Posted on 12/09/2014 11:10:15 AM PST by Oliviaforever
50 million to release a bogus report coincidentally on the day that the architect of Obamacare is on the hill testifying to his lies.
Didn’t the public already know all this? Stress put on killers by water boarding, sleepless nights, etc. What’s the big deal about it all being reviewed by some pitiful, loser politicians? We knew this stuff already!
Quite the coincidence, eh?
The Dims know that to sell a lie it has to be repeated over and over.
He was one of three who was waterboarded...and it's a good thing they did because he divulged that there was a courier who served Bin Laden.
Because of this, the SEALS were able to pinpoint Bin Laden's location and kill him.
I will be nice...
“The CIA’s use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainee.”
Male bovine excrement.
5.56mm
If I may - the concern about torture is not about the murderous scumbags who are subjected to it. It is about us.
If people crow about “the rule of law” and then want to disregard the rule of law whenever a ‘necessity’ can be articulated, there is no rule of law. Without getting into hair-splitting over the techniques involved, waterboarding is illegal. We have executed people for performing it. I don’t really think any conservative wants to go down the “okay for me but not for thee” road.
If we are going to take the position that this is ‘okay,’ then we should withdraw from the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Convention and not make further efforts to enforce or conform to any recognized norms on prisoner or detainee treatment. “Might makes right” can seem pretty attractive when one has the might, but there isn’t anything “conservative” about that approach.
They aren’t subject to the Geneva Convention, and it’s not torture. Saying it’s doesn’t make it so.
“They” is a broad term. Some of our detainees were foreign government officials. Not sure what argument you’d posit to say they “aren’t subject to the Geneva Convention,” but I doubt it’d be a very good one. In any event, even with regard to AQ detainees, your broad statement - while it may be your ‘belief’ - is just wrong as a matter of policy. The Supreme Court has held otherwise, and it has been official Pentagon policy since 2006 that the Convention applies to AQ detainees.
The US definition of torture is below - you can deny the factual scenarios presented in the report, but if they are true, there isn’t really any logical argument that they don’t fall within this definition:
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
Turning cartwheels to deny that fairly plain law doesn’t apply to a set of facts isn’t a particularly conservative approach, and seems like exactly the kind of thing that libs get rightly blasted for here. Adopting the same kinds of arguments because they fit a policy preference is just noise, not a cogent policy position.
Numbers one through twenty — “they work”.
How many people in the end were waterboarded? Previously I thought I'd heard it was less than 10.
And Khalid Shaykh Mohammad is still very much with us. And from what I recall, he did talk. Was he the one who gave up the Heathrow Airport plot?
You signed up a year ago to post this?
You had arab and Boston news outlets running porno website photos as "proof" that American GIs were raping Iraqis.
You had radical academics claiming that the US was raping Iraq and the metaphor was reported as fact in Turkey and elsewhere.
There was a lot of BULLSTALIN misinformation from the Left that damaged the US' standing in the world.
The British press is now claiming that that Heathrow bomb plot was merely a hoax with no actual participants, purely cooked up by KSM to stop the waterboarding.
Doesn’t match the nature of the convictions though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot
The terrorists are not subscribers of the Geneva Convention.
I didn’t bother to click on all 20 of WashPoo’s links to expand the points. I heard it mentioned on the radio that there was nothing to tie those in captivity to terrorism. Yet time and time again when they were released from Gitmo, they went BACK to the battlefield and many died in suicide attacks.
Had to give his MSM lapdogs some cover since they ignored Grubber for so long the first time around it became obvious.
Aw, that’s just a coincidence. They were so outraged by US detention and interrogation that they were forced into jihad. ;’)
Where was the rule of law when the Navy Seals went into Pocky-stan without approval from that government to whack Osama Bin Laden and those civilians in his general area?
Orchestrate, time, and execute a news diversion of Gruber Hearings to this story for political cover.
Can't believe they forgot that one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.