Fighting terrorism- Gitmo, torture, no trials, Oh my!
When Guantanamo Bay is brought up these days in the media, it is usually in unison with the words “unconstitutional”, “unlawful”, and “unethical”. Some even say it goes against the Geneva Conventions. As you can see by the photo, the detainees have it really bad with their 12 hours of recreation time. I find this amusing (Yet sad, as always), because a large majority of the people making these claims don’t know the law. Many probably haven’t even read the Constitution nor the Geneva Conventions. So let me say it here and now: waterboarding, the suspension of habeas corpus, and the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are all 100% legal, both under U.S. law and international law.
But how? Why? The all-knowing media and the One tells us that those are all illegal and wrong. Let me start with U.S. law. The most common talk is about how prisoners are held indefinitely. Critics say this goes against the Constitution, as it suspends habeas corpus (Right to a trial by jury). Let us look at the Constitution, Article 1 Section 9:
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
So if there is rebellion, invasion, or a danger to the public, the government is granted the power to suspend habeas corpus, not just for the unlawful combatants at Gitmo, but for anyone. Interestingly enough, no U.S. citizen has been held at Guantanamo Bay. Moving onto the Military Commissions Act of 2006, we find that unlawful combatant is:
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
It goes on to mention that this person must be an “alien”, or non-U.S. citizen, to be labeled as an unlawful combatant. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 gave the government the power to suspend habeas corpus. This echoes the Geneva Conventions, which states:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
By the Geneva Conventions, not only can habeas corpus be suspended for Gitmo detainees, they can be held to a different standard than regular POWs. Yes, they can be waterboarded. Note how waterboarding isn’t listed as torture under the UN provisions nor Geneva. It leaves no lasting physical ailments nor does it cause immense pain. It is simple how to describe waterboarding: fear. It is the pre-existing fear of drowning, implemented in a controlled and harmless fashion.
Of course, this all means nothing if the anti-terrorism tactics don’t work. Do they work? You will often hear the myth that Gitmo is used by terrorists as a recruiting tool and that the information obtained from waterboarded detainees is unreliable. In Arthur Herman’s special preview in Commentary Magazine, The Gitmo Myth and the Torture Canard, he explains how the waterboarding was not only rare (only three detainees were waterboarded), but how the other “enhanced interrogation techniques” were effective:
He [Muhammad el-Qahtani] was subjected to 20-hour interrogation sessions, being tied to a dog leash (no actual dogs were involved), having water poured continually on his head (but no waterboarding), while women’s clothes were dropped on his face and a bra strapped across his clothed chest. These and other humiliations, including turning up the air-conditioning to uncomfortable levels, did result in Qahtani’s brief hospitalization in early December with brachyocardia. However, none remotely approached the definition of torture defined by the OLC’s August 2002 memo as administering physical pain equal to the intensity “accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death,” or psychological harm “lasting for months or even years.” By then, Qahtani had confessed that he worked for al Qaeda. One by one, without hesitation, he picked out pictures of all nineteen of the 9/11 hijackers and called out their names—and admitted that he, not Zacarias Moussaoui, had been slated to be the twentieth hijacker. He also revealed that the true mastermind of the attack was Osama bin Laden’s deputy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Qahtani also fingered another Saudi al-Qaeda operative, Adnan el-Shukrijumah, who was in the United States organizing another 9/11-style attack for the summer of 2004. Khalid Mohammed’s subsequent capture in Pakistan in March 2003 revealed still more details which, we now know, enabled the Bush administration to foil a second wave of suicide attacks directed at Los Angeles. By any standard, his interrogation had also yielded valuable, actionable intelligence that saved American lives.
So not only were the techniques 100% legal, they were effective in saving American lives. So if they are in accordance with both domestic and international laws, and they are effective in protecting Americans, why is there debate? My guess is because people are still more often than not completely ignorant and would rather reiterate someone else’s talking points rather than be an individual and form their own opinion. Fight the zombie menace, don’t succumb to the social disease that is liberalism.
UPDATE
49% disagree with closing Gitmo while only 38% approve.
Lmao! My short answer: you’re a big-government, liberal coward.
My long answer, which you shied away from when I presented it in a live debate: The U.S. Constitution (which I believe is the rule of law and well beyond “international law’ - i.e. the Geneva Convention) provides for suspension of habeas corpus ONLY in the case of rebellion or invasion. You conveniently didn’t address this point and for good reason, because your argument is blatantly unconstitutional. This is neither a rebellion nor an invasion and be prepared to be laughed at if you call 9/11 an invasion. And since I know you’re defense is that “9/11 was an invasion”, let me offer my preliminary remarks: Hahahahahaha.
40,000 plus people die each year from car accidents, just as many from influenza, and 910,000 each year from heart disease and yet you’re a coward liberal ready to call in the government because you’re scared from one event which killed 3,000.
Lol by the way it’s a good thing you’re not a journalist because your choice of sources is horrendous. This article would be thrown out by my high school journalism teacher and certainly failed by my college professor. You’re quoting a man with a diploma in HISTORY. Word of advice: he doesn’t know a fucking thing about waterboarding. Not to mention your obvious conflict of interest.
“Fighting terrorism”
Bahahahahah! I can’t believe you’re willing to be so scared by a government ploy. I guess you’re ignorant of American history, typical of your posts. You wouldn’t mind if the government arrested your own brother, called him “an unlawful enemy combatant” (which it can do under laws you approve of because you’re a terrified neo-conservative), and held him indefinitely without trial. Oh yeah and waterboarded him which is no big deal to you, a person who has never been waterboarded. My cousin believed in much of the same until he was blindfolded in the middle of the night and waterboarded as part of training for the SEALs. Lol as if I would take you and Cheney’s word for it.
I rather die at the hands of terrorists than give up my freedom. Dare I be so bold as to say “Give me liberty or give my death!”? Of course I would rather die in a free country than live in a fascist one. Maybe you should consider our Founding Fathers before getting on your knees and blowing the Republican Party.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Government is constructed for one reason: to protect the rights of its constituents. Of course you’re willing to give up said rights because you’re terrified. Luckily there are clear-minded libertarians here to show you how erroneous you are.
You’re a small-government “conservative” while it benefits you but when you’re worried about the brown neighbor who prays to a different invisible guy than you, you run to the government and allow for breaks in the Constitution or, even more humorously, justify big-government. At least it provides me with a chuckle or two.
Justin you are rude and vulgar. I hate you
” provides for suspension of habeas corpus ONLY in the case of rebellion or invasion. ”
Did you read Article 1 Section 9? You are using the fallacy of vicious abstraction. It also says “the public safety might require it”. Note how there are Al Qaeda operatives and other terrorist groups in the US, actively planning attacks. Note how we have thwarted dozens of them. If you think the public safety isn’t in danger and that there aren’t enemies on US soil, then your logic would be correct, but all evidence says you are wrong.
Seeing as how car accidents are the result of something beneficial to society (the ability to drive cars) and influenza is fought but some people are still bound to die from it (old/young/sick people), those are horrible examples. 9/11 was something that could have been prevented, as shown by how we prevented plenty of other terrorist attacks.
“Word of advice: he doesn’t know a fucking thing about waterboarding.”
Lolz, you didn’t address anything stated because you probably found it to be true and it goes against most of your claims. He is using evidence straight from Congressional and FBI records, and is quoting the FBI and Army field manuals. If you want to discredit my source somehow, address what it says. Apparently he knows more than you because if you knew what he and I know, and were sane (I’m questioning at this point), you’d agree that waterboarding should continue.
“I can’t believe you’re willing to be so scared by a government ploy”
? Isn’t this the reason why we have an army? Taxes? A government? Because we fear for our safety and our rights?
“You wouldn’t mind if the government arrested your own brother, called him “an unlawful enemy combatant” (which it can do under laws you approve of because you’re a terrified neo-conservative), and held him indefinitely without trial. Oh yeah and waterboarded him which is no big deal to you, a person who has never been waterboarded”
Well that would be illegal as under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, only non US citizens can be labeled as “enemy combatants”. So, yes, I would care. Note how they don’t just label people as unlawful combatants, there is a military tribunal determining whether or not the enemy is lawful or not, so they have a sort of trial. And I would like to be waterboarded, just to see what it is like. It has little to no pain, just a bit of pressure. There are no lasting effects. It is fear and fear alone that pushes people over the edge. Note how only 3 people have been waterboarded, out of the total 770 prisoners at Gitmo.
” I guess you’re ignorant of American history, typical of your posts. ”
You never say anything to support this claim. Can I just call it ad hominem and move on?
“I rather die at the hands of terrorists than give up my freedom. Dare I be so bold as to say “Give me liberty or give my death!”?”
Thank goodness George W Bush protected your freedom and made sure only aliens can be labeled as unlawful combatants.
“Maybe you should consider our Founding Fathers before getting on your knees and blowing the Republican Party.”
And you neglect history. Habeas Corpus has been suspended multiple times before, both in case of martial law and by Presidents Grant and Lincoln. Lincoln’s was in the case of rebellion, Grant’s as a way of enforcing civil rights legislation. Might I mention that Johnson v. Eisentrager, where the US supreme court allowed the US to hold non resident aliens in foreign prisons without trial by jury. So really, everything being done is still in accordance with law, and history. There is good reason why our Founding Fathers placed Article 1 Section 9 in the Constitution, because it is necessary for the public safety. Deny this and I will point you to the dozens of thwarted terrorist attacks.
“Government is constructed for one reason: to protect the rights of its constituents. Of course you’re willing to give up said rights because you’re terrified.”
But look, the rights of its constituents aren’t being infringed. The only people housed at Gitmo and held without trial are nonresident aliens.
“Luckily there are clear-minded libertarians here to show you how erroneous you are.”
Yes, THC really clears the mind.
“You’re a small-government “conservative” while it benefits you but when you’re worried about the brown neighbor who prays to a different invisible guy than you, you run to the government and allow for breaks in the Constitution or, even more humorously, justify big-government. At least it provides me with a chuckle or two.”
I could care less if a person is Muslim or not, first off. I ask the government to do its job and protect the American people from vicious attacks on innocent civilians. Note they do not break the Constitution and this isn’t big government, it is just the government doing its job. It humors me that you consider yourself such a scholar on the Constitution but you are so negligent of its contents.
“Did you read Article 1 Section 9? You are using the fallacy of vicious abstraction. It also says “the public safety might require it”.”
[2] The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.
So my point stands: only in certain cases of rebellion or invasion. What don’t you understand about this?
“If you think the public safety isn’t in danger and that there aren’t enemies on US soil, then your logic would be correct, but all evidence says you are wrong.”
You continue to make my point for me. Of course there will always be “bad guys” in the U.S. but we as Americans should not back down from such fears and allow for a power grab by our government. Our Founding Fathers feared exactly that and were terrified by the possibilities after witnessing it first-hand in the colonies. I’m sure the government could always point to an enemy - either real or imaginary - and claim they need such unlimited powers to restrain the threat. It’s neo-McCarthyism and fundamentally un-American.
“Interestingly enough, no U.S. citizen has been held at Guantanamo Bay.”
I’ll give you another lesson in journalism or writing in general, you might want to get your facts straight before posting them, it tends to help credibility. Yader Hamdi and Jose Padilla (I’m sure you’ve heard of Rumsfeld v. Padilla). Although records are lacking concerning where Padilla was held, we know he was held without trial and deemed an “enemy combatant” under legislation you failed to mention (or have never heard of), the 2002 Iraq Resolution. There was also John Walker Lindh and we know how they treated him. But it wouldn’t matter if thousands of Americans were held at Gitmo, you would justify it for as long as the party and your fears continued to control your thinking.
“It leaves no lasting physical ailments”
While not dangerous in the controlled, training-style mode, when given to an unsuspecting person, it can be. People often times call it by the misnomer “simulated drowning” but it is in fact actual drowning. You’re pouring pints of water into someone’s lungs until their gag reflex swells. While it’s not drowning to death, it is in fact drowning.
“you didn’t address anything stated because you probably found it to be true”
Uhm, no. See if you read my comment you would see a common theme: I’m discussing civil liberties, the Constitution, etc while your source is discussing whether or not torture is successful. Since I prefer to stay on topic, I focused little time on the matter.
As for a refutation all I would need to say is that the historian in question is describing one case while you’re somehow expanding it to cover the whole realm of torture. Not to mention I could quote a myriad of opposing viewpoints from people who actually have experience with your beloved “enhanced interrogation techniques”.
“Isn’t this the reason why we have an army? Taxes? A government? Because we fear for our safety and our rights?”
I already claimed we have government in order to protect our rights. There is no other reason and as far as a standing army, it is often a threat to liberty, not protector of. But of course our Founding Fathers knew that as well, if only we would listen.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
“Well that would be illegal as under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, only non US citizens can be labeled as “enemy combatants”.”
But you fail to consider the implications of the term in quotations. An enemy combatant can not challenge this label and once he/she is considered an enemy combatant, he/she has no right to a trial or to face the accusers and evidence against. So under the USA PATRIOT Act and the suspension of habeas corpus you promote, a cop or federal agent could enter your home without a warrant, claim you’re a threat and label you an enemy combatant, and then hold you indefinitely for years. And then maybe you would get your wish and face torture.
“Thank goodness George W Bush protected your freedom and made sure only aliens can be labeled as unlawful combatants.”
GWB unconstitutionally claimed the power to suspend habeas corpus which certainly doesn’t belong to the executive branch even in the cases when it’s acceptable. As for history, consider other power grabs after supposed attacks or insurrections, most notably Hitler’s rising after the burning of the Reichstag. But the point of our Constitution is to limit these powers and in both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist writings were concerns that, during an emergency, such limits could be lost. They now have been and I honestly don’t want to live in a country with lacking civil liberties because it’s not truly America. This country lost its collective mind following 9/11 and the American way of life disappeared.
The terrorists have won.
“of course there will always be “bad guys” in the U.S. but we as Americans should not back down from such fears and allow for a power grab by our government.”
Bad guys is an ambiguous term. If there are individuals who have unlawfully waged war on American citizens and succeeded in killing thousands of innocent civilians, it is clearly an invasion. Not only that, but had the other attacks not been thwarted, what would the number be? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? At what point are you willing to let the government suspend habeas corpus for UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS? These are innocent civilians. These are the worst of the worst of POWs. You are acting as if their rights are being infringed upon, but you neglect that the law says they receive little to no rights.
“and claim they need such unlimited powers to restrain the threat.”
Thank God this isn’t the case. You are seriously over-estimating the government’s power in the situation. The writ of habeas corpus was suspended for unlawful combatants and unlawful combatants only. Also, they receive a military tribunal, which in my eyes, is more than enough.
“Yader Hamdi and Jose Padilla”
I think you mean Yaser, and he was a former US citizen. Padilla was labeled as an illegal enemy combatant, and given a military tribunal. So again, no US citizen has been held at Gitmo. Under current law, and as the US supreme court ruled, Padilla had to be given a proper trial.
“John Walker Lindh”
They had no way of knowing if he was a US citizen, as he told them that he was Irish. Fail on his part.
“and your fears continued to control your thinking.”
Logic controls it. The benefits outweigh the costs.
“While it’s not drowning to death, it is in fact drowning. ”
Only in the final stage of waterboarding, and most of the water goes in a persons nose typically. It still leaves no lasting effect. Punching someone in the stomach does more damage.
“I’m discussing civil liberties, the Constitution, etc while your source is discussing whether or not torture is successful.”
So I never bring up the Constitution nor legal documents? That’s fubar. Notice how all of my logic is based in the Constitution and other law. The success of the techniques is just the kicker.
“As for a refutation all I would need to say is that the historian in question is describing one case while you’re somehow expanding it to cover the whole realm of torture.”
One of the three instances, and because we allow waterboarding and other enhanced interrogations to occur, it gave us extremely valuable information. Note how waterboarding isn’t defined as torture under any resolution. You can call it torture all you want, but it isn’t torture. Scary, but not torture.
“I already claimed we have government in order to protect our rights.”
Oh so you are afraid someone will take away your rights? Enslave you, rape you, take your property, force you to resort to archaic forms of defense in order to protect yourself. This is the same reasoning as why I believe we should allow the suspension of habeas corpus for unlawful combatants.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”
I’m not giving up anything
“An enemy combatant can not challenge this label and once he/she is considered an enemy combatant, he/she has no right to a trial or to face the accusers and evidence against.”
They receive a military tribunal.
“a cop or federal agent could enter your home without a warrant, claim you’re a threat and label you an enemy combatant, and then hold you indefinitely for years. And then maybe you would get your wish and face torture.”
But they can’t. Reread the quote that you were responding to lol.
“As for history, consider other power grabs after supposed attacks or insurrections, most notably Hitler’s rising after the burning of the Reichstag.”
Godwin’s law, and a poor example. The Nazi’s used a false flag attack, and unless you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorists, you can obviously see why this examples is horrible. Bush’s “powergrab” as you call it, isn’t much of a powergrab first off, secondly he did it legally.
“The terrorists have won.”
Lolz, RP would be proud to have such an indoctrinated follower. The terrorists didn’t want America to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for them. They don’t want to be waterboarded, or have bras put on them, or have their beards shaved. Your thinking is backward, if you are even thinking at all.
“It leaves no lasting physical ailments nor does it cause immense pain.”
Derek is lying, as usual. Waterboarding can indeed cause physical injury or death. In testimony before the Senate in 2007, Allen S. Keller, M.D., director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, stated:
“As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water.”
Malcolm Nance is a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, and he also testified before Congress in 2007. Derek clearly was too busy masturbating to pictures of the war in Iraq to pay attention to what Nance had to say:
“…I know the waterboard personally and intimately. Our staff was required to undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception.
I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school’s interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques employed by the Army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What is less frequently reported is that our training was designed to show how an evil totalitarian enemy would use torture at the slightest whim.
Having been subjected to this technique, I can say: It is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training for a very short period. However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique - without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it.
In the media, waterboarding is called “simulated drowning,” but that’s a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.
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.
How much of this the victim is to endure 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 that show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.
Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia - meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells.”
Waterboarding forces water into the lungs of the victim, which can easily lead to pneumonia. Derek, apparently, does not consider the deliberate infliction of a disease on a human being to be “physical injury”. Maybe he should have paid closer attention in health class.
Derek is also eagerly spreading the fantasy that torture is effective. Those who have actually interrogated enemy prisoners (as opposed to Derek, whose ideas of torture likely come from watching marathons of “24″ reruns) know better:
“Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was “not nice,” he says. “But we did not physically abuse them.” Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet — as he remembers saying to the “desperate and honorable officers” who wanted him to move faster — “if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy’s genitals, he’s going to tell you just about anything,” which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn’t know “any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea.”
Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 — long before Abu Ghraib — to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply “not a good way to get information.” In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no “stress methods” at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the “batting average” might be lower: “perhaps six out of ten.” And if you beat up the remaining four? “They’ll just tell you anything to get you to stop.”
Worse, you’ll have the other side effects of torture. It “endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity.” It does “damage to our country’s image” and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington’s confidential Pentagon report, which he won’t discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be “making gratuitous enemies” and that prisoner abuse “is counterproductive to the Coalition’s efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry.” Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of “special methods” might help explain why the war is going so badly.
An up-to-date illustration of the colonel’s point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, “every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative.” So much for the utility of torture.”
Why does Derek abandon all moral standards, and insist that Americans must commit war crimes to keep his pasty white ass safe? Simple: In Derek’s case, the terrorists have won. Terrorists are called that because their attacks are designed to terrify a target population. And Derek has surrendered: he is terrified of being the victim of a terrorist attack, despite the fact that the odds of being killed by terrorists is vanishingly small.
When someone like Derek succumbs to terror, all principles are discarded. All he and his fellow milquetoasts want is to be safe, at any cost. They are truly on a quest to turn America into a nation of bedwetters just like themselves.
“Derek is lying, as usual. Waterboarding can indeed cause physical injury or death. In testimony before the Senate in 2007,”
Great, meatbrain has found my site. For those of you who don’t know him, he is the king of trolls.
What meatbrain failed to mention in his spiel (if only Becca had time to read my site), was that there are many different kinds of waterboarding. The methods used by the FBI and Army both are harmless. If you know a bit of history, I’m sure you can recall how we prosecuted Japanese officers for warcrimes because they waterboarded US POWs during WWII. Of course, they were forcing them to pass out and forcing them to swallow great amounts of water. When they could not ingest any more water, they would hit their stomach, forcing them to purge the liquid that they had taken in. Yes, that is torture. In the most extreme cases they would force feed POWs dry rice and then force them to drink water until their bowels exploded. Torture? Damn right. 27% of American POWs held by the Japanese were killed.
The stages range from dripping water on the detainee’s head to placing a cloth on their face and pouring water on their mouth and nose. Notice no forcing, no death, no extreme pain.
“Derek is also eagerly spreading the fantasy that torture is effective.”
You compared this to Vietnam and US soldiers, completely ignoring the facts I present of how the interrogation techniques worked on the Gitmo detainees thus preventing various terrorist attacks.
“In Derek’s case, the terrorists have won. ”
Clever, you quoted Justin.
“he is terrified of being the victim of a terrorist attack, despite the fact that the odds of being killed by terrorists is vanishingly small.”
I’m not terrified. This isn’t about me, this is about the US government doing its job and protecting innocent life.
“all principles are discarded.”
Yet you fail to mention which ones I discarded specifically. Notice how I base all of my reasoning on the Constitution and its effectiveness. If anything, I am relying on principle.
“All he and his fellow milquetoasts want is to be safe, at any cost”
Nope, sorry strawman, you have know idea what I want.
Maybe you are on a quest to turn the country into ignorant whiners like you? Seriously, the zombie pandemic is continuing due to ghouls like meatbrain.
“The methods used by the FBI and Army both are harmless.”
Derek, like all lying wingnuts, invents facts as needed. The experts contradict Derek’s fantasy, and what is his response? Ignore the facts, and continue to pimp his fantasy world.
Derek is a perfect example of the new generation of moral cretins of the far right. Nothing, no crime, is too heinous tom commit as long as his gutless chickenhawk ass is kept safe.
“If there are individuals who have unlawfully waged war on American citizens and succeeded in killing thousands of innocent civilians, it is clearly an invasion.”
You will literally go to any lengths to justify this bastardization of the U.S. Constitution and limits of power. Ignoring the smaller matters, this is really the only one that matters because of Article 1, Section 9, [2]. An invasion? Seriously? You sound absolutely ridiculous and cowardly. Even our big-government Supreme Court acknowledged that habeas corpus can’t be suspended in Boumediene v. Bush.
There has been one constitutional suspension of habeas corpus, Lincoln’s in Maryland and the Midwest states. That was truly a rebellion. As for invasion, consider the burning of Washington in the War of 1812. Madison, who I believe knew a thing or two about the Constitution, saw no need to suspend habeas corpus then. I’m sure he’s rolling in his grave listening to neoconservatives like yourself justify this clearly unconstitutional act.
“but you neglect that the law says they receive little to no rights.”
Boumediene v. Bush. They have plenty of rights, the fact that they don’t receive said rights is the problem. I always error on the side of liberty and rights for all rather than government power and some false sense of security. If they’re guilty of a crime and you’re holding them on an American base (American property), then try them in a court. If they’re guilty then this shouldn’t be a problem, of course the problem is that 95% of those in Gitmo are innocent.
“The writ of habeas corpus was suspended for unlawful combatants and unlawful combatants only.”
Naivety is a beautiful thing. You’re ahistorical in believing that the government, given a great expansion of power, will quietly remain within these limits. And yes, a suspension of habeas corpus IS an expansion of power and fundamentally unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court and a majority of constitutional law professors I have talked to and read.
“So again, no US citizen has been held at Gitmo. Under current law, and as the US supreme court ruled, Padilla had to be given a proper trial.”
Yaser Hamdi was a U.S. citizen when he was taken to Gitmo, he later (conveniently) abandoned his citizenship and was labeled an enemy combatant. So once again you should have fact-checked.
“Oh so you are afraid someone will take away your rights? Enslave you, rape you, take your property, force you to resort to archaic forms of defense in order to protect yourself. This is the same reasoning as why I believe we should allow the suspension of habeas corpus for unlawful combatants.”
Lmao. I guess you’re more terrified than I first realized. I’ll worry about government expansion and personal liberties, you go ahead and worry about the evil brown guys in the caves. I’ll worry about a $4 trillion/year bureaucracy, you worry about some unorganized civilians. I’ll worry about the government, the great destroyer of liberty and you can worry about…well you get my point.
“I’m not giving up anything :)”
Just keep thinking it’s always the other guy, only the guilty ones. Ha, such a moronic and short-sighted mindset.
“But they can’t. Reread the quote that you were responding to lol.”
I’m kind of tired of making this point over and over so listen closely. If you’re designated an enemy combatant, you have NO DEFENSE against it. Keep in mind that you don’t have rights unless you have protection against them being taken from you. Since that fascist term “enemy combatant” came into use, you’re not promised protection for your 4th amendment rights. Since you’re not promised protection, you essentially have no right to a speedy trial.
“They receive a military tribunal.”
Military tribunals against civilians (especially Americans civilians such as Padilla) are unconstitutional as decided in Ex Parte Milligan (1866). So once again this is an unconstitutional expansion of power according to the Supreme Court. Just admit you want to expand government power because it’s evidently what you’re arguing for, whether you realize it or not.
“Bush’s “powergrab” as you call it, isn’t much of a powergrab first off, secondly he did it legally.”
He greatly expanded executive power and went above Supreme Court precedents (and therefore Constitutional law) by suspending habeas corpus.
The terrorists, according to some, wanted to ruin this nation’s values and its economy. By giving our government more and more power at the expense of personal liberty, we’ve abandoned the “American way”. By bloating the budget, causing inflation and an enormous debt, we’ve hurt our economic future. This country has recovered from 3,000 deaths but the reaction to that one act was far more disastrous than the act itself.
“Derek, like all lying wingnuts, invents facts as needed. The experts contradict Derek’s fantasy, and what is his response? Ignore the facts, and continue to pimp his fantasy world.”
Point me in the direction of said FBI and Army experts meatbrain, then maybe I’ll consider your opinion at the same level I consider a rock’s opinion. Note how the experts, including Cheney, CIA and FBI officials, and even ABC correspondents. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was one of the three prisoners who were waterboarded and he provided valuable information. You can say that it is harmful (note how all three who were waterboarded are perfectly fine) and that it didn’t provide valuable information (it did), but this would be neglecting the truth. but of course, as a crazy wingnut (yes meathead, you are a wingnut) I wouldn’t expect you to know truth.
“Nothing, no crime, is too heinous tom commit as long as his gutless chickenhawk ass is kept safe.’
Except: 1] it isn’t a crime 2] my ass is probably fairly safe in Columbus Ohio either way, I’m worried about other Americans 3] you call me gutless but I see as the one who is copping out, not willing to do what is necessary to prevent another attack on innocent civilians.
“An invasion? Seriously? You sound absolutely ridiculous and cowardly. Even our big-government Supreme Court acknowledged that habeas corpus can’t be suspended in Boumediene v. Bush.”
The decision was 5 to 4 first off, so close, second, Kennedy’s decision came because he said they didn’t provide a good enough substitute to a normal court. Basically he said the military tribunals didn’t have a good enough method to go back and double-check evidence. Understandable. So really, Kennedy and others didn’t think that the suspension of habeas corpus was bad, it was that there was no adequate substitute. Also, they allowed the detention of other prisoners, this was just five prisoners that they released.
At what point is it an invasion? Please define invasion. How much life has to be lost before you are willing to say the public safety requires it? Five thousand? Ten thousand? One Hundred Thousand? Seeing as how there have been dozens of thwarted terrorist attacks, thus hundreds, thousands, possibly even tens of thousands of lives saved by just the waterboarding of three individuals, and the detention of seven hundred others (I don’t know what I am writing out these numbers), I would say it is clearly justified. What wrong has come of it? Nothing! Not only that, but it can legally be called an invasion as the attacks are on US soil.
“Boumediene v. Bush”
Five prisoners, all of whom were from Bosnia and the the CIA/Army had little to no evidence. If there was sufficient evidence, they would still be in Gitmo. The allegations were insane, and had little supporting evidence. Note how the other 770 detainees still don’t get habeas corpus. This was a special case.
“some false sense of security’
Yes because we never receive valuable information from the detainees nor have we thwarted any terrorist attacks with said information.
“of course the problem is that 95% of those in Gitmo are innocent. ”
This statement smells, I bet I can guess where you pulled it from.
“given a great expansion of power, will quietly remain within these limits. ”
Legally they have to. Their power wasn’t really expanded much, and it wasn’t expanded over US citizens, just unlawful combatants.
“And yes, a suspension of habeas corpus IS an expansion of power and fundamentally unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court”
That all depends on WHO it is and WHEN it is suspended and WHAT evidence they have. If they aren’t given a competent tribunal then I would say it is unconstitutional, however, a large majority receive competent tribunals and the ones who don’t have been released or are in the process of being released.
“Yaser Hamdi”
He was detained there when they still thought he was a non-citizen. Of course, when they found this out, they transferred him to the mainland. And what happened? They heard his case and was allowed to be released so long as he renounced his citizenship.
“I’ll worry about the government, the great destroyer of liberty and you can worry about…well you get my point. ”
Nice dodge. You neglect that the entire reason for government is fear. Whether it be rights, freedom, or life it matters not. You can call me scared but I think it is only sensible for us to legally protect innocent life whenever possible. I feel that it is the duty of the government to protect its citizens, with the courts, the police, and the armed forces.
“Just keep thinking it’s always the other guy, only the guilty ones. Ha, such a moronic and short-sighted mindset.”
Yes, our entire criminal court system is moronic and short-sighted. Ad hominem.
“If you’re designated an enemy combatant, you have NO DEFENSE against it.”
Legally they must be given a substitute, aka a military tribunal. That is their defense. Should the prosecutors have enough information to classify them as an unlawful combatant then legally they can be detained without specific charge. Again, my rights can’t be taken away, as I am neither an unlawful combatant nor non-US citizen. Your rights can’t be either.
“Military tribunals against civilians”
How many times do I have to tell you that non-US citizens are the only ones labeled as unlawful combatants? Note how combatant is built into the term, so they aren’t civilians. Nice try
“He greatly expanded executive power and went above Supreme Court precedents”
Nuh uh. Provide an argument, don’t just contradict me.
“By bloating the budget, causing inflation and an enormous debt, we’ve hurt our economic future.”
Agreed! Finally.
“This country has recovered from 3,000 deaths but the reaction to that one act was far more disastrous than the act itself.”
I question this. Our reaction prevented subsequent acts of destruction, thus you need to include them in the net negative. I vote that our acts, while not always just, largely have protected citizens around the world and made the US safer. Of course, you will come back saying “nope” but I’ll let you respond.
In an attempt to make my argument clear, with hopes that you will address it instead of focusing on smaller matters, I’ll shorten up this post and present to you the two major Constitutional barriers against your argument:
1) Article 1, Section 9. Whether or not you and I believe this is an invasion is inconsequential, the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that our current situation does NOT constitute a suspension of habeas corpus. Also in Rasul v. Bush (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that detainees are protected under habeas corpus. So to put two and two together: detainees are protected under habeas corpus and the U.S. government cannot constitutionally suspend habeas corpus at this time. Therefore the U.S. government cannot suspend habeas corpus for detainees and the Military Commissions Act is unconstitutional.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-1195
2) A likely defense to this would be to claim that military tribunals can be arranged and therefore detainees are being given a “trial”. Yet you’re blocked once again by the Constitution and Supreme Court. This time it’s “Ex parte Milligan” (1866). The Supreme Court then held that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional. Martial law cannot exist where the civil courts are operating. So even in the case of martial law and suspension of habeas corpus as occurred during the Civil War, if civil courts are operating then they must be used and military tribunals are therefore unconstitutional.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=71&invol=2
“Many probably haven’t even read the Constitution”
I have. And I know not only the ideas behind it but the rulings that have stemmed from it.
“Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that our current situation does NOT constitute a suspension of habeas corpus.”
No, it ruled that Boumediene and five others’ situations didn’t constitute a suspension of habeas corpus.
“Rasul v. Bush”
Again, another petition for habeas corpus. This wasn’t a broad decision, this was a situational case, just like Boumediene.
The source even notes that they can be held indefinitely but they can petition the court to hear their case.
“The Supreme Court then held that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional.”
They aren’t civilians, but nice try. And Congress created the commissions.
Again, you are simply taking one court decision (one that doesn’t even support your argument) and saying it is correct. The point isn’t to argue with the decision but to argue with me. You didn’t define invasion and you didn’t explain at what point the public safety becomes in danger.
Answer the questions and then we can move on.
“No, it ruled that Boumediene and five others’ situations didn’t constitute a suspension of habeas corpus.”
…are you serious? It’s impossible to debate you when you fail to acknowledge damning facts. While the case was filed by the 6 plaintiffs, its ruling was much larger. The Supreme Court would never rule that only the plaintiffs from one trial are being given their rights, by definition the Court’s rulings are broad and all-encompassing. Boumediene v. Bush ruled that the parts of the MCA and Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which suspended habeas corpus are unconstitutional. Along with some further rulings on extraterritoriality, Boumediene v. Bush effectively gave the right to file for the “Great Writ” to ALL at Gitmo. Once again it did this by ruling parts of the MCA and DTA are unconstitutional, a ruling that would obviously have a bigger effect than just 6 prisoners.
“Again, another petition for habeas corpus. This wasn’t a broad decision, this was a situational case, just like Boumediene.”
Are you just desperate now to justify this outrage to Constitutional law? Of course it was a broad decision. The Supreme Court lays down precedents and rulings of constitutionality, it doesn’t deal with individual matters. Should we assume by your logic that only Roe (Norma L. McCorvey) was given permission by the Supreme Court to get an abortion in Roe v. Wade? Lol of course not because the rulings of the Court are precedents and, in the case of Boumediene and Roe, ruled legislation to be unconstitutional. It actually amazes me that you believe a Supreme Court ruling of unconstitutionality only applies to those that filed for the writ. You’re credibility is slipping.
“They aren’t civilians, but nice try. And Congress created the commissions.”
They’re not American civilians however they are civilians of some nation. Ex parte Milligan stands and for a more recent ruling, take Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
“In the fall of 2006, following a second momentous decision in the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the justices ruled that the proposed trials by Military Commission for those held at Guantánamo (which also relied on the use of secret evidence) were illegal under domestic and international law…”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-worthington/the-supreme-courts-guanta_b_106993.html
And part of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld acknowledged that the executive branch had established the commissions. Unless you’re claiming the Court doesn’t know the legislation it ruled unconstitutional, you got it wrong.
I am debating you however we’re debating Constitutional law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and therefore the only thing really worth debating. Since the Supreme Court is the authority on the Constitution, I can, and have, used Supreme Court rulings and the Constitution to show you how illegal these acts are. If you still believe they’re the best thing for this nation, fine however admit that you’re opposing the Constitution in doing so. I, for one, will not bastardize the Constitution anymore than it has already been bastardized.
“he Supreme Court would never rule that only the plaintiffs from one trial are being given their rights, by definition the Court’s rulings are broad and all-encompassing.”
Unless specified. In this case, they noted that the plaintiffs should be released. Of course, the plaintiffs had to petition the Supreme Court, as other unlawful combatants have to as well.
“Boumediene v. Bush ruled that the parts of the MCA and Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which suspended habeas corpus are unconstitutional.”
For those few, because the government didn’t not meet the requirements to have those rights stripped, aka they didn’t have enough evidence.
“Boumediene v. Bush effectively gave the right to file for the “Great Writ” to ALL at Gitmo”
Yep, like I said, they can petition the Supreme Court to hear their case. Of course, this doesn’t mean the Supreme Court has to hear their case, and even if they do, they can decide to keep their ass in Gitmo.
“The Supreme Court lays down precedents and rulings of constitutionality, it doesn’t deal with individual matters.”
Note how I didn’t say individuals, I said situations. Different situations, different case. Should there be reason to believe the detainee is an unlawful combatant and is a threat to US security, and they are classified so by a competent military tribunal, then it is perfectly legally for them to be held indefinitely. They can petition the Supreme Court to grant them habeas, but should they have received what is deemed as a competent substitute to habeas corpus, then they get to sit in Gitmo. Apparently you don’t understand law. This is the equivalent of you saying that because we have a law that says you can’t shoot someone that you can never shoot someone. There are situations when it is perfectly legal to do so.
“you believe a Supreme Court ruling of unconstitutionality only applies to those that filed for the writ. You’re credibility is slipping.”
It doesn’t, it applies to everyone in that situation. In this case, there wasn’t enough evidence to classify the detainees as unlawful combatants and therefore the Supreme Court mandated that they be given the writ of habeas corpus and a fair trial to determine their sentence, if any. This applies to all detainees who were labeled as unlawful combatants when there was not enough evidence to do so, hence why they can petition the Supreme Court to grant them habeas. This does not mean that all detainees must have a trial by their peers, this means that the Supreme Court can decide that certain cases aren’t substantial enough to deny a detainee habeas.
“You’re credibility is slipping.”
Hardly. I am a rock
“however they are civilians of some nation. ”
A civilian is a term given to persons of a nation who are not part of a police or military organization. These individuals who are detained are part of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other groups who carry out attacks. Ergo, they aren’t civilians.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is an outdated ruling because of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which defined an unlawful combatant. This goes back to my previous statement about how the Supreme Court Justices had a problem with the tribunals, not the suspension of the writ. Should there be competent tribunals, legally the suspension of the writ is allowed. Detainees again must petition the Supreme Court to review their case. Should the Supreme Court determine that they did not receive a competent tribunal, they are granted the writ. However, if they had a competent tribunal, they sit in Gitmo.
I feel like I am repeating myself.
Define “invasion” and “public safety”, for the third time now.
“Point me in the direction of said FBI and Army experts…”
I’ve named my sources. If Derek wishes to discredit those sources somehow, he can address what they have said. He does not do so because he is operating from a position of complete ignorance.
“Note how the experts, including Cheney, CIA and FBI officials, and even ABC correspondents. “
Note how they what? Derek is so incoherent that he believes that an incomplete sentence is somehow a compelling argument.
“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was one of the three prisoners who were waterboarded and he provided valuable information.”
Irrelevant, even if true — and Derek provides no convincing evidence that it is. Torture is against the law of the United States. Derek is arguing that the law should be violated so long as his flabby white ass is being kept safe.
“You can say that it is harmful (note how all three who were waterboarded are perfectly fine)…”
Note how Derek again makes shit up out of thin air to support his claims. How does Derek know the medical condition of the prisoners in question? Answer: He does not. Derek is asking us to accept his ignorance as evidence.
“Except: 1] it isn’t a crime…”
Derek once again chooses to lie outright. The use of torture violates the Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory.
The clearest explanation that I have found thus far of the obligations that the US has bound itself to under the CAT is found in this post at Shakespeare’s Sister:
— begin quote —
The UN Convention Against Torture was signed by President Reagan in 1988, and ratified again in 1994. The United States has not withdrawn from the Convention, and is still bound by it. The Convention says, among other things, that:
““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.”
But . . . But, Waterboarding isn’t torture!!!
Doesn’t matter. The arguments that waterboarding is not torture, specious as they are, make no difference, because the Convention goes on to say:
“Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
But . . . But . . . Ticking TimeBomb!!!!
Doesn’t matter.
“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
But . . . But . . . . I was ordered to do it!!!!
Doesn’t matter.
“An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.”
We just want to move on.
Well, poor us — too bad. If we are to honor our agreements as a nation, we must investigate — because we say we will.
“Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.”
I won’t even go into the clauses that state that we will give victims of torture the right to redress and adequate compensation.
Suffice it to say that it is completely clear, even if an investigation was made and the acts committed under the Bush administration were found, by the entire world, not to be torture (and pigs could fly) — the United States — my country — WE — have an obligation to investigate — promptly and impartially.
I believe that my government is currently in violation of its own laws and international treaties.
— end quote —
There can be no doubt that the US is currently in violation of the Convention Against Torture. But Derek will argue that this is just fine — just so long as his useless self is safe.
Derek is willing to accept the United States as a nation that violates its own laws and its international obligations, because he is afraid of terrorist attack. What is that, if not the very definition of a coward without principles?
“Seeing as how there have been dozens of thwarted terrorist attacks, thus hundreds, thousands, possibly even tens of thousands of lives saved by just the waterboarding of three individuals…”
Seeing as how Derek has failed to supply any reliable evidence for this claim, it can be dismissed out of hand as yet another wingnut fantasy.
“What wrong has come of it? Nothing!”
False. The US is in violation of its own laws, and at least one treaty to which it is a signatory.
“Yes because we never receive valuable information from the detainees nor have we thwarted any terrorist attacks with said information.”
What specific terrorist attacks have been thwarted as a result of torture? Derek conveniently does not say.
“You can call me scared but I think it is only sensible for us to legally protect innocent life whenever possible.”
Derek is lying again. He has no concern whatsoever for the legality of what is done to protect his flabby, worthless ass.
Remember that in Derekworld, torture is always a wonderful thing when the US does it, and leads always to amazing results with thousands and thousands of lives being saved.
In the real world, things are a little different. For instance:
— begin quote —
HOST [of NPR's Tell Me More]: [Is] there some cost to you, psychologically or emotionally, in using these techniques?
TONY [Lagouranis, a former Army interrogator] : Yes. When I came back I was experiencing intense guilt. I’m still dealing with that, and I think that any sane person put in the situation that I was of brutalizing a helpless person, it doesn’t matter who they are, you’re going to suffer psychological consequences. A friend of mine trained with me as an interrogator and trained in Arabic with me. She was sent to Iraq and asked to use these harsh techniques in the interrogation booth in Tal Afar. She refused, twice. She was ultimately taken off of her post. She… she killed herself rather than use these techniques. We’re asking our young servicemen and women to make a choice. To torture people or destroy themselves, and I don’t think that’s how we want to treat our service people.
— end quote —
I can hear Derek’s nasal whine now: But… but… but… we saved thousands of people with torture! Lucky Derek has his fantasies to shield him from the harsh reality of what torture does to our own soldiers.
“Our reaction prevented subsequent acts of destruction…”
Ehhhh… not so much:
“A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general’s investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any “specific imminent attacks,” according to one of four top-secret Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month.
FBI Director Robert Mueller told Vanity Fair magazine in December that he didn’t think that the techniques disrupted any attacks.”
Whoops. Those pesky facts keep cropping up. It’s a good thing that Derek is so skillful at ignoring them.
Meathead, you do realize that you addressed nothing I said, even though you wrote 1300 words in three separate comments?
Under all provisions, the US method of waterboarding isn’t torture. Period. Deal with it.
Your sources sucked, and I already pointed out why.
2004? Seriously? Note how the other memo’s weren’t released. I already showed how later interrogations provided valuable information that saved lived.
Waterboarding, along with the suspension of habeas corpus for unlawful combatants is 100% legal, in both domestic and international law. If you think otherwise you are either 1) not taking into account provisions that state unlawful combatants can be denied habeas corpus 2) ignoring article 1 section 9 of the Constitution or 3) blatantly ignoring known facts.
Did you know that we could legally execute them on the battle field under Geneva IV article V meathead? Because they don’t wear uniforms, they can be labeled as saboteurs or spies, and therefore they forfeit all rights granted by Geneva. Gitmo’s facilities are wonderful and are far better than most US facilities.
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/john-ensign-club-gitmo-detainees-health
Meathead, before you come back, make sure you know what you are talking about. I don’t care if you have a petty blog where you arrogantly hold yourself higher than all others, but on my blog, you are still nothing more than a whiny child who has nothing better to do but rack up my traffic and spew inane BS on a blog.
Don’t feed the trolls.
“Meathead, you do realize that you addressed nothing I said, even though you wrote 1300 words in three separate comments?”
Baby Derek is lying. I have, for instance, addressed his contention that waterboarding is legal — it is not, under the provisions of the Convention Against torture, to which the US is a signatory.
“Under all provisions, the US method of waterboarding isn’t torture. Period. Deal with it.”
BECAUSE! DEREK! SAYS! SO!
BECAUSE! DEREK! SAYS! SO!
BECAUSE! DEREK! SAYS! SO!
Baby Derek slams his rattle to the floor and lies again. Waterboarding in any form is illegal under the provisions of the Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory.
“Waterboarding… is 100% legal, in both domestic and international law.”
Baby Derek has yet to cite any domestic laws under which waterboarding is legal.
Baby Derek has yet to cite any international laws under which waterboarding is legal.
Baby Derek is again reaching into his diaper and pulling out his own poo — but no facts.
“Your sources sucked, and I already pointed out why.”
Baby Derek is lying yet again. All he did was make thr claim. He has failed to provide any factual information to back up his infantile claim.
“I have, for instance, addressed his contention that waterboarding is legal ”
Yet you neglect my support for its legality, instead citing decades old documents in an attempt to refute my less than year old reasoning and my citing of the Constitution. You didn’t address anything I stated.
“BECAUSE! DEREK! SAYS! SO!”
Meathead’s famed “I have nothing to refute the claim and I know it has already been proven so I am going to ad hominem the crap out of this argument”
I already proved its legality, it is your job as a dissenter to go to my argument and show where it is wrong. Note how this is not possible as my argument is based in fact and logic.
“Convention Against Torture”
Doesn’t define waterboarding as torture, note how I addressed this when I said US’s methods of waterboarding aren’t defined as torture under any charter or provision.
“The Convention’s definition of “torture” does not include all acts of
mistreatment causing mental or physical suffering, but only those of a severe nature.
According to the State Department’s section-by-section analysis of CAT included in
President Reagan’s transmittal of the Convention to the Senate for its advice and
consent, the Convention’s definition of torture was intended to be interpreted in a
“relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of torture
as an extreme practice which is universally condemned.”4 For example, the State
Department suggested that rough treatment falling into the category of police
brutality, “while deplorable, does not amount to ‘torture’” for purposes of the
Convention, which is “usually reserved for extreme, deliberate, and unusually cruel practices … [such as] sustained systematic beating, application of electric currents to sensitive parts of the body, and tying up or hanging in positions that cause extreme pain.”5″
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/101750.pdf
Note how waterboarding of any kind isn’t described. The US method of waterboarding uses fear, not pain, to withdraw information. Before you say “because derek says so!”, go ahead and go back and look at the evidence I have provided showing that the US method does not leave physical ailments nor does it cause pain.
“Baby Derek has yet to cite any domestic laws under which waterboarding is legal.”
Military Commissions Act of 2006. Read my post before you blather BS.
“Baby Derek has yet to cite any international laws under which waterboarding is legal.”
Geneva IV Article V, and thanks to you, CAT Article I. It is really easy when you give me evidence meathead, you might want to try a different tactic.
“Baby Derek is lying yet again. All he did was make thr claim. He has failed to provide any factual information to back up his infantile claim.”
You didn’t provide any facts for this claim. I’ll go back and quote what I said (note how this is a concrete fact) to refute your claim:
ME: You compared this to Vietnam and US soldiers, completely ignoring the facts I present of how the interrogation techniques worked on the Gitmo detainees thus preventing various terrorist attacks.
ME: What meatbrain failed to mention in his spiel (if only Becca had time to read my site), was that there are many different kinds of waterboarding. The methods used by the FBI and Army both are harmless. If you know a bit of history, I’m sure you can recall how we prosecuted Japanese officers for warcrimes because they waterboarded US POWs during WWII. Of course, they were forcing them to pass out and forcing them to swallow great amounts of water. When they could not ingest any more water, they would hit their stomach, forcing them to purge the liquid that they had taken in. Yes, that is torture. In the most extreme cases they would force feed POWs dry rice and then force them to drink water until their bowels exploded. Torture? Damn right. 27% of American POWs held by the Japanese were killed.
The stages range from dripping water on the detainee’s head to placing a cloth on their face and pouring water on their mouth and nose. Notice no forcing, no death, no extreme pain.
Hey look, I destroyed both of meathead’s so called sources. The content was either incorrect or applied incorrectly.
Nice try meathead. Come back when you grow a spine.
Baby Derek’s intellectual dishonesty is staggering. He posts lie after lie after lie, inventing nonsensical interpretations of laws that clearly do not say what he claims they do. Clearly he is devoted to the concept of the Big Lie. Unfortunately for him, his lies are clumsy and ludicrously transparent.
“Yet you neglect my support for its legality, instead citing decades old documents in an attempt to refute my less than year old reasoning and my citing of the Constitution.”
Hilariously, Baby Derek asks us to believe that simply because his lies are newer than the laws he is lying about, he must be telling the truth. Simply because he mentioned the Constitution, he must be telling the truth. This is the sort of ‘thinking’ that the lying wingnuts prize above all else.
“I already proved its legality…”
False. Baby Derek has already lied repeatedly about the laws regarding torture. Oh lookie, he’s lying it again:
“Doesn’t define waterboarding as torture…”
Baby Derek is lying again. Torture is defined in Article 1 of the CAT:
“For the purposes of this Convention, the term “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 does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
Since waterboarding does, in fact, inflict severe pain or suffering, it is defined by the CAT as torture. Baby Derek is also very very careful to ignore the existence of article 16 of the CAT.
“…go back and look at the evidence I have provided showing that the US method does not leave physical ailments nor does it cause pain.”
Baby Derek is lying again. He has provided no such evidence. We know that waterboarding can and does, in fact, cause illness. And we know that those who have been subjected to it do, in fact, confirm that it is torture.
Baby Derek is an ignorant, hatemongering college freshman who knows absolutely nothing of the reality of torture. He merely demonstrates the depth of his intellectual dishonesty when he tries to pass himself off as someone who knows more about the damage that torture can do than the actual exprts on the subject.
“Military Commissions Act of 2006.”
Baby Derek is lying again. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 makes no mention whatsoever of waterboarding. It therefore cannot define it as legal.
“Geneva IV Article V, and thanks to you, CAT Article I.”
Baby Derek is lying again. Neither the Fourth Geneva Convention nor the Convention Against Torture define waterboarding as legal, as anyone who has actually read those documents know.
Notice the pattern here: Each time Baby Derek claims that one or another document supports his position, it is found that the document says nothing of the sort. Derek has no compunction whatsoever about lying to his readers.
“You compared this to Vietnam and US soldiers, completely ignoring the facts I present of how the interrogation techniques worked on the Gitmo detainees thus preventing various terrorist attacks.”
Baby Derek is lying again. He provided no factual evidence whatsoever that torture was successful in “preventing various terrorist attacks”. We are supposed to accept this as gospel simply BECAUSE! DEREK! SAYS! SO!
“The methods used by the FBI and Army both are harmless.”
Once again, Baby Derek provided no factual evidence whatsoever to back up this claim. We are supposed to accept this as gospel simply BECAUSE! DEREK! SAYS! SO!
Let us understand clearly what has happened here: Derek Foley has abandoned any and all moral code that he may once have held. Anything — any action at all — is acceptable to Derek so long as he can believe that it keeps his worthless pasty white ass “safe”. And any action on his part — especially lying — is acceptable to Derek to “prove” his point.
That’s what the wingnuts have gifted us with, folks: an entire generation of young liars, who will become old liars. Derek Foley will be a liar for the rest of his life. He knows no other way to act.
What’s really amazing is that I didn’t catch this howler earlier:
“Critics say this goes against the Constitution, as it suspends habeas corpus (Right to a trial by jury).”
Um, nope. That’s not what habeas corpus means. Baby Derek has spent all this time pretending to be a razor-sharp legal eagle, gracing us with his sober and incisive analyses of the law — and it turns out he’s a complete ignoramus on the subject.
There is little that is more enjoyable than watching a turdwit of Baby Derek’s sort make a total ass of himself. Wingnuts really are your best Internet entertainment value.
“Hilariously, Baby Derek asks us to believe that simply because his lies are newer than the laws he is lying about, he must be telling the truth. Simply because he mentioned the Constitution, he must be telling the truth. This is the sort of ‘thinking’ that the lying wingnuts prize above all else.”
I was noting how you didn’t address the legal arguments I presented. You were using information that was outdated, circa the 1960’s and 70’s. Then you cited a memo from 2004. I am citing information from 2006 on up to present day, and I have shown how it contradicts all of the inane claims you have made. I have a feeling you will dance around this issue further.
“False. Baby Derek has already lied repeatedly about the laws regarding torture. Oh lookie, he’s lying it again:”
Claiming that it is a lie gets us no where. Point out specifically what I “lied” about and then maybe we can make some progress. Note how you expect me to jump through hoops to prove a point, and then say I am “lying” when I do while simultaneously providing proof, yet you make claims with no reference. That makes you a hypocrite, but I’ll give you another chance to go ahead and cite specifically what is wrong with my argument then explain why while providing proof.
“inflict severe pain or suffering, ”
The US version does not inflict pain or suffering. Note how I provided a legal reference for how it does not apply as well. Waterboarding doesn’t cause pain, it causes panic and fear, which is perfectly legal.
Those who are subjected to it have also said that it isn’t torture, just fear. You can’t pick and choose so I am going with the experts on this one: It doesn’t cause pain. If applied correctly, aka don’t pour the water longer than 30 seconds or so, there should be no pain, no suffering, just fear. It is uncomfortable, but then again I would assume that being related to meathead would be uncomfortable as well, and that means under meathead’s definition, being related to him is torture.
“Baby Derek is lying again. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 makes no mention whatsoever of waterboarding. It therefore cannot define it as legal.”
Read for understanding meathead.
Sec. 948r c,d
“(c) Statements Obtained Before Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that–
(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
(d) Statements Obtained After Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that–
(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;
(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and
(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.”
“Baby Derek is lying again. Neither the Fourth Geneva Convention nor the Convention Against Torture define waterboarding as legal, as anyone who has actually read those documents know.”
Yes it does, for unlawful combatants. Because they are unlawful combatants, they forfeit all rights granted by the Conventions, ergo, we can do whatever we want to them and it would still be legal under the Conventions.
”
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.”
So how much do I have to spoon feed you logic and information before you shut up?
“He provided no factual evidence whatsoever that torture was successful in “preventing various terrorist attacks”. We are supposed to accept this as gospel simply BECAUSE! DEREK! SAYS! SO!”
ME:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was one of the three prisoners who were waterboarded and he provided valuable information.
ME: He also revealed that the true mastermind of the attack was Osama bin Laden’s deputy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Qahtani also fingered another Saudi al-Qaeda operative, Adnan el-Shukrijumah, who was in the United States organizing another 9/11-style attack for the summer of 2004. Khalid Mohammed’s subsequent capture in Pakistan in March 2003 revealed still more details which, we now know, enabled the Bush administration to foil a second wave of suicide attacks directed at Los Angeles.
Maybe if you actually read the post you would have found my claims and evidence.
““The methods used by the FBI and Army both are harmless.””
They are, as I have already addressed this in a comment a few above.
“The interrogations were closely monitored and medical personnel were present for each. The entire procedure lasted seconds. Was the procedure stressful and harsh? Yes. Did it injure or harm the subject? No. Do our own military personnel undergo similar activities during their SERE (Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape) training? Yes.”
Hell, we do it to our own cadets even.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/24/waterboarding-does-not-fit-torture-criteria/
“Um, nope. That’s not what habeas corpus means. Baby Derek has spent all this time pretending to be a razor-sharp legal eagle, gracing us with his sober and incisive analyses of the law — and it turns out he’s a complete ignoramus on the subject.”
Habeas Corpus: a writ ordering a prisoner to be brought before a judge
Ergo trial.
Meathead needs to stop lying.
“You were using information that was outdated, circa the 1960’s and 70’s.”
BECAUSE! DEREK! SAYS! SO!
Notice that Baby Derek cannot tell us what specific information is “outdated”, nor why. The lying little shitstain still thinks it has some shred of credibility left.
“Point out specifically what I “lied” about and then maybe we can make some progress.”
I would be happy to rub your face in your lies, little shitstain:
You are lying when you claim that waterboarding “leaves no lasting physical ailments nor does it cause immense pain”. We know that it does.
You are lying when you claim that torture isn’t a crime. The laws of the United States make it very clear that torture is a crime.
You are lying when you claim that “there have been dozens of thwarted terrorist attacks, thus hundreds, thousands, possibly even tens of thousands of lives saved by just the waterboarding of three individuals…”. There is no substantive evidence that any such attacks were revealed under torture.
You are lying when you claim that “domestic and international law” legalizes torture. There are no such laws.
Need more examples, lying shitstain?
“The US version does not inflict pain or suffering.”
SERE instructors such as Malcolm Nance confirm that it does. Baby Derek is still a lying shitstain.
“Those who are subjected to it have also said that it isn’t torture, just fear.”
SERE instructors such as Malcolm Nance confirm that waterboarding is, in fact, torture. Baby Derek is still a lying shitstain.
“Read for understanding meathead.”
The section of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not mention waterboarding, and therefore does not declare waterboarding to be legal. Baby Derek is still a lying shitstain.
“Because they are unlawful combatants, they forfeit all rights granted by the Conventions, ergo, we can do whatever we want to them and it would still be legal under the Conventions.”
The Geneva Conventions do not mention waterboarding, and therefore does not declare waterboarding to be legal. Baby Derek is still a lying shitstain.
“…we now know, enabled the Bush administration to foil a second wave of suicide attacks directed at Los Angeles.”
WHICH ATTACKS, lying shitstain?
Baby Derek doesn’t have specifics. It’s all handwaving and fantasy.
WHICH ATTACKS, lying shitstain?
“They are, as I have already addressed this in a comment a few above.”
SERE instructors such as Malcolm Nance confirm that waterboarding is painful and can cause death. Baby Derek is still a lying shitstain.
“Habeas Corpus: a writ ordering a prisoner to be brought before a judge. Ergo trial.”
Ergo Derek Jordan Foley is a fucking idiot. The lying shitstain claimed that habeas corpus is the right to a jury trial. it isn’t. The lying shitstain thinks that every appearance before a judge is automatically a jury trial. it isn’t.
Tell us something, lying shitstain: Which clause of the US Constitution guarantees the right of habeas corpus? Which clause of the US Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial? Do you even know? HAve you even read the Constitution?
You’re an ignorant little asshat who’s too fucking stupid even to realize how ignorant you are. I’m going to enjoy shoving the fact of your ignorance down your lying throat for a looooong, looooong time, moron.
“Notice that Baby Derek cannot tell us what specific information is “outdated”, nor why. The lying little shitstain still thinks it has some shred of credibility left.”
Me: You compared this to Vietnam and US soldiers, completely ignoring the facts I present of how the interrogation techniques worked on the Gitmo detainees thus preventing various terrorist attacks.
Before I go on, I ask that you do not swear on my blog. Any more swearing or derogatory language will result in me deleting all of your comments on my blog.
“You are lying when you claim that waterboarding “leaves no lasting physical ailments nor does it cause immense pain”. We know that it does.”
No, the evidence I have presented shows that the US method of waterboarding leaves no lasting physical ailments and is not painful. Before you say “because derek says so” go back and quote my evidence and what I said and contradict it in some manner.
“You are lying when you claim that torture isn’t a crime. The laws of the United States make it very clear that torture is a crime.’
Now we loop back into the debate whether waterboarding is torture, which I have show that by all definitions it is not torture.
““there have been dozens of thwarted terrorist attacks, thus hundreds, thousands, possibly even tens of thousands of lives saved by just the waterboarding of three individuals…”. There is no substantive evidence that any such attacks were revealed under torture.”
Oh but they did, aka the Los Angeles attacks.
“You are lying when you claim that “domestic and international law” legalizes torture. There are no such laws.”
Except the ones I presented, and waterboarding isn’t torture.
“SERE instructors such as Malcolm Nance confirm that it does.”
Yet the thousands of American soldiers along with intelligence analysts who say it doesn’t cause pain are irrelevant right?
“The section of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not mention waterboarding, and therefore does not declare waterboarding to be legal. Baby Derek is still a lying shitstain.”
Waterboarding falls under this category, so it does not need to be mentioned specifically. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Does that mean that because it specifically doesn’t say “knife” or “AR15″ or “spear” that the government can outlaw these weapons? No, because they fall under the term “arms”.
“The Geneva Conventions do not mention waterboarding, and therefore does not declare waterboarding to be legal. Baby Derek is still a lying shitstain.’
Lolz, you neglected everything I said. Meathead: LISTEN. Under Geneva IV, we are allowed to do WHATEVER WE WANT TO UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS. PERIOD. We can kill them, beat them and we can sure as hell waterboard them, as they forfeited their rights.
Los Angeles attacks:
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46949
http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2009/04/22/waterboarding-saved-los-angeles-from-terrorist-attack-per-released-cia-memos/
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2009/04/21/cia-confirms-that-waterboarding-khalid-sheik-mohammad-stopped-los-angeles-attacks/
“SERE instructors such as Malcolm Nance confirm that waterboarding is painful and can cause death.”
You are using one opinion against the thousands I have presented. Let alone the actual practice of waterboarding which I have spelled out for you.
“The lying shitstain thinks that every appearance before a judge is automatically a jury trial. it isn’t.”
Not a trial by jury, you’re right, for once in a lifetime, but it is still a trial, often times being a trial by jury.
“Which clause of the US Constitution guarantees the right of habeas corpus?”
Article 1 Section 9, it is the blog post. Again, you need to read it.
“Which clause of the US Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial?”
6th Amendment, but I don’t see what you are trying to do here other than waste my time.
“I’m going to enjoy shoving the fact of your ignorance down your lying throat for a looooong, looooong time, moron.”
I find this amusing because the general consensus of the people who have heard of you is that you are an ignorant little baby who has nothing better to do but spew profanity and BS on other peoples’ blogs.
“I ask that you do not swear on my blog. Any more swearing or derogatory language will result in me deleting all of your comments on my blog.”
Up yours, pukeworm. You have absolutely no problem with “swearing or derogatory language” when it is used by someone who agrees with you. Take your rank hypocrisy, fold it nine ways, and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
“You compared this to Vietnam and US soldiers, completely ignoring the facts I present of how the interrogation techniques worked on the Gitmo detainees thus preventing various terrorist attacks.”
Lying pukeworm Derek Foley has presented no such “facts”. It merely repeats the claim over and over again.
“No, the evidence I have presented shows that the US method of waterboarding leaves no lasting physical ailments and is not painful.”
News flash for lying pukeworm Derek Foley: repeating the same crap over and over again isn’t “evidence”.
“…go back and quote my evidence…”
What “evidence”? The lying pukeworm has simply repeated this same assertion over and over again. It has never once provided any substantive “evidence” for its claims.
“Yet the thousands of American soldiers along with intelligence analysts who say it doesn’t cause pain are irrelevant right?”
Yes, they are — because those “thousands of American soldiers along with intelligence analysts who say it doesn’t” don’t exist. They are figments of the diseased imagination of lying pukeworm Derek Foley.
“Waterboarding falls under this category, so it does not need to be mentioned specifically.”
Remember, this is the legal eagle that cannot tell the difference between habeas corpus and trial by jury. Lying pukeworm Derek Foley knows nothing of the law. Its pronouncements on legal matters are so much dog vomit.
“Los Angeles attacks…”
Lying pukeworm Derek Foley isn’t just dishonest — it is also ignoramnt. The facts prove conclusively that the US broke up the Library Tower plot to which is refers months before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured:
— begin quote —
What clinches the falsity of [the Library Tower claims], however (and that of the memo [Mark A. Thiessen] cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen’s argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush’s counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and “at that point, the other members of the cell” (later arrested) “believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward” [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, “In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast.” These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush’s characterization of it as a “disrupted plot” was “ludicrous”—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn’t captured until March 2003.
How could Sheikh Mohammed’s water-boarded confession have prevented the Library Tower attack if the Bush administration “broke up” that attack during the previous year? It couldn’t, of course. Conceivably the Bush administration, or at least parts of the Bush administration, didn’t realize until Sheikh Mohammed confessed under torture that it had already broken up a plot to blow up the Library Tower about which it knew nothing. Stranger things have happened. But the plot was already a dead letter. If foiling the Library Tower plot was the reason to water-board Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then that water-boarding was more than cruel and unjust. It was a waste of water.
— end quote —
“You are using one opinion against the thousands I have presented.”
Note that the only opinion that lying pukeworm Derek Foley has ever presented in this discussion is its own, and it bases that opinion solely on its own ignorance and moral vacuity. These “thousands” of opinions exist only in its puerile imagination.
“Not a trial by jury, you’re right, for once in a lifetime, but it is still a trial, often times being a trial by jury.”
Lying pukeworm Derek Foley still can’t get its facts straight. The right to habeas corpus is not the right to a trial of any kind.
“I don’t see what you are trying to do here other than waste my time.”
I am enlisting the assistance of the lying pukeworm in clearly defining its ignorance. It managed to stumble through Wikipedia long enough to find one of several places where a trial by jury is guaranteed in the Constitution. Clearly it is still too stupid or too lazy (or both) to bother finding out all the facts. Nor has it yet noticed that the one section mentioning trial by jury that it has found has nothing whatsoever to do with habeas corpus.
“I find this amusing because the general consensus of the people who have heard of you…”
This, of course, is the same tactic that lying pukeworm Derek Foley has used to “prove” its claim that waterboarding “leaves no lasting physical ailments nor does it cause immense pain” — invent a multitude of imaginary non-persons, all of whom conveniently agree with it.
Facts be damned — the lying pukeworm Derek Foley will live in its fantasy world, come hell or high water!
“when it is used by someone who agrees with you.”
Really? Show one place where someone who agrees with me swore and I let it slide. Usually the people who agree with me don’t swear.
“Lying pukeworm Derek Foley has presented no such “facts”. It merely repeats the claim over and over again.”
I gave you THREE LINKS. What more do you want? If you’d give me your address I’d be happy to bring you the printed out articles.
“News flash for lying pukeworm Derek Foley: repeating the same crap over and over again isn’t “evidence”. ”
I do believe the crap you are referring to is evidence. The fact that I keep explaining it over and over and over and over doesn’t mean it isn’t evidence, it just means you are thick.
“Lying pukeworm Derek Foley isn’t just dishonest — it is also ignoramnt. The facts prove conclusively that the US broke up the Library Tower plot to which is refers months before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured:”
I am not ignoramnt, I am truthful and use something called evidence. You should try it sometime. The editorial you presented has two reasons why waterboarding shouldn’t have been used.
1) because the attack wouldn’t have been successful because citizens would crash the plane prior to it hitting the tower and
2) because an unnamed FBI official (no mention of rank) says the attack was foiled in 2002, prior to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s capture.
Here are its main problems: It assumes that citizens would take action and it neglects that there would be considerable life lost simply by crashing the planes, AND, it uses an unnamed, unranked, unknown source from a newspaper that says the Bush administration was lying and manipulating info.
For all we know, this could have been a low level agent that had some beef with the administration, or someone who disagreed with the tactics, or made up entirely. It isn’t definitive proof. Again, you are choosing to believe not the option that is likely to be truth, but rather the rare possibility that supports your views. You decided the policy prior to finding the information, thus you are building the foundation above the pillars. This is the key to understand why you are so wrong.
“These “thousands” of opinions exist only in its puerile imagination.”
I didn’t realize that I am the only one to say waterboarding doesn’t cause pain or leave lasting ailments.
“The right to habeas corpus is not the right to a trial of any kind.”
“A prisoner files a petition for writ of habeas corpus in order to challenge the authority of the prison or jail warden to continue to hold him. If the judge orders a hearing after reading the writ, the prisoner gets to argue that his confinement is illegal.”
Hey look. A court. An argument against detention. Sounds like a trial to me.
“It managed to stumble through Wikipedia long enough to find one of several places where a trial by jury is guaranteed in the Constitution. ”
Or I know and understand the Constitution. Don’t make me ask you how you feel about the 2nd Amendment. Or how about article 1 section 8?
“invent a multitude of imaginary non-persons, all of whom conveniently agree with it.”
Notice how I never used the fact that people agree with me as an argument for waterboarding except when providing credence to that waterboarding doesn’t cause pain nor does it leave lasting ailments. So no meathead, you a liar.
I like how you went through the whole argument, yet skipped all of the legal arguments.
[...] are those who, like the bedwetting chickenhawk Derek Foley, believe that abuse and torture are perfectly acceptable, even necessary, tactics in the [...]
“Show one place where someone who agrees with me swore and I let it slide.”
I provided three such examples. Lying pukeworm Derek Foley is too mouth-breathingly STOOOOOOPID to follow the links.
“I gave you THREE LINKS.”
All three links are to articles that merely repeat the same claim that lying pukeworm Derek Foley has made. A hint for the pinheaded: Articles that merely make the same claim that you do are not ‘evidence’. The Bush White House confirmed that the attack was foiled in 2002 — months before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured. Lying pukeworm Derek Foley is too dishonest to admit this fact.
“I do believe the crap you are referring to is evidence.”
The beliefs of a lying child are worthless. The FACT is that the Bush White House confirmed that the attack was foiled in 2002 — months before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured. Lying pukeworm Derek Foley is too dishonest to admit this fact.
“The fact that I keep explaining it over and over and over and over doesn’t mean it isn’t evidence, it just means you are thick.”
The fact that lying pukeworm Derek Foley keeps repeating the same discredited claim over and over and over and over means that Derek Foley is a dishonest piece of semi-human garbage.
“The editorial you presented has two reasons why waterboarding shouldn’t have been used.”
The article I referenced provides irrefutable evidence that the plan to attack the Library Tower was foiled in 2002 — months before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured. Lying pukeworm Derek Foley is too dishonest to admit this fact.
“I didn’t realize that I am the only one to say waterboarding doesn’t cause pain or leave lasting ailments.”
We all realize that lying pukeworm Derek Foley has invented these “thousands of American soldiers along with intelligence analysts who say it doesn’t cause pain” out of whole cloth. It’s too jawdroppingly STOOOOOOOOOPID to realize that its little crowd of vaporous sock-puppets has been exposed for exactly what it is.
“Hey look. A court. An argument against detention. Sounds like a trial to me.”
Hey look. The cretinous maggot that calls itself Derek Foley doesn’t understand that not every appearance in court is a trial — and that the right to habeas corpus is not the right to a jury trial, as it originally claimed. It is too gobsmackingly STOOOOOOPID to realize that its glaringly obvious attempt to now move the goalposts has been called out for what it is — more rank dishonesty.
“I know and understand the Constitution.”
Idiot manchild Derek Foley is lying again. Clearly it is still too stupid or too lazy (or both) to bother finding out all the facts. Nor has it yet noticed that the one section mentioning trial by jury that it has found has nothing whatsoever to do with habeas corpus.
“Notice how I never used the fact that people agree with me as an argument for waterboarding…”
Derek Foley is lying again:
“Yet the thousands of American soldiers along with intelligence analysts who say it doesn’t cause pain are irrelevant right?”
The only reason for it to make this claim is to justify the use of waterboarding.
“…except when providing credence to that waterboarding doesn’t cause pain nor does it leave lasting ailments.”
Lying pukeworm Derek Foley has done neither. We know that, in fact, waterboarding is torture and can even be fatal. Obviously, the dimwitted asshat that calls itself Derek Foley does not consider death to be a “lasting ailment”.
“I like how you went through the whole argument, yet skipped all of the legal arguments.”
Lying pukeworm Derek Foley has made no “legal arguments”. It has proven itself to be utterly ignorant of the legal issues surrounding the use of torture by the US, and it wants desperately to maintain that ignorance and spread it to others.
So, boys and girls, what have we learned?
We have learned that waterboarding is in fact torture.
We have learned that the United States is bound by law to eschew the use of torture.
We have learned that waterboarding can cause lung damage or death.
We have learned that those who actually interrogate terrorism suspects (as opposed to a bedwetting coward like Derek Foley, who merely fantasizes about doing so) know that torture is an ineffective and counterproductive means of gathering intelligence.
We have learned that the claim that waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed prevent an attack on Los Angeles is, in fact, false.
We have learned that the CIA has found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any specific imminent attacks.
And we have learned that Derek Foley is a gormless lying jackwad with the moral intelligence of a brain-damaged tapeworm. Every single “argument” he has tried to make can be found on the handy torture apologia chart.
Unlike the morally incompetent Derek Foley, and unlike the imaginary “thousands of American soldiers” it fabricated out of whole cloth, real soldiers know that they are required to obey the law. One of these real soldiers is Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the Obama administration’s nominee to lead U.S. troops in the Afghanistan war, who has stated:
“Let me be clear — It is my duty to ensure that all detainees are held in conformity with all applicable laws governing the conditions of confinement, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. We must at all times adhere to our obligation to treat detainees humanely.”
Poor, poor Derek. It seems that the US military won’t be producing any more torture porn for maggot boy to wank off to.