Skip to comments.
Waterboarding Is Torture, Says Ex-Navy Instructor (SERE)
The Washington Post ^
| Nov 9, 2007
| Josh White
Posted on 11/09/2007 6:14:39 AM PST by RDTF
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 341-353 next last
To: arderkrag
§ 2340. Definitions
How Current is This? As used in this chapter (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; and
(3) United States means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
arder...
I think that this is the current legal definition. It does not seem to include anything about "lasting physical injury" as I recalled. It may be that I read somebody's interpretation or an out-of-date definition. I took the liberty of highlighting the obvious grey areas where 1 side or the other might hang their arguments.
201
posted on
11/09/2007 8:21:01 AM PST
by
Tallguy
(Climate is what you plan for, weather is what you get.)
To: L.N. Smithee
WHO or WHAT determines what "the principles of a free society" are?
Start with the Bill of Rights. Read the part with the words "cruel and unusual punishment".
We should not denigrate our most fundamental laws by resorting to such tactics against any but the most dire and immediate threats. And we should never legalize it. If it is used, a president should have to authorize it directly and then be answerable to the Congress and the voters for it.
To: Secret Agent Man
Then lets not ever set any policies. Lets not make any laws - thats just an invitation for people to break the laws. You miss my point. The point is that you may have to set a policy that is more restrictive than you would ideally like in order to prevent abuses.
203
posted on
11/09/2007 8:23:38 AM PST
by
gridlock
(Recycling is the new Religion.)
To: SergeiRachmaninov
“I think anyone who uses fear to push a political agenda is a terrorist, plain and simple. “
Thank you for finally declaring the Democrat Party of the USA as the terrorists they are.
To: Tallguy
To: pnh102
Thank you! Sounds too mild to me!
206
posted on
11/09/2007 8:24:45 AM PST
by
angcat
("IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM")
To: af_vet_rr
This I will agree with - any information gotten through such means (waterboarding or otherwise) can't be trusted.Yet, in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the opposite is true.
207
posted on
11/09/2007 8:25:45 AM PST
by
Shryke
To: MrB; George W. Bush
Or should that not be a factor, as the troll on this thread asserts we should not inflict any pain at all and simply put the guy in a comfy chair, serve him tea, and ask him polite questions? Read the Army Field Interrogation manual (FM 2-22.3). Sometimes that approach (incentive approach) works better than a hostile interrogation.
208
posted on
11/09/2007 8:27:38 AM PST
by
jude24
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: MindBender26
OK; the whole point of jury nullification is a recognition that under unusual conditions a specific flouting of the law may be excusable.
That is not a reason to abandon upholding the rule of law as a general policy.
209
posted on
11/09/2007 8:27:47 AM PST
by
steve-b
(Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. --RAH)
To: Tallguy
210
posted on
11/09/2007 8:29:03 AM PST
by
arderkrag
(Libertarian Nutcase (Political Compass Coordinates: 9.00, -2.62 - www.politicalcompass.org))
To: gridlock
“My delight does not define the law.”
Not delight. Necessity. Your family, innocent Americans.
211
posted on
11/09/2007 8:29:07 AM PST
by
PLMerite
("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
To: Secret Agent Man
The reason the
Mario Cuomo Response is valid is because it is in response to a question that is invalid.
If the question is, what would you do if it was your Mother/Wife/Child, then a personal, emotional response is reasonable and justified. Who wouldn't react that way?
If the question is, what should our government do as a matter of policy, the answer must be very different. Our government cannot allow the emotional response of the individuals involed to set policy for the nation.
212
posted on
11/09/2007 8:30:06 AM PST
by
gridlock
(Recycling is the new Religion.)
To: George W. Bush
That's one question.
Keep going.
213
posted on
11/09/2007 8:30:39 AM PST
by
L.N. Smithee
(From Slick Willie to Slick Hill'y in Eight Years?!)
To: George W. Bush
The "Achmed's-Ticking-Bomb" scenario is not relevant because we are using torture interrogations when there is no Ticking Bomb. It is also irrelevant to the question of setting policy for the reason I noted earlier. If the situation is truly that dire, it doesn't matter whether or not it's legal -- you do it and you worry about the legalities later when the criminal charges are filed. That's the only way to insure that it doesn't become routine.
214
posted on
11/09/2007 8:32:01 AM PST
by
steve-b
(Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. --RAH)
To: PLMerite
Not delight. Necessity. Your family, innocent Americans. Fine, then. My necessity does not define the law, either.
215
posted on
11/09/2007 8:33:01 AM PST
by
gridlock
(Recycling is the new Religion.)
To: RDTF
It works against terrorists very well and should be used only when necessary.
To: Secret Agent Man; Romulus
I think you meant to address your post to Mr. Romulus, who is the one posting the leftist nonsense.
(I completely agree with your extrapolation of Romulus's "logic." No only does it make the Democratic Party terrorists but that fear mongering Al Gore would have to be the greatest terrorist of all.)
To: RDTF
Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist ...... likened waterboarding to drowning and said those who experience it will say or do anything to make it stop, rendering the information they give nearly useless. This begs the question.
If it's useless than why do we use it?
To: steve-b
If the situation is truly that dire, it doesn't matter whether or not it's legal -- you do it and you worry about the legalities later when the criminal charges are filed. That's the only way to insure that it doesn't become routine. This bears repeating.
219
posted on
11/09/2007 8:34:13 AM PST
by
gridlock
(Recycling is the new Religion.)
To: arderkrag
If you compromise the principles of a free society just for survival's sake...ROFLMAO
There is a time to reap and a time to sow, my friend...and a time to compromise.
You'd rather enter into a national suicide pact than sully your high-minded ideals merely for survival? I already have my answer. Are you psychotic?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 341-353 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson