Reward Offered for Obama's birth certificate

[KrustyKidd]

My argument is that torture does not stop being torture because someone decides it's not torture.

When the US uses your personal definition and parameters then you get to decide if it is torture or not. Since they didn't use yours but rather their legal definition, you're out of luck.

Terrorism suspect enters a CIA interrogation room. Just for the fun of it, the chief interrogator describes what will happen to him if he does not talk, from waterboarding to beatings to death threats to threats of rape, etc., etc., etc.

"And yes we know, when your *77^^%^^%% Iran does it, we call it torture. But with us, it won't hurt a bit. Because it's not torture when WE do it."

Terror suspect would nto be privy to classified information and, more than likely would not be briefed on the limits to how far the interrogation was allowed to go in order to keep him off balance and more pliable.

And what about ethics?

Me and Canadien were discussing the legalities of it as he contends that Bush lied when he said the US did not torture. Ethicly, it is foul however, in this case, we are discussing legalities and definitions used by the US government.

excellent work Krusty…

Thanks.

Now, to continue ....

the President can issue directives and, on the advice of legal counsel allowed harsh interrogation techniques to legally occur without being classified as torture.

Here is some of the advice given;

Byebee Memo conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that torture as defined in and proscribed by Sections 2340-2340A, covers only extreme acts. Severe pain is generally of the kind difficult for the victim to endure. Where the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure. Severe mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of infliction but it also requires lasting psychological harm, such as seen in mental disorders like posttraumatic stress disorder. Additionally, such severe mental pain can arise only from the predicate acts listed in Section 2340. Because the acts inflicting torture are extreme, there is significant range of acts that though they might constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment fail to rise to the level of torture.

Further, we conclude that under the circumstances of the current war against al Qaeda and its allies, application, of Section 2340A to interrogations undertaken pursuant to the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers may be unconstitutional. Finally, even if an interrogation method might violate Section 2340A, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability.

[CANADIEN]

When the US uses your personal definition and parameters then you get to decide if it is torture or not. Since they didn't use yours but rather their legal definition, you're out of luck.

YOU are out of luck arguing that torture is torture only when those committing it say it so.

Or perhaps I can get the government to pass a law stating that what one feels on a dentisit chair when a teeth is pulled out does not constitute pain.

Terror suspect would nto be privy to classified information and, more than likely would not be briefed on the limits to how far the interrogation was allowed to go in order to keep him off balance and more pliable.

You really, really didn't notice I was mocking you, did you?

[KrustyKidd]

YOU are out of luck arguing that torture is torture only when those committing it say it so.

I'm not. I argue that the President did not lie when he uttered those words and provided the reason and legality. Never once have I given an opinion of what I believe torture is. (Like few here have had to deal with some of the women I know.)

Or perhaps I can get the government to pass a law stating that what one feels on a dentisit chair when a teeth is pulled out does not constitute pain.

I doubt that in the real world it would have much bearing. However, the President of the US may issue directives that can define the policy of the US and, in this case, has. Hence, according to the advice given and his directive, he did not lie.

The US did not, at the time, prescribe to your personal definitions.

You really, really didn't notice I was mocking you, did you?

I did, but, when you had written these words

Canadien

Let me know when you manage to say something even more stupid, will you?.

I took that to mean that you deal in serious discussion as well as wished to be taken seriously and so, overlooked the stupidity of what you were saying and addressed it as if you were serious and on the level.

Edited May 8, 2009 by KrustyKidd

[jbg]

Nice try.

The prolonged use of sleep deprivation as an interrogation method IS a form of torture, designed to physically and mentally break down its recipient.

If a country uses sleep deprivation to obtain information to save thousands of lives I won't be deprived of sleep over it.

[KrustyKidd]

Why? We're still working on Lincoln and FDR's "trashing" of the Constitution...Bush will have to wait for his turn in history.

Not bad company to be in.

Indeed. The man the freed fifty million people from the clutches of tyranny. More than any other figure in history.

Hail Bush the Freer! Monuments to his greatness will be built as legends of his democratic deeds will grow and be sung in the halls of Liberty with a holiday forever enshrined for mankind of all religions and creeds. This day will be known as 'Bushmas.'

[sharkman]

American forces use waterboarding as a training technique... to prepare their personel to resist torture. Thanks for making my point for me.

Yes, we all know why they train with it. My question is why does Obama and the Dems not find this objectionable when they find the use of it in the field objectionable. If it's wrong against terrorists, why is it not wrong against its own citizens?

Because it doesn't inflict pain. And I'm pretty sure it's not an adequate preparation for getting your fingernails pulled off or some such thing.

I'm with jbg, these methods, which are used on American soldiers, save lives and stop attacks. I dearly hope an attack does not happen under Obama's reign, but if it does, closing Gitmo and outlawing these techniques will be seen as the reason come election time, no matter what drivel the Dems come up with.

Edited May 8, 2009 by sharkman

[waldo]

the President can issue directives and, on the advice of legal counsel allowed harsh interrogation techniques to legally occur without being classified as torture.

Here is some of the advice given;

Byebee Memo conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that torture as defined in and proscribed by Sections 2340-2340A, covers only extreme acts. Severe pain is generally of the kind difficult for the victim to endure. Where the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure. Severe mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of infliction but it also requires lasting psychological harm, such as seen in mental disorders like posttraumatic stress disorder. Additionally, such severe mental pain can arise only from the predicate acts listed in Section 2340. Because the acts inflicting torture are extreme, there is significant range of acts that though they might constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment fail to rise to the level of torture.

Further, we conclude that under the circumstances of the current war against al Qaeda and its allies, application, of Section 2340A to interrogations undertaken pursuant to the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers may be unconstitutional. Finally, even if an interrogation method might violate Section 2340A, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability.

the backdrop, of course, is the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the accompanying U.S. criminal provisions that I cited in my previous post; re: U.S. Code – Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, Section 2340A. Torture….. U.S. Code provisions that reflect the practical extension to U.S. law of the UN Convention Against Torture; a UN Convention that the U.S. is a signatory to.

reading in part, Article 2 of the UN Convention Against Torture: “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.”

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – Article 2:

Krusty, particularly as evidenced within your provided quote… the contextual justifications within the Yoo/Bybee opinion are specifically ruled out by Article 2 of the UN Convention Against Torture… “No exceptional circumstances”….

with the recent Obama release of the OLC memos, we should hardly be surprised to see significant calls for an impeachment of Bybee – now a sitting federal judge. That Yoo/Bybee opinion so circumvents the accepted definitions of torture, such that “death, organ failure or permanent impairment” were left as the only torture qualifiers.

the ludicrousness of the Yoo/Bybee opinion shows clearly when the opinion goes further to claim that American citizens can use necessity and/or self-defense to defend themselves against torture prosecutions… necessity and/or self-defense based on the horror of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

effectively, the Yoo/Bybee opinion asserts that the U.S. President is above the U.S. law… suggesting that existing U.S. law prohibiting torture, “may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations undertaken of enemy combatants pursuant to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers.”

yes Krusty, prominent U.S. Constitutional lawyers/scholars and international law/war experts have stated the Yoo/Bybee opinion includes blatant flaws/failures of law… and is damning evidence of a conspiratorial plan by the Bush administration to violate the “laws of war”. War Crime Krusty… War Crime!

certainly, the recent Obama release of the OLC memos is “new news”… but, c’mon Krusty… the understanding of the Yoo/Bybee opinion has been “common knowledge” since 2004. “Old news”, Krusty… “old news”. As I mentioned in my previous post, the outgoing head of OLC under Bush, Steven Bradbury has formally invalidated this Yoo/Bybee opinion. Bradbury, in fact, stated the OLC had not recognized that opinion since 2003. So, again, Krusty… what do you have since 2003? What do you have since 2003 to validate the Bush torture agenda… to substantiate your claim that Bush did not lie about torture… to support the Bush claim that the, “United States does not torture”?

since 2003 Krusty… since 2003? What do you have?

[KrustyKidd]

yes Krusty, prominent U.S. Constitutional lawyers/scholars and international law/war experts have stated the Yoo/Bybee opinion includes blatant flaws/failures of law… and is damning evidence of a conspiratorial plan by the Bush administration to violate the “laws of war”. War Crime Krusty… War Crime!

Good for them. At the time, it was considered by Bush to be a qualified and legal opinion which he based his directive on. So to him, the actions he gave authorization to use were, for all intents and purposes, legal and not torture.

Waldo lol. You get so excited it makes my day when you post.

[waldo]

Good for them. At the time, it was considered by Bush to be a qualified and legal opinion which he based his directive on. So to him, the actions he gave authorization to use were, for all intents and purposes, legal and not torture.

Waldo lol. You get so excited it makes my day when you post.

Krusty... I am equally impressed with your apologist positioning and your ever present hard-on for Bush, "the Great Liberator"... how would you rate/categorize that level of your expressed excitement/delirium?

but Krusty... you've nailed it! As you say, "at the time"... again... those OLC opinions were invalidated in 2003 - as acknowledged by Steven Bradley, the outgoing head of the OLC under Bush.

so again, Krusty... since 2003. What are the post-2003 OLC opinions that validate the Bush torture agenda… that substantiate your claim that Bush did not lie about torture (post-2003)… that support the Bush claim that the, “United States does not torture (post-2003)”?

waiting... waiting...

[CANADIEN]

I took that to mean that you deal in serious discussion as well as wished to be taken seriously and so, overlooked the stupidity of what you were saying and addressed it as if you were serious and on the level.

In other words, you don't even notice it when someone mocks you.

No wonder that you believe calling torture by another name is not lying about it.

[Oleg Bach]

In other words, you don't even notice it when someone mocks you.

No wonder that you believe calling torture by another name is not lying about it.

I have an anti B S mechinizm built into my brain - when someone is attempting to mislead me - I go deaf...and when someone mocks me I am so pure of heart I don't notice. Not that pure but good enough.

[sharkman]

In other words, you don't even notice it when someone mocks you.

No wonder that you believe calling torture by another name is not lying about it.

Okay all of you torturemongers, if Bush and Obama disagree whether waterboarding is torture, and it's used on Americans in training, why do you consider it torture? Just because the messiah says it's torture? It doesn't cause physical pain, it doesn't harm the person, but it makes him quite uncomfortable.

[waldo]

ya, ya... "used on Americans in training"... watch Fox News much? Fox's Jim Angle continues to beat that same drum and, apparently, less discerning types "eat it up".

Contradicting Bush Justice Dept., Angle equated waterboarding of terrorists, trainees

On the April 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle asserted that "the odd thing ... is that President Obama has decided that waterboarding, which we have done, by the way, to thousands of our own people in the military -- pilots and Special Forces are often trained by being waterboarded. We've done it to thousands of our own people. He has decided it is too harsh to use on terrorists."

However, according to a recently released May 2005 Office of Legal Counsel memo by Steven G. Bradbury, the Bush administration's principal deputy assistant attorney general at the time, individuals undergoing waterboarding as part of the U.S. military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training are "obviously in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation;

SERE trainees know it is part of a training program, not a real-life interrogation regime, they presumably know it will last only a short time, and they presumably have assurances that they will not be significantly harmed by the training." The memo further states that the waterboard technique was used "quite sparingly" in SERE training -- "at most two times on a trainee for at most 40 seconds each time"

-- whereas the CIA used the tactic at least 83 times on Abu Zubaydah in August 2002 and 183 times on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in March 2003.

on edit: typo

Edited May 9, 2009 by waldo

[CANADIEN]

Just because the messiah says it's torture?

Nope. :lol:

[Oleg Bach]

Okay all of you torturemongers, if Bush and Obama disagree whether waterboarding is torture, and it's used on Americans in training, why do you consider it torture? Just because the messiah says it's torture? It doesn't cause physical pain, it doesn't harm the person, but it makes him quite uncomfortable.

Are you suffering from some sort of disconnect? "uncomfortable" - Let someone hold a pillow to your face when you are a little old man in the nursing home - bringing you just seconds away from death and suffering the horror....and you can be "uncomfortable" - you are either civilized or a barbarian? Make your choice - OR - you may have a mean spirited case of hate disease..with a touch of sexual dysfunction...torture is a perverse act...I hope you can take this topic seriously as you continue......suffocation is not painless - nor is it harmless nor is it comfortable or uncomfortable...This sadistic proceedure causes lasting mental and phyical harm - not to mention you will never be the same person again after any sort of torture...No one has the right to rob a person of soul and character!

[KrustyKidd]

Krusty... I am equally impressed with your apologist positioning and your ever present hard-on for Bush, "the Great Liberator"... how would you rate/categorize that level of your expressed excitement/delirium?

As recognizing that he freed more people than any other person in history while still not personally liking the man I would rate that as astute.

but Krusty... you've nailed it! As you say, "at the time"... again... those OLC opinions were invalidated in 2003 - as acknowledged by Steven Bradley, the outgoing head of the OLC under Bush.

so again, Krusty... since 2003. What are the post-2003 OLC opinions that validate the Bush torture agenda… that substantiate your claim that Bush did not lie about torture (post-2003)… that support the Bush claim that the, “United States does not torture (post-2003)”?

waiting... waiting...

But Waldo, you missed it! Bradly is not President of the USA and thus cannot rescind Presidential Directives made on information from prior years be they based on faulty or accurate facts. Hence, the same directive covers it until Obama overturned it.

In other words, you don't even notice it when someone mocks you.

Same answer from before;

I do, but, when you had written these words

Canadien

Let me know when you manage to say something even more stupid, will you?.

I took that to mean that you deal in serious discussion as well as wished to be taken seriously and so, overlooked the stupidity of what you were saying and addressed it as if you were serious and on the level.

No wonder that you believe calling torture by another name is not lying about it.

Canadien, I notice that you seem to take this whole affair somewhat personally in that you like to provide little snips of personal hubris here and there (as addressed above for the second time) as well attempt to obfuscate the issue by imagining what my opinions are on what constitutes torture (which I have not provided).

To make this simpler, this is not about what I, or you, personally believe torture is but rather what Bush believe, or, more accurately - believed it is or was. A lie is a deliberate and deceitful utterance designed to portray a falsehood as truth. To Bush, he was given moral and legal assurances that it was not torture hence, if he said that it was torture, he would be lying as it would to him, be a false and misleading statement according to the information he had at the time from legal counsel.

[Oleg Bach]

Bush when governor - signed the execution warrants of dozens - Did some advisor assure him that it was not death? Of course he knew that people were being tortured - much like he knew that Iraq was an unjust occupation and invasion - and NOT - simply bringing democracy to the middle east - If he was sincere and true - He would have interceded and NOT had the SHOE THROWER jailed - nor would he have delivered Sadam to the have his head ripped off in botched hanging done by hooligans.

[KrustyKidd]

Of course he knew that people were being tortured - much like he knew that Iraq was an unjust occupation and invasion - and NOT - simply bringing democracy to the middle east - If he was sincere and true - He would have interceded and NOT had the SHOE THROWER jailed - nor would he have delivered Sadam to the have his head ripped off in botched hanging done by hooligans.

Bush never said that the sole purpose of the legal Iraq invasion was to bring democracy. Furthermore, after bringing democracy as a byproduct of the invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi people tried Saddam hence, it was their justice Saddam received.

[CANADIEN]

Canadien, I notice that you seem to take this whole affair somewhat personally

The only thing personal is the pleasure I take in seeing how far you'll go in arguing that since Bush was able to find pepople who would say "this is how we can declare this to be legal, so we'll be able to prented it's not torture", he didn't realize this was torture. I'll admit it, I always get a kick out of reading absurdity.

Bush wanted people who could provide a veneer of legality to interrogation techniques which are torture by any definition of the word, and he got it. And he knew it was torture no matter how he covered it. People are of course free to believe that George W. Bush was a complete moron who would say "but isn't beating the cr*p of people to make them confess a form of torture?", be told "no Mister President, it is not torture if you declare it is not" and respond "duh, it must not be torture then".

Edited May 9, 2009 by CANADIEN

[KrustyKidd]

Bush wanted people who could provide a veneer of legality to interrogation techniques which are torture by any definition of the word, and he got it.

Indeed. And so to him, it was interrogation, not torture.

[sharkman]

ya, ya... "used on Americans in training"... watch Fox News much? Fox's Jim Angle continues to beat that same drum and, apparently, less discerning types "eat it up".

Contradicting Bush Justice Dept., Angle equated waterboarding of terrorists, trainees

On the April 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle asserted that "the odd thing ... is that President Obama has decided that waterboarding, which we have done, by the way, to thousands of our own people in the military -- pilots and Special Forces are often trained by being waterboarded. We've done it to thousands of our own people. He has decided it is too harsh to use on terrorists."

However, according to a recently released May 2005 Office of Legal Counsel memo by Steven G. Bradbury, the Bush administration's principal deputy assistant attorney general at the time, individuals undergoing waterboarding as part of the U.S. military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training are "obviously in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation;

SERE trainees know it is part of a training program, not a real-life interrogation regime, they presumably know it will last only a short time, and they presumably have assurances that they will not be significantly harmed by the training." The memo further states that the waterboard technique was used "quite sparingly" in SERE training -- "at most two times on a trainee for at most 40 seconds each time"

-- whereas the CIA used the tactic at least 83 times on Abu Zubaydah in August 2002 and 183 times on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in March 2003.

on edit: typo

Uh, yeah, all of this is common knowledge by now(But thanks for the bold highlights). What I am wondering is if those of you who have decided that waterboarding is torture have actual reasoning besides Obama says so. No one has as of yet, except Oleg who equates it with stealing someone's soul, although he didn't bother to explain how.

If it is wrong to waterboard, then it is never right to do so in training. This disconnect exposes more Bush Derangement Syndrome and little else.

Edited May 9, 2009 by sharkman

[CANADIEN]

Indeed. And so to him, it was interrogation, not torture.

And you wonder why I prefer you to the Just for Laugh Festival.

Not to worry though. I have said the same fact again and again often enough

[KrustyKidd]

And you wonder why I prefer you to the Just for Laugh Festival.

No. If you recall, I have a mild curiosity as to why you waste bandwidth with idiotic snippits which have little to do with supporting your poor argument. Furthermore, I have no reason to wonder if you laugh when you post or, tear your hair out and frankly, don't really care.

Not to worry though. I have said the same fact again and again often enough

Your 'same fact' argument is weak against the reality that the US government was advised by legal counsel and, had an executive directive that classified the action as interrogation, not torture. To you, and many others, that may be a fact however, in the US, at that time, under those conditions, it was not classified as torture.

[jbg]

And you wonder why I prefer you to the Just for Laugh Festival.

Not to worry though. I have said the same fact again and again often enough

Did the September 11 attackers make such fine distinctions between interrogation and torture? Or torture of selected people and random massacre?

[CANADIEN]

Did the September 11 attackers make such fine distinctions between interrogation and torture? Or torture of selected people and random massacre?

Nobody would believe al-Quaida if they said they were not targetting civilians, would they?

That being said, I have no expectation that low-life murderers will abide by the standards of a democratic society founded on the rule of law and respect for what is right. The expectation I have is that we will not sunk as low as they do in barbarism and abdication of any morality. As Romeo Dallaire, a man who has witnessed the worst of what human beings can do to each others, put it, torture is taking us on a slippery slope.