There's nothing to worry about, Donny, Mr. Cohen is a coward.

Note to Cohen: Can we start the debate with the fact that torture is illegal? That rather than try to change the law, Cheney chose to deny doing it. That the issue here is not merely that three people were waterboarded, but that countless people were dragged into prisons, systematically mistreated both physically and psychologically. That many were kept in prisons with no cause or due process. Where do you take the debate from there?

The Post desperately needs to purge about 2/3 of its vast army of opinion columnists, and it should start with Cohen.

Steve:

Saw you on Rachel - pretty impressed. Anyway, I don't know why you waste your time on anything that rag WPost publishes (at least in the form of opinion). I don't.

And Richard Cohen is a fool. Perhaps, senile too.

Keep up the good work.

-- r

Sucker! You totally fell for this. Cohen wants links from bloggers, obviously, and he doesn't care why. (The only thing worse than people talking about me is people not talking about me.)

He waffles more than Nancy Pelosi.

Speaking of which, how many cocks have crowed for this broad?

First, she was briefed on waterboarding.

Then she wasn't.

Then the CIA says, yes she was.

Then she...

I can't keep up with it.

So we're supposed to debate whether we should commit felonies, because Dick "go f--- yourself" Cheney says he did so and got what he wanted? Why not have a debate about whether we should waterboard Dick Cheney? I say we'd get good results from that.

I guess Cohen's column is modeled after the old "Some people say" BS that the talking heads love to use.

Some people say Cohen has sex with farm animals. I'm not going to defend that assertion, but let the discussion begin about whether or not Cohen should be allowed to marry a goat.

Years ago Cohen used the vehicles of a wise cab driver and the ghost of his grandpa for answers or points of view. He needs to dig those guys up.
They were very insightful.

He supports Obama's decision to drop U.S. torture policies, but thinks those policies might have merit. What's the point of this? I have no idea.

To show he's not a pansy.

That's what it all boils down to with these ninnies.

Too bad he's just displayed that he doesn't have the guts to stand up for what he believes without equivocating to impress the "manly men."

If you take whether torture "works" or not off the table, what are you left with: that the only people who would support it are sadists who actually like to inflict pain. And does anyone actually believe that torture is a controversial topic because there is a pro-sadist lobby out there promoting the infliction of human suffering? No, the reason we are having this debate on torture is that in the supposedly civilized West have have decided to outlaw the practice EVEN IF it works. Why are we even talking about whether it works or not, and why are conservatives supporting it? Talk about moral relativists who believe that "If It Feels Bad, Do It!"

It's just a waste of a column.

And that's different than any other Cohen column because ... ?

Using Cohen's "logic" (which is appropriately tortured) it's okay to steal money, torture, or even murder someone if you think doing so will "save lives."

That's the whole point of his column -- it's okay to do things that immoral, unethical, and downright illegal if you can someone say it may have (perhaps, maybe, not really sure) "saved lives."

It's disgusting, but the guy has made a career of defending the indefensible. He, like Kristol, Friedman, and 99% of conservative propaganda agents/bloggers, loves to cheerlead wars he doesn't have to fight.

So we're supposed to debate whether we should commit felonies

How is waterboarding a felony?

What document provides terrorists rights and protections?

Certainly not the Geneva Conventions. They only cover civilians and those fighting (ie, members of a nation's military). Terrorists are neither of those.

All discussion on this MUST begin with two facts:

1. Torture is illegal. Period.

2. These bastards tortured BEFORE Yoo and Co. wrote that it is.

The discussion HAS to gegin with these two irrefutable facts.

Cohen, or anyone for that matter, is entitled to his/her own waffling opinion bt not his own facts. Period.

I know that enhanced pot smoking techniques work and I've got the memos to prove it. Let the debate begin!

McGruber: Are you being satirical or do you really mean that? Terrorists are clearly civilians.

Sorry for the typos. #2 shoud end with,"isn't"

the word gegin isn't a word, begin is...

McGruber: Are you being satirical or do you really mean that? Terrorists are clearly civilians.

Clearly? You mean civilians blow themselves up and ram planes into buildings? You mean civilians attend terrorist training camps and pledge bayat to Bin Laden and saw the heads off of Western Infidels?

Good to know...

To illustrate the moral horror of Cohen's column, simply substitute the words rape and "enhanced seduction methods" for the words torture and its PC euphemism "enhanced interrogation" (rape is, after all, a commonly used form of torture) and then let his reasoning expose itself:

Rape is a moral abomination, and President Obama is right to restate American opposition to it. But where I reserve a soupcon of doubt is over the question of whether "enhanced seduction techniques" actually work. [...] In effect, Cheney poses a hard, hard question: Is it more immoral to rape than it is to fail to prevent the deaths of thousands? [...] If Cheney is right, then let the debate begin: What to do about enhanced seduction methods? Should they be banned across the board, always and forever? Can we talk about what is and not just what ought to be?"

Well, if we're never going to stop debating torture, here are the questions I'd like to see asked and answered. They're the kinds of questions that many on the left would still reject out of hand if they believe torture is always wrong, but whenever I ask anyone on the right these questions, it either trips them up or exposes them as the morally bankrupt bastards I thought they were.

Let's accept, if only for the moment, that there are situations and moments and individuals on whom torture would work. Indeed, I think that's why most on the right are so quick to defend torture - they know they are not brave, they are not strong, and they have no moral compunctions. They see a board with shackles attached to it, maybe a barrel of water or a car battery with electrodes attached to it, and unless they paid for the room for the hour, they tremble in fear. They know they'd tell their captors whatever they wanted to know. They wouldn't hold out like McCain, giving false information. They'd just rapidly fold like a 20-minute laundromat. So fine, on some people, in certain situations, torture might work.

How do you know upon whom it would work?
How do you know the information would be valid?
Hell, in SOME situations, how would you know the person you've captured, the person you suspect is an enemy combatant, knows ANYTHING?
If you made the decision to torture somebody who winds up knowing nothing, or giving you bad information, and people die as a result, what should happen...TO YOU?
If you commanded an underling to torture a suspect who knew nothing and produced bad information, what should happen to your underlings?

Because when all is said and done, the legalization of torture was not designed for a nation to admit that sometimes it works. Quite the opposite, it wasan acknowledgment that it will rarely, if ever, work. There has been plenty of proof that torture is not efficient and even if it were to serve a purpose now, it potentially hurts us later by damaging our credibility in the eyes of the world, the "brand" of America if you will.

So the legalization of torture wasn't an admission that it works some of the time. It was designed to be a "get out of jail free" card for the thousand of times that it wouldn't, and didn't, work. It's a shrug and a "eh, what are you gonna do" after someone who has no information to share is waterboarded over 160 times in a month just so we know, for sure, that he can't give us any worthwhile information.

Say what you will about the jack bauer-24-ticking time bomb scenario. I've watched the show plenty and quite often, in the course of each season, when Bauer is unleashed to do what he does, it's after he says something along the lines of "this is on me, whatever has to happen to me later as a result of my actions, I accept them but let me do what I have to do now to save lives." The twisting of the definition of torture by Yoo and Gonzales and Cheney and all these other war criminals is a whiny way of saying "we want to torture, we just don't want to get in trouble if it doesn't work! Because how are WE supposed to know if they know something until we torture them and they tell us? Or, they DON'T tell us, because they don't know anything, so we torture them some more? And again and again and again?" The character of Jack Bauer usually has the "luxury" of knowing the people he's about to torture know something, and what he's about to do will get results (because, you know, the actor who plays him read the script). Real life doesn't have that luxury.

Those are the questions I'd like to see asked of our nation's war criminals, again and again. Let them try to parse their way out of the obvious admission that even if we tortured some people who gave us valuable information, we also tortured people who gave us jack squat, and they don't think they should be held responsible for their goose eggs. In crappy sports analogy terms, they want to be told they're batting a thousand, even though they're batting less than a hundred, because at least they swung at every single pitch (and they always hit something, even though it was rarely what they were supposed to be hitting).

In candor, I read it a few times, hoping to see some kind of elusive creative thought. There wasn't one.

Sounds like another Cohen column. I think his perpetual-income system works something like this: Cohen has always found himself fascinating, and long ago he convinced somebody at the Washington Post that he should share this fascination with his readers. He periodically perambulates around the spacious, uncluttered contents of his head and shares his observations with us. Sometimes he gets a reaction; sometimes his drivel passes without notice. He learns nothing. He is therefore just as fascinated the next time he perambulates, even when examining the same incomplete thought that fascinated him the last time, even when his observations are contradictory.

Occasionally he fascinates the rest of us, with the mystery of his continued employment and the outrageousness of his casual ignorance and meanness.

Once again McShitforbrains proves that we're moving closer and closer to idiocracy.

It's pointless reading Cohen's columns. He just aimlessly noodles on about issues, more enjoying the proposition of self-created paradoxes or dilemmas than in honestly engaging with a topic from a perspective of firmly held beliefs. He's like a one-year old in the middle of his toys, picking them up, waving them, banging them against each other, dropping them, picking up another.

I agree with scott_m, but I think Will and/or Krauthammer should be first on the hit list. Cohen is just pointless and 2nd-rate, whereas those two are deliberately destructive to honest discourse.

Ethnic cleansing is a moral abomination, and President Obama is right to restate American opposition to it. But where I reserve a soupcon of doubt is over the question of whether "ethnic cleansing" actually works.

If Cheney is right, then let the debate begin: What to do about ethnic cleansing? Should it be banned across the board, always and forever? Can we talk about what is and not just what ought to be?

The Geneva conventions, ratified and enabled into US law and US military regulation, do not have any class of combatant or civilian that is NOT protected.

The idea that there's a class that does not fall under the protections of the conventions is another one of the Bush Administration's attempts to evade very clear prohibitions on mistreatment of civilians AND combatants.

The conventions do recognize classes of combatant that can be held and TRIED for illegal behavior. Regular CRIMINAL process applies to other behaviors. But no person can be mistreated and all must be given proper legal process.

You really are a piece of work, aren't you, McGruber.

What Cohen was defending, as far as I could tell, was "transparency." He wants to see those memoes Cheney is so hot about. But the memos are not going to change the debate (which as Benen notes, started a long time ago). Even if the memos purport to show that "torture works," they won't show that playing nice doesn't work. Cheney just hopes nobody notices the logical fallacy of his position -- and of course the 18% of voters who like Cheney are not up to plumbing the nuances of logical argument, so he'll get some of his wish.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com

Oh,P.S. The contempt Cohen (& others) show for "bloggers" is evidence of how effective you bloggers are. Keep on bloggin'.

And the print media, newspapers in particular, wonder why subscriptions are down and they are all going under.

There's nothing in the ticking time bomb argument that says you have to stop with the individual who supposedly has the information you want. You could also argue that you would be justified in torturing his mother, or wife, or child, or any number of people, if you had reason to think that that might get the person under interrogation to confess.

McGruber,

Waterboarding, along with all other torture techniques, is a felony under US law. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340 and 2340A. This was enacted to implement the Convention against Torture, which the US signed and ratified. It is a felony. Period.

Here's a simple question for torture supporters:

Let's assume that torture works. Well, different torture techniques are going to work on different people, depending on their threshold for pain and discomfort, mental state, physical and psychological state, training, etc.

Are you with me so far?

The question is what do you think we should do if the Cheney torture techniques don't work to stop the proverbial ticking bomb. In other words, how far are you prepare to go with torture?

If the only criterion is efficacy and presumably the saving of lives, then there ought to be no limits. Mutilation, flaying, the rape and execution of the torturee's children, etc. are all just fine. Pretty much anything a deprived imagination can conjure up should be OK.

I would very much like Cheney, Richard Cohen and all the torture advocates to answer this question: If they agree that there are limits, then they obviously would rather sacrifice American lives instead of getting their hands really, really dirty; they support torture only when it seems gore-less and antiseptic (after all, waterbaording involves water and sounds so very cleansing). If they think there are no limits, then it's good to know they really have no problem with raping and butchering children.

Just asking...
____________________________________________

Does anyone else find it fascinating (in a pathetic and kind of nauseating way) how the party that has co-opted Jesus is now defending torture?

Did any of these clowns like McGruber actually read the story? Or are they just too damn stupid to get the message?

Aris - I'll bite. First, I'm not going to attempt to argue you on your terms, which is quite the slippery slope.

Realize that most terrorists are not caught with their wives and children, so flaying the terrorist's family is not an option.

Realize that in most situations, normal interrogations techniques (read: no torture) are used. However, there comes a time when you come into information that requires substantiation.

If you find out that Al-Qaeda is planning an operation against the NY subway system, wouldn't it be prudent to go to Gitmo and see what guys like Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed know?

And if they don't talk, what do you do?

Are you willing to sacrifice innocent American lives to ensure you don't upset someone like Mohammed, who said he was proud to plan 9/11?

How about I give you a slippery slope back:

At what point does torture start?

Is slapping them torture?

Is keeping them in a cramped cell torture?

Is lying to them torture?

One can make a case that all of these could be considered torture in some way. Then what?

What can we do to those that would kill us if given a chance?

I certainly hope you don't think we should just ask "please."

Does anyone else find it fascinating (in a pathetic and kind of nauseating way) how the party that has co-opted Jesus is now defending torture?

Not at all surprising. A humble follower would never "co-opt Jesus". Those who would, are unencumbered by morality.

ANTI-AMERICAN ASSHOLES...

ANTI-MILITARY ASSHOLES...

If any of you protorture assholes can provide a single justification for the use of torture that cannot be used by other groups or countries as justification for the torture of Americans (civilian or military), I will stop calling you anti-american and anti-military. You are what you are:

ANTI-AMERICAN & ANTI-MILITARY ASSHOLES...

It does not work, it is illegal, and it is immoral; other than that what is not to like about it?

That there is even a discussion about whether the United States should torture is totally disgusting! The reich-wing complains continuously about the 'loss of morality' in our country. For reich-wingers to support torture is just further proof that they have sold their morality for rethugnican party power.

When I hear someone say that torture works, here's what I hear that person actually saying:

"If I was tortured, I would tell everything."

What WaPo hasn't noticed about Cohen is this: He is an 'opinion-editorial' writer who does not actually have a strong opinion about anything.

It does not work, it is illegal, and it is immoral; other than that what is not to like about it?

Proof that it doesn't work? Show me - and I'm not even from Missouri.

What I do know is that whilst releasing some of the waterboarding memos, Obama didn't release ALL of them. Namely, the ones that prove waterboarding does in fact work.

What if you tortured a deaf mute?

What technique would get him to talk?

What if you tortured an autistic person, who simply was unable to talk when demanded or forced to?

What if you tortured a mentally deficient person?

How do you determine which torture method to perform on a given individual?

According to Jonathan Turly, it is a war-crime to torture even if the torturer/director of the torturer claims that it works.

I believe his scholarship on these matters.

So the question whether torture is effective or not is moot.

War crimes were committed by these guys.

Feeding the troll, McGruber: Torture a Felony?

The UN Convention Against Torture is an international treaty that was signed and ratified by the United States of America (president and congress). To my knowledge, the constitutionality has not been challenged in the SCOTUS. According to the US Constitution, signed treaties are the law of the land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

Technically, the Obama Administration could be considered in violation of Article 16, which states signing states must investigate torture within their jurisdiction.

so eat it.

terrorism:

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

Congrats, McGruber!! You have been so terrorized that you're willing to toss aside all that America stands for and become the very thing we're trying to destroy.

And why?

Because you and others on the right are scared.

So, great job at letting a few dozen cave dwellers cause you to wet your bed and fantasize about fictional scenarios you saw on 24.

No wonder the GOP is running joke on the verge of permanent irrelevance -- their leaders and followers are all gutless cowards.

McGruber - you should go take your Chinese made 'Support Our Troops' bumper stick off your car.

You are an ANTI-AMERICAN & ANTI-MILITARY ASSHOLE for providing justifications for other groups and countries to torture Americans.

I'll eat it with a cherry on top if you can point to the part of the Geneva Conventions, or the UN Convention Against Torture, that specifically applies to terrorists.

Or gives specific thresholds for "pain and suffering" and all that hoo-ha.

Basically, the UN document allows the anyone to decide what torture is.

"He yelled at me and threw a chair behind my back. I suffered."

Yep, that's torture to the UN.

You know what's torture? When the UN is involved in sex crimes and human trafficking and nothing gets done.

The UN is a farce. They could care less if innocent civilians died. As long as they get to needle Israel and make money off the sale of third-world women, they are happy.

Proof that it doesn't work? Show me - and I'm not even from Missouri.

What I do know is that whilst releasing some of the waterboarding memos, Obama didn't release ALL of them. Namely, the ones that prove waterboarding does in fact work.

Show me proof that waterboarding is 100% effective and I'll agree with you. The fact that Obama didn't release all memos does not equivocate to the fact that he's with holding evidence that would prove your point. Have you considered the possiblity that some information is too incriminating to release at this time, you know, the critial point where we are repairing tarnished international relations? The fact we even utilzed torture happens to be a big part of the tarnished international reputation.

There is the possiblity that even if water boarding produced some information, as a whole it has done more damage this country in the long term than to keep it secure. Fostering anti-American sentiment around the world isn't exactly the best way to stop extremists and anti-American propaganda. Why give more reasons to hate us? Strategically, it's a huge mistake. But I don't think you have considered that as a valid point.

I would be very surprised if the information extracted from torture interrogations prevented another attack on American soil. If that were the case, it would have been used by proponents for the previous administration as a national security victory - something the last administration was craving for to help its cause. Clearly no such scenario exists.

I would be very surprised if the information extracted from torture interrogations prevented another attack on American soil. If that were the case, it would have been used by proponents for the previous administration as a national security victory - something the last administration was craving for to help its cause. Clearly no such scenario exists.

You're Anti-Christ, Dick Cheney, specifically requested the Obama Administration release CIA memos showing the information gleaned from waterboarding and how said information foiled terrorist plots against the homeland.

The question is: why is Obama refusing to release this information?

The question is: why is Obama refusing to release this information?

Posted by: McGruber on May 12, 2009 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK
Uhhh...because maybe it doesn't exist?

Sure, Cheney says it exists. Cheney says LOTS of things (CUH-KOO! CUH-KOO).

Idjit?

The real question is: Why does McGruber hate America so much that he is willing to provide justifications for other groups and countries to torture Americans?

The answer is that McGruber is Anti-American and Anti-Military.

Yes Slappy, that makes a lot of sense. Cheney gets on national TV and asks the Obama administration to release memos that don't exist.

Even the Obama administration would get that one right: say that they don't exist.

Yeah, that's a great strategy.

Don't worry. The CIA will eventually leak them, just like they leaked the memos showing Pelosi lied.

I'll eat it with a cherry on top if you can point to the part of the Geneva Conventions, or the UN Convention Against Torture, that specifically applies to terrorists.

McGruber

You might wanna pull out a napkin.

The U.N. Convention against torture:

Article 2:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

You may not like the UN, but Congress ratified this and have yet to renounce it. Thus, it is U.S. law. Period.

Geneva Conventions Against Torture.

... Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. ...

Translation: If you're fighting someone not part of the Geneva Conventions, it doesn't matter. If you are part of them, you must still follow them. Period.

Article 4 goes into what determines a POW, which is the part Bush Co. has used to justify their actions -- namely, that terrorists are not listed.

HOWEVER, if they had bothered to continue reading to Article 5 ...

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4 [traditional military, militia, etc.], such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Translation: No matter who you capture on a battlefield, they enjoy Geneva Convention protections unless you give them their day in court. But we never gave them that day, deciding instead to hold them indefinitely ... even though they should have received Geneva Convention protections throughout that time. So they violated that part, also.

As someone else said: Eat. It.

Hey, Dick says that there are magic documents proving that torture works, it must be true! Obama must release the documents that don't exist!

It's all Nancy Pelosi's fault! She was told something at sometime by the Bush administration while she was in the congressional minority that they may or may not be torturing detainees! That's just the same as promoting, writing, and implementing a torture policy--nothing to see over here with Dick!

"-"let the debate begin" over whether the United States should torture detainees -- as if we haven't already been through this debate, over and over again, for several years now."

For the US, that debate was had. And the torture issue is now known as "Settled Law"!
The only reasonable debate to be had is over the Evidence,,, in a Court of Law.

If Cheney is right, then let the debate begin...

Um, that debate already happened. Right around 1789 or so. Remember that whole sacrifice liberty for security thing? That was not hypothetical. The country then faced any number of very real threats to its very existence - too numerous to go into here. Yet the Founders decided that most significant threat from which their fellow citizens needed protection was the overreaching of their own government. In this, they rejected the idea that the end justifies the means.

In debating the "efficacy" of torture, we essentially debate whether the end justifies the means. And that is what makes the "question" so fundamentally un-American.

Mark - Article 4 never talks about terrorists, so Article 5 is moot. As I said before, the UN is bunk. That convention is so poorly worded and broad that even handcuffing a person could be deemed as torture.

I stand ready and waiting with napkin and proper utensils.

You're Anti-Christ, Dick Cheney, specifically requested the Obama Administration release CIA memos showing the information gleaned from waterboarding and how said information foiled terrorist plots against the homeland.

The question is: why is Obama refusing to release this information?

I don't think Cheney is the anti-christ. I also don't think he's an honest man. I've watched him lie to the American public and change his story through the years. He's even publically denied that he made public statements. He tends to say what is politically convenient at the time.

If Obama decided not to release memos, that's his decision to make. Right now he has my trust. Cheney burned up any trust or crediblity he had a long time ago. If Cheney knows Obama won't release memos on grounds of national security (something the previous administration took full advantage of) - of course he's going to make public declarations for the memos to be released. If Cheney is as shrewed as he seems to be, I think it is possible that he's bluffing in order to create talking poits against Obama (seems to have worked with you). Cheney has been and always be a self-serving politician. Cheney is all political maneuvering and zero personal integrity.

The question is: Why wasn't the previous adminstration up front about how they conducted the war on terror?

The second question is: Why won't Cheney quietly fall into political obscurity?

Cheney is all political maneuvering and zero personal integrity.

Zero personal integrity? He's stood by his gay daughter and refused to support the GOP's stance on several hot-button gay/lesbian issues.

Sounds like he might have a modicum of personal integrity to me.

The second question is: Why won't Cheney quietly fall into political obscurity?

Because there is such a vacuum at the top of the GOP. After all, look at their ex-prezzes and their last presidential candidate.

McKnucklehead, at least look up the word "civilian" before making an ass of yourself. Terrorists and anybody else not in a military organization are civilians.

McGruber" Aris - I'll bite.

Only... you didn't. You never answered the question. You pretended to, but didn't. Did you really think I wouldn't notice?

So, I'll ask again, using your own hypothetical scenario: You find out that Al-Qaeda is planning an operation against the NY subway system, and you go to Gitmo to see what guys like Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed know. But, they won't talk (I guess they've become acclimated to the standard Cheney torture techniques).

What do you do? Be specific.
____________________________________________

Mark - Article 4 never talks about terrorists, so Article 5 is moot. As I said before, the UN is bunk. That convention is so poorly worded and broad that even handcuffing a person could be deemed as torture.

I stand ready and waiting with napkin and proper utensils.

Sweet lord ... are you always this stupid, or does it only happen when you log onto the Internet?

1. Article 5 is there specifically to cover those not listed in Article 4. In fact, that's pretty clear from the text.

So you're either being willfully obtuse, or are the dumbest person to ever live. Perhaps both.

2. Your opinion of the UN, or its choice of wording, means jack shit. All that matters is that Congress approved the rules, made it U .S. law, and no one has ever challenged them in a court of law.

But please try and use that in court some time:

Judge: I find you guilty of--

McGruber: But I don't like the law!

Judge: Um ... so?

McGruber: Well, if I don't like something or disagree with it, it doesn't count!

Judge: Actually, yes. Yes it does.

McGruber: But the text is so poorly worded that--

Judge: This isn't your Composition 101 class, genius.

McGruber: But it's so broad th--

Judge: Bailiff, take this jackass to jail.

It must suck to have to go through every day fighting against reality the way you do ...

Sounds like he might have a modicum of personal integrity to me.

When you only stand against your party because it effects you personally, it's not integrity. It's self interest.

What do you do? Be specific.

Under the Bush Admin: up to and including waterboarding, aka, what is permissable.

Under the Obama Admin: nothing. Because these guys are people too and it doesn't matter if they don't talk when we ask them nicely. Innocent lives mean nothing when it comes to how we look on the international stage. We don't want people hating us.

Okay. I'm going to spell it out for McGruber:

The US Congress (both houses) passed a law in 1994, which the President signed. This makes it US Law, binding and enforceable. The law states:

§ 2340A. Torture

(a) OFFENSE.-Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or impris- oned for any term of years or for life.

(b) JURISDICTION.-There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if-

(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or

(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) CONSPIRACY.-A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the ob- ject of the conspiracy.

What is torture? The definition section spells it out:

§ 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter-

(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifi- cally 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 re- sulting from-

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffer- ing;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other proce- dures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will im- minently be subjected to death, severe phys- ical 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 pos- sessions of the United States.

Thus, anyone who tortures is guilty of a felony in the United States. Notice how it doesn't say anything about whether or not the victim of the torture is a terrorist? That is because it does not matter. You cannot torture anyone. Period.

Sounds like he might have a modicum of personal integrity to me.

So you're saying Cheney pro-gay rights? He was part of an administration that made it very clear what they thought of gay marriage and gay rights - gays had no rights.

If anything, he said sounded sympathetic to gays on the campaign trail - because of his daughter, who he happened to hire on the campaign trail for face-time to show how sympathetic he was and to showed support, but in exercising authority and personal persepetive on the issue, he practiced something completely different in office by advocating George Bush's far-right stance on gay rights. He was sympathetic when it was convenient for election, but purposely held back the personal liberties of millions of gay Americans in practice.

I reiterate that Cheney does not have much personal integerity. In fact, this proves my point - he's all political maneuvering and zero personal integrity.

Thus, anyone who tortures is guilty of a felony in the United States. Notice how it doesn't say anything about whether or not the victim of the torture is a terrorist? That is because it does not matter. You cannot torture anyone. Period.

It must not be that cut-and-dry because Obama's not prosecuting anyone, either the torturers themselves or the Evil Bush administration who started it.

McGruber: Under the Bush Admin: up to and including waterboarding, aka, what is permissable.

Come on McGruber! This is embarrassing. What sort of non-answer is this? What exactly do you mean "permissible"? Who determines what's "permissible"? Bush? Cheney? The law? Your conscience?

Waterboarding is already illegal, but you obviously consider it "permissible," by some standard or authority that you won't define. OK. So, let's assume everything's "permissible."

Ramzi and Khalid won't talk with waterboarding. What do you do? Be specific.

____________________________________________

It must not be that cut-and-dry because Obama's not prosecuting anyone, either the torturers themselves or the Evil Bush administration who started it.

Because that's not Obama's job, dumbass.

It's the job of the Justice Dept., who is working on it as I type, and the Hague.

But those are facts, and you've proven you have no use or knowledge of those.

Aris - this isn't 24; I have to follow the rules given to me. Under the Bush administration, it means up to and including waterboarding.

Under Obama, well, that means nothing. As far as we know. If he quashes any sort of "enhanced interrogation techniques," then I'm left with asking KSM to give us the information we need. Nicely.

What do you want me to say?

It's the job of the Justice Dept., who is working on it as I type, and the Hague.

The Justice Dept. falls under what branch? Headed by whom?

That's what I thought.

The Hague? They cannot investigate this matter properly; they are foreign nationals and cannot, under any circumstances, receive U.S. classified documents.

The Justice Dept. falls under what branch? Headed by whom?

Under Bush? It was part of the campaign office, with politics trumping the rule of law. Which is probably why you're so confused about how much power a President has over the Justice Dept.

In most administrations (including Obama's), it's a quasi-executive-branch department that's actually designed to have independence from political considerations, allowing for the law to trump political considerations. This is why, for example, Janet Reno okayed the Ken Starr witch hunts ... um, I mean, "investigations."

Oh, and it's headed by the Attorney General, not the President. Here's a nifty org chart.

You really aren't that bright, are you?

McGruber: I have to follow the rules given to me.

Dick Cheney becomes the next President. There are no rules given to you. Everything's "permissible." Ramzi and Khalid won't talk with waterboarding.

What do you do? Be specific.
____________________________________________

Mark - stop being obtuse. I mean, I'm assuming you understand how politics works, right? Holder is going to investigate or prosecute something this politically charged without the consent of his boss.

If you follow McGruber's exclamations and evasions in this thread, it becomes clear why cons love torture so much: It's not because they actually think it works, or they really care about saving anyone. Just pay attention how McGruber addresses my repeated query of what he would do if waterboarding did not work with torturees who may have information about an imaginary plot against Americans: As a supporter of torture because of its supposed efficacy, he could have said that he'd do anything and everything imaginable to save American lives, including the torture and rape and butchering of a torturee's children. It would have been a disgusting reply, but he would at least be consistent in his support for torture as the one true way to save Americans from catastrophe. Or, he could have said that even he, sociopath that he is, has his limits, and there are things we shouldn't do even if it means forsaking many American lives. Of course, that would make him -- in his own eyes -- no better than us, who are willing to sacrifice lives because we're too weak to do what has to be done. Instead, McGruber, like a good and obedient soldier, he will do what he's told by his leader. No thinking, no judgment, no guilt, no remorse. He will do whatever is "permissible." The authoritarian personality is a scary thing.
____________________________________________

Aris - so what would you do, if God help us, you were in a position of authority and you had a decision to make:

get intel to stop a plot that will cost innocent lives.

How far would you go? Ask nicely, but repeatedly until you couldn't bare the detained terrorist's laughter (or feces)?

If you are not willing to make someone uncomfortable to save lives, then just say so. If you value the life of a terrorist over an innocent civilian, then just say so.

You waste a lot of time to make me out as a sociopath, but I think you might have issues too if saving lives simply isn't that important as the safety and comfort of those trying their hardest to kill you.

Terrorist: McGruber, there is only fifteen seconds left! We will be blown to pieces!

McGruber grabs pliers, grabs terrorist by the nose: Talk, Talk you stinking terrorist, talk!!!

Terrorist: McGruber, ten seconds left!!!

McGruber grabs hacksaw begins sawing terrorist's wrist: Talk you stinking terrorist, talk!!!

Terrorist: McGruber, five seconds!!!

McGruber peruses his toolbox, scratches his head, picks up a ball peen hammer and pounds on the terrorists fingers: THIS little piggie, THIS little piggie!!! This–

A huge explosion destroys the entire McGruber torture compound, and there stands McGruber at the Pearly Gates addressing St. Peter: Tell Him it was just "enhanced interrogation"! Tell Him it works!!!

St Peter: Tell Him it was WHAT???

At the next republican prez convention torture and its merits becomes part of the republican platform like anti-abortion, constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, etc. And it becomes something like providing family planning to african nations. When republicans are in power torture is legal and ok. If not, they just ignore laws, treaties to the contrary and lie about it - no different than they do now)

McGruber: I think you might have issues too if saving lives simply isn't that important as the safety and comfort of those trying their hardest to kill you.

I'm confused... Above you stated that you'd only go as far as waterboarding. If that doesn't work... nothing. Don't you realize that you just admitted that saving lives simply isn't as important to you as the safety and comfort of those trying their hardest to kill you? Why aren't you willing to cause further "discomfort" to the bad guys by, let's say, crushing the their children's testicles, which should prove rather unconfortable by any measure?

You can't have it both ways: If your only criterion for using or not using torture is its efficacy, and your only motivation is to supposedly save lives, then you should be arguing that there are NO limits to what we should be able to do. If you do agree that there are limits, then the only difference between you and a soft, empathic liberal like me is where we draw the line. But basically we both, at some point, put the safety and comfort of those who are supposedly trying their hardest to kill us above saving lives.

So, which is it McGruber? Use any means necessary to supposedly save lives, or place limits on what is "permissible" to do in order to save lives? Limits or no limits?

____________________________________________

Going down your slippery slope..

It's your slippery slope. Not mine. The torture techniques you're listing are nothing but an arbitrary collection of what a bunch of incompetent, scared sociopaths came up with from watching too many bad movies. Open face slapping, (are we talking about terrorists or 5-year-olds?), food deprivation (do you know how many Gitmo detainees are on hunger strike?), and truth serum (if such a magical thing existed, wouldn't it make all the other techniques obsolete?) are laughable. So we're left with sleep deprivation and waterboarding as techniques that are truly painful. If they don't work, do you, the torture advocate, go down the slippery road of your own making, or not?

By now it's obvious that you'll never answer my question because your defense of torture has never been about how to get information to save lives. Your shtick is nothing but a transparent defense of Bush and Co.: We know Bush and Co. used these techniques, ergo these techniques must be defended as necessary. That's it. It's all about what's "permissible," which is another way of saying that if the President authorizes it, it's "permissible," and if Bush and Co. did it, it's should be fine. You're being a good and obedient little soldier, defending your leader. The authoritarian personality at work.

____________________________________________

McGruber has many lame scenarios. The very real scenario is that IF there was proof that torture worked, it's been destroyed by the torturers. McGruber, like many, touts now that "Pelosi knew" as if it makes some difference. Criminals behave like criminals. Look how the torturers are behaving now that there is talk of punishment. The fact that the tapes of the crimes were destroyed is more telling than any ridiculous scenarios.

McGruber's last post: "What would you do after a terrorist says, No..."

To this I would say, "any number of things". Offhand I can think of several methods to counter this behavior, but then I have something McGruber and his ilk do not have. I have an imagination. I have self control enough to know that vengefully attacking this a person who already would kill himself for his cause will not help.

Torturers are vengeful, shallow, unimaginative people. Criminals all.