home

CNN: Torture As The Punchline

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:16:36 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Disgraceful. How bad can CNN get? I am with Digby:

I just saw Jeanne Moos do one of her cute little feature stories on ... waterboarding. Lots of adorable stories of people trying it and timing themselves and laughing about it afterwards. Funny, funny stuff. I only wish they'd put her in a stress position for 48 hours naked so we could see how hilarious that is too.

Truly outrageous.

< If Kyl Lieberman Authorizes War With Iran . . . | Critiquing Joe Wilson's Critique of Obama >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    CNN: Torture As The Punchline | 115 comments (115 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Waterboarding? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:38:57 AM EST
    Trivial stuff. Not worth getting all worked up over. Good for a laugh though. Good clean funnin'.

    Just ask soon-to-be Atty Gen. "Tortureman" Mukasey...

    And Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer. They are democrats committed to human rights after all. Just like Jeanne Moos and CNN.

    Just a 'quaint' concern. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Geekesque on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 07:19:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by glanton on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    I only wish they'd put her in a stress position for 48 hours naked so we could see how hilarious that is too

    Exactly, at least according to Old Testament impulses that suggest everyone who makes light of these things ought have it done to them.  This is especially tortue of media types whose blithe jokes bear some responsibility in winning popular support for torture.

    And that those who order it, and the operatives who do it, should be tried for war crimes. And that the lawyers who have worded torture away, as it were, should also be tried for war crimes, perhaps to be subjected to the stiffest punishment of all.

    Will she be doing the laffmeter on child-rape too? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ellie on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:44:45 AM EST
    Will CNN and Moos be mainstreaming other recognized forms of torture under international conventions or just waterboarding cause the Republicult wurlitzer has declared the term and practice harmless -- hell, practically friendly?

    Child-rape or simple molestation is a recognized atrocity, as are sexual violations of men, women and youth. I suppose CNN can play those for laughs if they run a "wacky" soundtrack behind the atrocities.

    (As I posted at Digby's, it's going to take the real trial of the century -- not the craptastic media circus to find Anna Nicole Smith's baby daddy -- on par with the Nuremberg trials to make people realize what the Bush / Cheney reign of terror unleashed on the world.)

    Why no one speaks up (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 12:39:40 PM EST
    It was a crime in WWII.
    It was a crime in 1983 when a Texas sheriff did it.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

    It was a crime when Ferninad Marcos did it.

    It was a crime when Bush/Cheney did it.

    And no one speaks up when the AG nominee refuses to declare it has been torture for over a century.

    That must be because it is just harmless fun to neocons.

    http://current.com/items/76347282_getting_waterboarded

    Invite the wife and kiddies...good CLEAN fun!

    If it is a US law, then why not (1.00 / 3) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 03:01:38 PM EST
    just ask him if he will enforce it?

    I mean it either is a law, or it is not. He would enforce it, or would not.

    That the Demos haven't asked that question leads me to believe they don't want an answer. They just want to plat=y politics.

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 03:45:04 PM EST
    just ask him if he will enforce it?

    Maybe you missed the last six years of DOJ failure to enforce laws already on the books.

    Wait.  It was a joke.  Sorry, I thought for a second you were serious.

    Parent

    Uh. (1.00 / 2) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 06:48:30 PM EST
    You keep on demonstrating an inability to read and connect. Let me try and help you connect.

    First, it doesn't make any difference what happened six years ago, or last week. In fact, I can't even figure out why you would be concerned, given that you don't own a Time Machine.

    The question is, would he enforce the law against waterboarding after he is confirmed as AG.

    Now, if I can believe the claims of the Left, waterboarding is against the law, and has been since 1945.

    So, that being the case, the question to the almost AG is: "Will you enforce the law?"

    Now, if all of that "it already is" is BS, then the question becomes, if Congress passes a law that specifies waterboarding as torture: "Will you enforce the law?"

    Pretty simple,eh?? Or at least for most people.

    Parent

    You can't read (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:28:55 PM EST
    ... so dont accuse others of it. It was clearly stated, and the record will show, that "waterboarding" aka "drowning" has been outlawed by civilized nations for over a century.

    US precedent is most clear from WWII forwards.

    The reason Mukaseys non-answer is so objectionable is that the people he seeks to protect are criminals under international law. War criminals. You know, like the ones tried at Nuremburg.

    He can't say it is torture, even though statute, treaty and precedent do so, because that would leave the Emperor without any clothes.

    Parent

    I can read quite well thank you (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:51:16 AM EST
    and will write what I want.

    My point was simple. If it is, then why doesn't Congress ask if it he will enforce it?

    Parent

    What ever she said, he said or they said, (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:00:52 AM EST
    it supposedly has been against the law since the post WWII period, so let's don't start parsing and ducking.

    If it is, Leaky Leahy should pop the question.

    As for paying attention, as I noted to Jen M at 5:54PM, 5 hours and 6 minutes before your comment:

    "Just because it was stopped before they felt any real effect doesn't make it ok when someone else has it done to them until they break. "

    Jen, try to follow this.

       1. That someone else is a terrorist.

       2. Breaking then is the objective.

       3. The reason for this is to get information to save American lives.

    Now, if you want to worry more about radical Moslem terrorists than US servicemen and citizens, be my guest.

    Your turn.

    Parent

    It was the law in 1947 (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 05:07:05 PM EST
    when we prosecuted Hideji Nakamura, Yukio Asano, Seitara Hata, and Takeo Kita for water-boarding US servicemen during WWII and sentenced them to 15 years.

    It was the law when we prosecuted a US servicemen during the Vietnam War for doing it.

    The fact you don't want to address these inconvenient facts, seems to me that you just like torture and want to play politics.

    Why do you hate American values espoused by George Washington?

    Parent

    Flashlight Molly claims (1.00 / 2) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 06:50:52 PM EST
    that it has been law for 60 years.

    Then why doesn't Congress ask that question?

    I mean they are your Senators.

    You know, you couldn't make this stuff up.

    Parent

    Republican talking points (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:30:34 PM EST
    ...rely on the people not knowing anything.

    Parent
    heh (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:03:16 AM EST
    If your claims are correct, make the point.

    It it is the law now, and has been since the post WWII era, specify and move on it.

    Since the Demos haven't, I suspect your claims to be off center.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, PPJ (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Al on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:02:01 PM EST
    did you say something?

    Parent
    No. (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:03:50 AM EST
    At least nothing that you would understand.

    tehe

    Parent

    Good find (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Jgarza on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:16:14 PM EST
    BTD thanks for calling her out.  I would try and think of something witty to comment with, but i cant.  I'm just disgusted.

    The CNN segment (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:29:58 PM EST
    has all the intellectual credibility of the swiftboaters' purple bandaids. Of course, Limbaugh set this sort of tone with his nonsense about Abu Ghraib's torture being like a frat hazing or a Britney Spears concert.
    From Media Matters:
    As reported by Wonkette.com, Limbaugh's comments can be found on his website. From the May 4 Rush Limbaugh Show, titled "It's Not About Us; This Is War!":

    CALLER: It was like a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men --

    LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?

    The day before, on his May 3 show, Limbaugh observed that the American troops who mistreated Iraqi prisoners of war were "babes" and that the pictures of the alleged abuse were no worse than "anything you'd see Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage."

    LIMBAUGH: And these American prisoners of war -- have you people noticed who the torturers are? Women! The babes! The babes are meting out the torture.

    LIMBAUGH: You know, if you look at -- if you, really, if you look at these pictures, I mean, I don't know if it's just me, but it looks just like anything you'd see Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage. Maybe I'm -- yeah. And get an NEA grant for something like this. I mean, this is something that you can see on stage at Lincoln Center from an NEA grant, maybe on Sex in the City -- the movie. I mean, I don't -- it's just me.
    ----
    CNN, in the proud Limbaugh tradition, purveyor of nonsense infotainment to the world.

    Arlen Specter, who is "troubled" (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:40:21 PM EST
    by Mukasey's failure to condemn waterboarding as torture, announces he will vote to confirm Mukasey as AG.

    Gee, there's a surprise. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by GhostDog on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 02:07:53 PM EST
    Arlen Specter, who is "troubled" by Mukasey's failure to condemn waterboarding as torture, announces he will vote to confirm Mukasey as AG.

    Parent
    For sure. How many times has he (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 02:09:04 PM EST
    he done this very same thing.

    Parent
    Check out C & L on GHWB and humane treatment (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:51:50 PM EST
    Wonder why he was emotional?  

    While watching footage of news clips from the conflict, Poppy becomes emotional when he describes what he believes to be the most lasting images from the conflict -- the humane way in which the U.S. treated Iraqi prisoners.

    Wallace: "The President remembered the courage and humanity of American soldiers and he grew emotional."

    Bush: "My favorite picture is a picture of American soldiers surrounding a guy whose been in a foxhole, Iraqi soldier, and the American guy says, we're not going to harm you, we're American soldiers." (fights back tears)

    Bush: "...See, that side of the war never got -- the fact that we treated those people with respect in spite of the fact they were the enemy, it's really good.
    Actually, there's some truth to that. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Packratt on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    On the third day of my stay in the King County Jail a friend of mine who was just back from Iraq, serving as an Army medic, came to visit me.

    He looked me over through the plexiglass, looked at my undressed and open wounds, and visibly started shaking... He told me, with an edge of anger in his voice, that "In Iraq, we treat the insurgents that we capture, the same insurgents who we know were shooting at our friends just a short while ago, better than you're being treated here in America."

    I'll never forget the look in his eyes when he said, "I can't believe this is what I'm fighting for, what I'm defending... for them to treat another American citizen like this."

    I believe him. The medics and doctors in Iraq treat Iraqis just as good as they treat Americans, wish they did the same here in the US.

    Parent

    Also from C &L (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:57:23 PM EST
    Jag lawyers are such wusses!

    In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of President Bush's nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of "waterboarding" under  United States and international law. We write Because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal...

    The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules yhat can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - as long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

    We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

    Sincerely,

    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

    Why do George W. Bush and his water-boarding defenders hate our American values?

    The only photo I recall seeing of (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    anyone in anything resembling a foxhole was Saddam in his hiding plce.

    Parent
    well it's obvious then (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jen M on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    if YOU haven't seen the photo that President Bush did then he must not have seen it.

    Parent
    wow. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 02:46:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Not funny in the least... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Packratt on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 02:01:56 PM EST
    Of course, I know for a fact that Americans don't even care much when innocent American citizens are tortured in American jails, so how do you expect them to care about suspected foriegn terrorists who are tortured?

    on night of lost sleep (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Jen M on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 05:57:58 PM EST
    is no biggie to lots of people either.

    So is it ok to keep someone awake for four days?

    I mean, its only sleep loss, right? Many people have gone without sleep.

    So some people had waterboarding done to them for half a nanosecond. Probably barely got their faces wet.

    Just because it was stopped before they felt any real effect doesn't make it ok when someone else has it done to them until they break.

    Funny/Not Funny (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by john horse on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:13:25 PM EST
    Funny - Terry Jones  This Won't Hurt Much

    Not Funny - Jeanne Moos, CNN

    Funny - "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

    Not Funny - The Bush administration's position on waterboarding

    It's Really As Simple As This (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by glanton on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:13:30 PM EST
    If you can say with a straight face that waterboarding is not torture, then you have lost the right to be taken seriously as a decent human being.

    How sad that this "argument" is taking place.  What a depraved thing to be arguing about in 2007.

    Torturers are war criminals.  Lawyers who facilitate torture are war criminals.  Romney and Guiliani have both surrounded themselves, for example, with aspiring war criminals.

    When I was a little child (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    I learned from my parents that "bad" people are people who do "bad" things.

    It never occurred to me that some "bad" things were ok to do to people because they might have done other "bad" things that were.... more "bad"?

    I hope that if it had occurred to me my parents would have straightened me out pretty fast.

    And now I think that not only is "Torture [...] morally, ethically, and legally wrong, and it is a travesty that it is now being "debated" in mainstream media as if to condone it is "just another opinion as valid as any other"... I think it's just plain flat out wrong that there should be any kind of public debate about how much torture is going to be ok to subject people to. No matter how "bad" they are.

    Is there something wrong with me? Maybe I'm not "tolerant" enough?

    jimakaPPJ (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by Kaviraj on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:15:16 PM EST
    "What would help everyone would be for you to lose your wildly inaccurate view"

    right.

    where have you seen Zarqawi do what you claim?
    you were there?
    you seem to know ALL the details.
    Jim, you are one sick bugger - go get psychiatric help.
    you promote exactly the same as you accuse 'the enemy' of
    You are not one iota better - let's lock you up and waterboard you, slap you and rape you and then hang, dry and quarter...
    looking forward to it, jimmy boy?

    another thing (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by Kaviraj on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:39:54 PM EST
    is the use of invective like 'radical muslim terrorist'

    is it ever noticed that these two things are mutually exclusive?

    a true muslim is never a terrorist by definition and a terrorist cannot by definition be a muslim.

    from now on, i expect you amurricuns to behave normal (possibly impossible) and stop the confusing of the issues.
    again, a muslim - meaning one devoted to God - cannot by definition be a terrorist and a terrorist - meaning one devoted to terrorising ALL of us, INCLUDING THE MUSLIM - cannot be a muslim just as he cannot be a buddhist, christian, hindu, whatever.

    how can we be so sure they are muslim?
    we cannot, and thus to say it is to show prejudice, shortsightedness and a display of supreme ignorance. at least something in which amurricuns can feel superior

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry: (1.25 / 4) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 06:54:59 PM EST
    Just because it was stopped before they felt any real effect doesn't make it ok when someone else has it done to them until they break.

    Jen, try to follow this.

    1. That someone else is a terrorist.

    2. Breaking then is the objective.

    3. The reason for this is to get information to save American lives.

    Now, if you want to worry more about radical Moslem terrorists than US servicemen and citizens, be my guest.

    I already know (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Jen M on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 07:17:28 PM EST
    you want to torture.

    Parent
    Channeling becomes you. (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:07:55 AM EST
    As I said in an earlier comment on another thread,
    I would restrict waterboarding to situations when the information looked for is time sensitive and will save lives.

    You see, I care about my fellow citizens first. The rest of the world second...

    and terrorists I don't give a flip about.

    People who kill innocent women, men and children deserve whatever they get.


    Parent
    As I have expressed before... (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 06:58:14 AM EST
    As a mature person with a reasonable amount of self-esteem and confidence, I don't care if you care about me or not.

    As for yelling and hollering...that does absolutely no good when dealing with radical Moslem terrorists.

    What would help everyone would be for you to lose your wildly inaccurate view of the war we are engaged in and actually do something to help all of us.

    Parent

    Why does it require abandoning our American Values (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 07:52:06 PM EST
    The information could be more reliably obtained without using torture. Torture does not work- that was the British experience in Northern Ireland. Moreover, our own experience in WWII confirms this:

    Meeting for the first time since the 1940s, World War II veterans who had been charged with top-secret interrogations of Nazi prisoners of war lamented "the chasm between the way they conducted interrogation during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects." [See the Washington Post's cover story, "Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII," by Petula Dvorak} John Gunther Dean, 81, who became a foreign service and ambassador to Denmark, told the Washington Post, " We did it with a certain amount of respect and justice." Another World War II veteran--one of the few who interrogated the early 4000 prisoners of war, most of them German scientists and submariners, who were brought in to Fort Hunt, Virginia for questioning for days and weeks--spoke of how "during the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone. We extracted information in a battle of the wits." He added that he was proud that he "never compromised my humanity." Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist, told the Post, " We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or ping pong than they do today, with their torture."

    Your syllogism works as far as it goes, but it avoids the tough question.

    Where does the line end? Today its water-boarding. Tomorrow will ripping off fingernails to get information be Ok?

    Why do you hate American values espoused by no less than George Washington

    Indeed, the British conducted a deliberate campaign of atrocities against American soldiers and civilians. While Americans extended quarter to combatants as a matter of right and treated their prisoners with humanity, British regulars and German mercenaries were threatened by their own officers with severe punishment if they showed mercy to a surrendering American soldier. Captured Americans were tortured, starved and cruelly maltreated aboard prison ships.

    Washington decided to behave differently. After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered that enemy prisoners be treated with the same rights for which our young nation was fighting. In an order covering prisoners taken in the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren.... Provide everything necessary for them on the road."

    Why do you feel the need to physically abuse someone? Is it fear?  What malignancy is within your heart that you do not understand what you are espousing is immoral?


    Parent

    heh (1.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:11:31 AM EST
    The information could be more reliably obtained without using torture. Torture does not work- that was the British experience in Northern Ireland. Moreover, our own experience in WWII confirms this:

    When I quit laughing I will comment......

    First, how will it be obtained?? Reliably or otherwise?

    Secondly, obtained, by any method, is cross checked against other information and its accuracy is determined.

    Parent

    Which part are you laughing at? (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:38:22 AM EST
    That torture doesn't work? That our methods in WWII did not rely on torture and did work?

    Parent
    You first (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:29:04 AM EST
    The information could be more reliably obtained without using torture

    Okay how??

    As for your tears....

    It is called defending the country.

    No one that I ever knew liked harming other people.

    But sometimes it is necessary.

    As for your really nasty personal attack, well, there you go again.

    I could respond with a vulgar comeback, but I won't...class counts, eh?

    Parent

    Already answered with links (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:35:59 AM EST


    Parent
    Flashlight Molly doesn't have an answer. (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:29:49 PM EST
    Ok....

    BTW - You first.

    Parent

    No crime in America has ever been solved. (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by jr on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:18:50 AM EST
    Nope, never.  Not without torture, at any rate.  Because it's impossible to get evidence without violating domestic, international, and natural law.  Warrants don't ever work.  Legal investigations are a myth.

    Christ, you're an idiot.

    Parent

    and BTW (1.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:30:25 AM EST
    Waterboarding is not torture.

    Parent
    Tell it to (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:39:03 AM EST
    Hideji Nakamura, Yukio Asano, Seitara Hata, and Takeo Kita and their prosecutors. Tell it to those known wusses in the JAG corp.

    You've exposed yourself Jim.

    Parent

    Again. Still. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:10:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Waterboarding not torture? (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:16:23 AM EST
    You're in good company, ppj. You've defined yourself.

    Again.

    It's an old torture technique from the Spanish Inquisition.

    Not only do waterboarding and the other types of torture currently being debated put us in company with the most vile regimes of the past half-century
    ...
    These photos are important because most of us have never seen an actual, real-life waterboard. The press typically describes it in the most anodyne ways: a device meant to "simulate drowning" or to "make the prisoner believe he might drown." But the Khymer Rouge were no jokesters, and they didn't tailor their abuse to the dictates of the Geneva Convention. They-- like so many brutal regimes--made waterboarding one of their primary tools for a simple reason: it is one of the most viciously effective forms of torture ever devised.

    Other than perhaps the rack and thumbscrews, waterboarding is the most iconic example of torture in history. It has been repudiated for centuries.

    Parent

    I Grudgingly Admit (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by glanton on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 02:56:14 PM EST
    I am curious as to what you consider torture to be.  Whether it is something, in your mind, other than: whatever it is this government is not doing to prisoners.

    I also wonder if you witnessed, or for that matter even imagined American POW's being waterboarded, if you would be able to sincerely say, well that's terrible but at least they're not being tortured.

    Somehow, were it American POW's being subjected to it, I suspect you'd join those who call out waterboarding for the torturous practice that it is.

    All that being said, please don't come in with the tired canards about waterboarding being preferable to cutting off heads.  Cause that aint the standard.

    Stay alert, and let the crickets commence.

    Parent

    Stay Alert Glanton checks in (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:37:39 PM EST
    From what I have seen of prisoners being held  by the radical Moslem terrorists, waterboarding would be the least of their problems.

    Can you say, Daniel Pearl? Can you spell beheading??

    If it was up to me, if any Moslem radical terrorist harmed even one hair on the troops heads I would glassify a section of desert. Provide a thousand year supply of glass for whiskey bottles and light bulbs.

    But hey, that just me wanting to support our troops.

    Parent

    You realize of course (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by glanton on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:33:56 PM EST
    That's not an answer to my question.  Of course you realize that.

    I guess you're not interested in answering it though.

         

    Parent

    See my comment below (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:51:33 PM EST
    A definition (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:49:59 PM CST

    I am here only to serve your most august person.

    Parent

    I read that comment (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by glanton on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:07:35 PM EST
    I just wanted to be sure.  Sure that for you the standards for what is torture have been set by terrorists.  

    Cutting off heads is your standard for what is torture.  

    That's what your ignorant-a$$ post #89 says.  And you're standing by it.

    Again.  At least we don't behead our prisoners.  

    That is your standard.  

    Everyone on this board needs to know that this is where the social liberal stands:

    At least we don't behead our prisoners.

    I am thankful that, for all my various serious shortcomings, I have been spared sinking so low.  

    You and those who think like you are an embarrassment to the United States.

    Parent

    Stay Alert Glanton isn't..... (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:52:00 AM EST
    First of all, to your vulgar claim of:

    Sure that for you the standards for what is torture have been set by terrorists.  

    That's what your ignorant-a$$ post #89 says.  And you're standing by it.

    That is an ignorant-a$$ comment. Why? Because it shows the depth of your intellect, or more likely, that you just want to twist the facts.

    Question: If I told you that, for example, "Bob" had a poor driving record, would you think that I accepted Bob's driving record as my standard?

    No. You would not.

    What I gave you was an act of torture by a group of terrorists. It is their standard.

    Here is my standard for what IS NOT torture:

    Waterboarding is not torture.

    Neither is temperature extremes, sleep deprivation, aggressive sexual displays (bare breasts, women's panties on the head, etc.)

    Said better:

    "Torture" is probably the most egregious of these cases. That's the explanation for the sneer quotes. Because, quite simply, in much of the debate over "torture", we're not talking about actual torture at all. We're talking about rough treatment, harshness, or coercion.

    The American left has defined these upward until they mean the same thing as torture, all as a part of their efforts to undermine the War on Terror in general. The core of this stance is the assertion that a slap on the head, several days without sleep, or hearing Rage Against the Machine played at full volume is fully the equivalent of torture in the classic sense.

    As for sinking low, I think you have when you seek to twist my position. But don't worry, you have lots of company.

    And yes. That is the position of this social liberal.

    Parent

    Bob's Driving Record (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by glanton on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:49:53 AM EST
    If I said 'hey, you just ran a red light and rear-ended that guy, you're a bad driver.'

    And you said, 'look at Bob, he's been in a lot more, worse wrecks, that's bad driving.'

    And this happened every time you got intoa  fdner-bender.

    After a short while it would become clear that Bob and his wrecks were your standard for what is bad driving.

    Every time the subject of torture is broached you say look at those who cut off heads, that is torture.  

    That is what you uphold as torture.

    That is your standard as you have represented it.  

    That is what makes you despicable, beneeath low.

    Parent

    Its clear PPJ likes physical violence (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:19:39 PM EST
    He has no response when this is pointed out other than to claim he is insulted.

    He knows better than John McCain, the JAG Corp, Daniel Levin as well as the Reagan Justice Department (prosecuted a Texas Sheriff for water-boarding),as well as the prosecutors of Hideji Nakamura, Yukio Asano, Seitara Hata, and Takeo Kita (one wonders when "Mr. Support the Troops" will call for their pardon). That's PPJ's position. George Washington is quaint and out of date.

    In short PPJ likes physical violence.

    Parent

    Both of you do nothing but attack atack attack (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    anyone who has the good sense to disagree with the drivel you write.

    As for your continual claim re that it has been illegal since whenever... My response remains.

    Why doesn't the Demo Senators and their staff know this? Can you tell me why Flashlight Molly from somewhere in the south knows, but 50 Demo Senators with staffs of hundreds do not know??

    As for:

    George Washington is quaint and out of date.

    GW was fighting an established Army, not a collection of radical Moslems who cut off heads while shouting "God is Great!"

    I know you won't be able to see it, but there is a difference,

    And no, I am not going to get into a "I'm not - You are" contest with you, oh Flashlight Molly. I'll just let you keep on punching. I think a famous boxer called it a strategy of:  Rope a dope. Rather well named, eh??

    And no, Stay Alert Glanton, my example was of something that the terrorists have done before and will do again. My comment remains. That's torture.

    And I can point out Bob's bad driving habits as many times as I want, without condoning it. And the fact that I do gives you no right to claim that I condone it.

    And you know that.

    You just don't want to face the reality of the fact that the radical Moslem terrorists do torture. They behead, slowly and with a dull knife.

    I just repeat:

    Here is my standard for what IS NOT torture:

    Waterboarding is not torture.

    Neither is temperature extremes, sleep deprivation, aggressive sexual displays (bare breasts, women's panties on the head, etc.)

    Parent

    I am just pointing out your position (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:07:11 PM EST
    Defend it if you can.

    Whether or not Washington was fighting "an established army" v. "radical Moslems who cut off heads shouting 'God is Great"" is, of course, immaterial. It would not have made a difference to General Washington. Both opponents were torturing and killing prisoners. Your distinction, like your argument, is ridiculous. Ask the victim of torture whether or not they care that their abuser speaks with a British accent or shouts God is Great in Arabic. Depravity is Depravity. What a silly argument you make.

    You say water-boarding is not torture. The JAG corp says different. John McCain says different. Of course, you know better than either.

    We are Americans, our standards are higher. We don't live down to the standards of terrorists (well You might).

    Water-boarding is physical abuse. You condone it. The only question is why. I theorize you like physical abuse. You have yet to deny it. You just try to justify the unjustifiable.

    Don't blame me for your position.

    Parent

    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by glanton on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:59:53 PM EST
    We are Americans, our standards are higher. We don't live down to the standards of terrorists (well You might).

    He has made it perfectly clear in multiple posts on this thread that terrorists absolutely set the bar for his definition of torture.

    If it aint sawing off heads, it aint torture, quoth Jim.

    Parent

    Can you say Halogen bulbs (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:45:55 AM EST
    up the rectum ( remember,I said "say", not dream about ), can you say beating to death?

    You're so worried about "the troops heads"; you've "supported" 4,000 of them right into the next life.

    Parent

    Can you say (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    "Silly question?"

    Stand in front of a mirror and do so.

    The two acts are obviously torture.

    Re: Torture Confirmed in Additional Iraqi Prisons (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:58 PM EST

    Dadler - The example we set was that when military people get out of control we investigate, charge, try, convict and put in prison. Gesh.

    Posted by PPJ (aka Jim) February 18, 2005 07:37 AM CA - Well, whatever happened, my first question is what is an Iraqi doing in Afghanstian? Taking the waters? Getting a high mountian tan? That must be it, because we know that there are no terrorists from Iraq. (Yes, dear CA, that is sarcasm.) Now to the unproven charge. If it happened, it shouldn't have. As before. Investigate, charge, try, convict and pubush. IF you have evidence. Until then, keep on ranting. You never had it so go.

    ACLU Releases 1,000 Pentagon Documents on Guan (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 06:04:24 AM EST

    Jondee writes:

    but there were more than enough instances to justify my characterization.

    My position on torture is well defined and documented. You have been caught making things up, now you want to change the subject. Let us review some of my comments.

    A special Guantanamo investigator, Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt, subsequently told Congress that al-Qahtani was also forced to wear a woman's bra, dance with a male guard, "perform dog tricks'' and was smeared with fake menstrual blood to lower his self-esteem - techniques the general described as "degrading and abusive'' but not inhumane.

    The above is not torture. BTW - I wrote the following on that thread in response to Randy Paul's usual "you want US troops treated this way?"

    As compared to having their heads sawed off? Yes. Wouldn't you?

    This one was also mine:

    Posted by JimakaPPJ March 20, 2006 08:16 AM et al - Before you condemn the whole US and turn the keys of government over to the next terrorist who claims to have been tortured, let me remind you that: The US took the claims, investigated the claims, indicted some individuals, tried some and convicted some. That is very strong evidence that we are not "for torture." Well over a year ago I, as Big Tex has done, noted that we need to do two things. First, redefine who is, and is not a POW. In my opinion we need no changes, but it wouldn't hurt to have a discussion about it. Secondly, we need to redefine what is torture. Placing a pair of women's panties on the head of a prisoner, in my view is not torure, no matter how "insulted" they claim to be. Being questioned by a female officer is not torture. Having a copy of your most important religious object destroyed, defiled, etc., is not torture. Using dogs to control prisoners is not torture.

    I could go on, but there is no need. You have again demonstrated that you can't debate, so you must make things up.

    See Jondee, you can trick or cheat an honest man.
    I haven't changed my position since day one.

    Parent

    'That someone else is a terrorist' (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 08:07:55 PM EST
    We don't know that. If the proof for someone being a terrorist is a confession coerced by torture, well, all I can say is that under that standard anyone and everyone is going to fit the bill as a "terrorist."

    Parent
    Labelling someone "terrorist" (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:00:28 PM EST
    means never having to say yoo're sorry.

    Guilty even if proven innocent.

    Looking glass land.

    Parent

    Edger is just so civilized (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:34:11 AM EST
    Posted by edger at September 3, 2005 01:04 PM

    This may get me kicked off this site, and I'll probably regret saying this later, but here goes...

    Jim... you know how to use a gun? Bullets are cheap, and plentiful, you can get lots of 'em almost anywhere if you are out of 'em...

    You only need one, though...

    As for who is a terrorist, edger was, and remains,
    confused...

    Posted by edger at December 4, 2005 08:12 AM

    (I had written)Insurgents don't use car bombs to kill civilians or give booby trapped dolls to children. That is terrorist work, edgey

    (Edger replied) That is not "terrorist work" in the way you try to twist it to mean, at all. It is the work of the Iraqi people - the very people BushCo thought would throw flowers - fighting to kick the US out of Iraq":

    He has never explained how Iraqi terrorists killing Iraqi civilians is not terrorism, or how Iraqi terrorists killing Iraqi civilians is attacking the US.

    Parent

    Why do you hate America? (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:35:40 PM EST
    Why do you hate the Constitution?

    Why do you hate a free and informed electorate?

    Why do you hate the principles of respect and dignity enshrined in the Bill of Rights?

    Why do you think you can convict someone by labeling them, then not give them a trial, or a lawyer, or their ability to petition the government to redress their grievances (AKA habeas)?

    Why do you think that causing pain will ever yield the truth, instead of mere compliance (ask your Dominatrix to explain this one to you)?

    Parent

    Step away from the mirror and (1.00 / 3) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:34:58 AM EST
    quit talking to yourself.

    Parent
    sadistic moron (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by jr on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 03:45:20 AM EST
    Jim, try to follow this:

    1. That person is a SUSPECTED terrorist.  We may have picked them up in a wide sweep, we may have confused names, or we may just have been flat wrong.  But if we torture them, they'll say whatever the hell the interrogators want them to say in order to make the pain stop.

    2.  "Breaking them" doesn't mean "getting them to give us useful and accurate information," but "getting them to talk."  Historically, "getting them to talk" meant "forcing them to confess to whatever trumped up charge they were held on."

    3.  Are you so stupid as to think there's no way to save American lives without resorting to barbarism?  Is there some reason why the rule of law inherently prevents us from conducting standard, non-torture investigation?  Is there a reason why warrants equal dead Americans in your twisted mind, or are you just saying something ridiculously vapid because you've forgotten what it's like to live in a society of laws?


    Parent
    Not a moron. A troll. (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 04:34:31 AM EST
    He can follow it. But he purposely doesn't.

    Parent
    And he likes it. (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:20:52 AM EST
    Retired Command Sergeant Major Eric Haney: a founding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit:
    The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, "Well, they do it to us." Which is a ludicrous argument.
    ...
    The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in.
    "The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it."

    Torture or supporting or advocating torture is an utterly immoral insidious creeping dehumanizing evil, done only by utterly immoral insidious creeping dehumanized people.

    Parent

    Quit trying to frame the argument. (1.00 / 2) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:39:10 AM EST
    Waterboarding is not torture.

    Neither is temperature extremes, sleep deprivation, aggressive sexual displays (bare breasts, women's panties on the head, etc.)


    Parent

    Well, I could be wrong. (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:16:11 AM EST
    I've been wrong before. You could be not not a moron.

    Was I wrong?

    Parent

    Do you still maintain (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:23:50 PM EST
    that Iraqis car bombing Iraqis is not terrorism.

    Your turn.

    Parent

    You need to (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    change the subject away from torture now, and away from my question?

    I said you are not a moron but just a troll... was I wrong?

    Parent

    tehe (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:51:09 PM EST
    If I had written that dumb comment re Iraqis killing Iraqis I would slink off. But not edger. He keeps on calling attention to his lack of knowledge.

    And I don't answer stupid questions, especially when they are from you.

    As for changing the subject... Heck, I have stated my position very clearly.

    It is you who want to support your Demo leaders NOT asking some very simple questions of the soon to be AG.

    Me? I keep saying ask away. If there is a law/precedent whatever, someone should ask him the $64 dollar question.

    lol  ;-)


    Parent

    I said you are not a moron but just a troll... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:38:32 PM EST
    Was I wrong? It's not that hard a question.... unless you're just a troll.

    Parent
    You don't deserve an answer. (1.00 / 2) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:57:22 PM EST
    After all, you did write this:

    No. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    There is no equivalence, ppj.
    White supremacist nutbars have barely grown feet from their flippers and crawled out of the primordial slime pits. They are eons behind anyone they try to demonize.
    There will probably never be equivalence.

    [ Parent | Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5  ]
    edger (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:51:59 AM EST
    So you don't claim equilavence between the christians radicals, small though they may be in numbers, and the radical Moslems, your claim is that they are much worse than the radical Moslems.

    Now, if you still haven't figured out I wouldn't have a beer with you, shake hands or otherwise be near you... Let me just say.... I don't like you.


    Parent

    I said you are not a moron but just a troll... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:15:59 PM EST
    But now I'm not so sure. Which is it?

    Parent
    Yes, things you'd be willing (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 03:10:13 PM EST
    to pay good money for, couldnt be torture. I get it.

    Real torture always has to involve black hooded figures, guttering candles, and iron maidens like in the movies.

    Just like that war you once saw in the movies.

    Parent

    jondee (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:00:34 PM EST
    Torture" is probably the most egregious of these cases. That's the explanation for the sneer quotes. Because, quite simply, in much of the debate over "torture", we're not talking about actual torture at all. We're talking about rough treatment, harshness, or coercion.



    Parent
    Have trouble with logic?? (1.00 / 3) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:26:00 AM EST
    SUSPECTED terrorist.

    I specified that he was a terrorist. "Suspected" had nothing to do with it.

    You have no idea as to if the information obtained can be vetted as true/untrue or not. It can.

    Are you so stupid

    Nope, but I suspect that you are. Am I wrong?

    As for warrants... the standard DOJ criminal investigation techniques worked so well.... didn't they.

    Can you join me in celebrating the zenith of its success??? I call it the 9/11 Dance, aka "Dance of  the Dead." (sarcasm alert)

    I'll let you lead.


    Parent

    Who knew? (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by garyb50 on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:23:23 AM EST
    You could get a degree in 'Tiresome.'

    Parent
    Yes (1.00 / 2) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:22:17 PM EST
    the truth is often tiresome to those who want to deal in fantasties.

    Parent
    Sadly... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by garyb50 on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 01:53:15 PM EST
    ...I have NO fantasies.

    But you remain so utterly tiresome I'm fighting desperately for the energy to finish typin...  ths...

    ...

          ..

                        .

    Parent

    So you now want to delete the 4th amendment? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:39:49 PM EST
    Warrants were not the problem, but even if they were, that is not a reason to delete the 4th amendment.

    Patrick Henry said, "give me liberty or give me death" Jim's response- "liberty is overrated".

    Parent

    You are misquoting me... (1.00 / 2) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:15:20 PM EST
    As for warrants... the standard DOJ criminal investigation techniques worked so well.... didn't they.

    Obviously what we need is a preemptive military strategy. That was, as you know, the point and the biggest disagreement between the Left and reasonable people.

    Parent

    The reasonable ones (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:48:39 AM EST
    that thought preemption was justified by Revelations and the (My) Left Behind books.

    Oh, and the fact that 'everbody knows Saddam tacked us first.

    Those reasonable people.

    Parent

    Vetted how? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 02:40:52 PM EST
    Please to explain.

    Stress positions, Jimmys-on-the-head, and waterboarding till they'll admit to anything?

    Or, is the "vetting" related to the part when impoverished people turn in their suspicious neighbors for an $800 dollar reward?

    Parent

    The mentality exemplified (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:07:09 AM EST
    above is the reason why some have begun to question the value of "saving American lives".

    Btw, Read ppj's wildfire remarks if you really believe he cares that much about saving lives.

    Parent

    Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:15:29 AM EST
    I am advocating that the Demos ask some very specific direct questions.

    If it is the law based on the post WWII examples offered up, then the Demos should say so and ask if he will enforce those laws.

    If it is not, then ask him if Congress passes a law making it so, will he enforce that law.

    That isn't hairsplitting.

    You are the ones hair splitting.



    Parent

    Torture is already illegal (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:41:00 AM EST
    (as well as immoral) There is no need for Congress to pass any law. The only need is for the current executive branch to recognize torture is illegal and that water-boarding is a form of torture. If the AG does not recognize that it is torture, there is no need to ask whether he will enforce the law- clearly he will not. Don't be obtuse.

    Parent
    That's not the subject or question. (1.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:15:10 AM EST
    You can continue to try and frame the argument/discussion anyway you like, but it doesn't work for you.

    The argument is not whether or not "torture is illegal." That has been agreed to by everyone. And you know it.

    The argument is over whether or not "waterboarding" is torture. I say, without hesitation, that it is not. You disagree. Okay.

    Now. If you are right, based on all the blather about the post WWII actions referred to, then the question to ask the soon to be AG is:

    "Do you recognize that, and will you enforce the law?"

    Now. The Demos haven't done that. So I think that there is a problem with the claims.

    So, the next question would be:

    "If Congress passes a law that makes waterboarding illegal will you enforce that law?"

    But the Demos will not. This is nothing but politics.

    Parent

    We all agree that torture is illegal (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:34:29 AM EST
    I am not sure we all do.

    But oK, moving forward:

    Do you recognize that, and will you enforce the law?

    They have asked him does he consider water-boarding torture. I guess you missed it in your haste to play politics. If he does not, then obviously the second part of your compound question (always avoid  framing in compound questions) is unnecessary. If he answers yes, then the follow up is to be asked.

    As for calling our 1947 prosecutions blather, why was it illegal then, but not now? Here are two more questions for you, that you don't seem to want to answer.

    Are you ready to pardon Hideji Nakamura, Yukio Asano, Seitara Hata, and Takeo Kita? They got sentenced to 15 years in 1947 for water-boarding US servicemen. Was it all just a mistake? A miscarriage of justice?

    You've exposed yourself, Jim. We have all seen it and anyone searching the archives here can view it.

    Parent

    As I have posted numerous times (1.00 / 2) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:18:01 PM EST
    if you think something/someone is/has committed illegal acts, investigate, charge and try.

    And it is not up for the AG to determine whether or not something is illegal. That is up to Congress and the the SC if the law is unclear.

    And if he decided that waterboarding was torture, and thus illegal, the next question would be:

    Do you think putting women's panties on the head of a prisoner is torture...and, etc. The questions would never end because this is not about law, or morals, but Demo politics.

    As for your references and continued blather... I say again. Why don't the Demos just reference that, and ask if the soon to be AG will enforce the law. And again. Since they haven't, it appears that there is something there that hasn't been told.

    As for the archives, anyone is welcome to use them. I would just hope, probably in vain, that they would claim only that I say that waterboarding is not "torture," rather than claiming I said torture is okay.

    But knowing the tendencies of this group, I expect I will have to provide links to what I actually said.... which is nothing new.

    Parent

    Why do you insist on physical abuse? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    depravity?

    Parent
    Do you still beat your husband?? (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:40:02 PM EST
    Your question is insulting and dumb.

    Parent
    Don't complain-you are the one insisting (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:35:24 PM EST
    on water-boarding. WHEN and IF you see my advocating physical abuse you can take me to task.

    You believe in water-boarding. Stand up for your beliefs.  

    Parent

    So if I disagree (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:48:43 PM EST
    with you you think it is ok to attack...

    Do you still beat your husband?

    Or does he always agree?

    Parent

    Its not a question of agreeing or disagreeing (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:55:01 PM EST
    Its a question of YOUR standing up for YOUR beliefs. YOU think water-boarding is Ok. Water-boarding is physical abuse. Ergo you think physical abuse is Ok. You have no complaint.

    Its your position, defend it.

    (And well, of course Leo and I agree, we've been together for 15 years).

    Parent

    hehe (1.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:17:19 AM EST
    Can't resist this...

    Time together doesn't answer the question.

    Neither does agreement.

    Parent

    Aaron is just so, well (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:26:58 PM EST
    cultured, don't ya know?? But I must say his abilities to debate are well, how can I say this??

    As limited as his intelligence.

    You'd have to have some yourself (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 02:44:11 PM EST
    to be able to make that determination.

    But please explain this terrorist "vetting process" more completely.

    Parent

    I would (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:03:59 PM EST
    but it is just too tiresome for you to handle. Requires focus, intellectual depth, life experience..

    sorry jondee

    Now you can make your usual claim re racism. Why did it take you so long????

    Parent

    You would, but you cant (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:57:26 AM EST
    without admitting that you're talking about torturing confessions out of people.

    Yes, Im afraid I do have a bias toward the human race over and above your species; though, no doubt, life in the barnyard may be condicive to a certain kind of intellectual depth and focus.

    They waterboard horses,dont they?

    Parent

    Heh (Sorry, I forgot) (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:01:58 AM EST


    Parent
    A definition (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:49:59 PM EST
    Waterboarding is not torture.

    Neither is temperature extremes, sleep deprivation, aggressive sexual displays (bare breasts, women's panties on the head, etc.)

    This is torture.

    The leader of Moslems, some perfect example of a Moslem named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and his worshipers took almost a minute using a dull knife to saw off the head of Nick while he screamed and they shouted that God is Great! His screams bubbled through blood squirting from his carotid arteries. He managed to scream for his life 9 times in about 30 seconds before they destroyed his vocal cords with the dull knife. This great leader of Moslems took delight in it. No Moslems in America demonstrated in front of the White House or anywhere else or made threats to retaliate against the perps who did this and that makes me think they approve of it.

    What does it feel like when they've cut half way through the front of your neck then change their minds and start to saw through the back of your neck while your spinal cord transmits every single cut, slice, and laceration of that dull blade to your helpless brain....




    oh ok (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Jen M on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:10:01 PM EST
    You use psychopathic Islamic extremists as your moral compass

    That explains a lot.

    Parent

    My moral compass (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:05:35 AM EST
    tells me that the very existence of such people is an affront to the human race.

    It also tells me we are not fighting a war where "speaking truth to power" does any good, and where the other side doesn't give a flip about what we think of them.

    So yes, that was torture.

    Waterboarding is not torture.

    Neither is temperature extremes, sleep deprivation, aggressive sexual displays (bare breasts, women's panties on the head, etc.)



    Parent
    History Repeats Itself (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    With you as a cheerleader.

    the very existence of such people is an affront to the human race
    .

    That's what they said about the native americans, african americans, mexicans, jews, communists..... the list goes on...

    Parent

    He didn't mean Neocons??? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:55:57 PM EST


    Parent
    I see that ignoring you doesn't work (1.00 / 2) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    so let me compliment you on your inability to debate, get things straight, or command any facts in your comments. I especially enjoyed your vulgar personal attacks. They do so show your lack of vocabulary. But then middle schoolers often have that problem.

    How goes repeating the seventh grade??

    Now, since you haven't kept up, let me hit some highlights for you.

    The debate is over what is torture. I say waterboarding is not. Read the thread for other things I think are not.

    I have never said we should use waterboarding, or torture, to obtain information that can be obtained otherwise. Why do you make things up?

    I have noted that the Left's claim that information so obtained can't be vetted is bogus. Let me give you an age specific example.

    Me, knowing that Bobby is visiting his Grandparents in Chicago:

    JR, where did you and Bobby go last night?

    JR: We went to the movies....(JR just fibbed.)

    etc....

    It is one of the oldest questioning techniques known to man. Especially effective when used with sleep deprivation, temperature swings, etc.

    It is not necessary to torture.

    Why do you think defense lawyers tell their clients to just shut up and say nothing???

    As for your blather about "preventing 9/11" here is a


    link that contains numerous links/sources that demonstrate how little you actually know. Scroll to the top of the page.

    Now. Enjoy the rest of the day and try not to worry the teacher too much.

    Careful you don't hurt yourself (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:22:26 AM EST
    backpedalling that fast.

    Find anyone here stupid enough to think you make sense yet?

    Parent

    You know, (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:20:36 AM EST
    you really say stupid things.

    But then trolls do that.

    I have never claimed that torture would have prevented 9/11.

    Perhaps you would first demonstrate that I have done so.

    And if you can't stand to look at the 9/11 site, I guess a video of people jumping to their deaths rather than burning to death is out of the question.

    In the meantime please keep the idiotic attacks going. They make you look so, well "trollish wingnuttery." Is that your school's dress code?
    Gee, I hope not.

    Have a nice day and try not to bother your teacher.

    Put down the shove/crackpipe (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by jr on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 02:47:22 AM EST
    As for warrants... the standard DOJ criminal investigation techniques worked so well.... didn't they.

    Can you join me in celebrating the zenith of its success??? I call it the 9/11 Dance, aka "Dance of  the Dead." (sarcasm alert)

    Now, unless you think that this wouldn't have happened with torture as an option, what possible purpose would you have to mention it?  It would add absolutely nothing to your argument unless that was your intention.  Considering how utterly incapable of simple logical reasoning you've proven to be, it's entirely possible that you don't realize that's the only purpose that passage could serve, but seeing as how that's the only meaning it could have, inferring that you mean torture would have resulted in a different outcome is the only logical reading.

    Christ, you're a moron.

    Parent

    CNN: Torture As The Punchline | 115 comments (115 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment