1,000 episodes of the same show, you think there'd be a different villain.
Just another repeat. *yawn*

 

[billc]

On the constitutionality of waterboarding:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/waterboarding_is_not_unconstit.html

The Constitution does not forbid the infliction of physical pain on another person to force his compliance with certain courses of action. The Bill of Rights says specifically that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and it also bans cruel and unusual punishments. It is therefore unconstitutional to use torture to (1) force somebody to confess to a crime, or (2) as a punishment

.