Bush to veto intel bill with interrogation restrictions
posted at 9:10 am on March 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
President Bush will veto the recently passed intelligence authorization bill over restrictions on CIA interrogation techniques. He will explain the veto in his weekly radio address, claiming that it takes vital tools away from counterterrorism agents during a conflict when such tools are most needed. The conflict sets up a showdown with Congress, in the presidential election, and with a media apparently determined to misreport it:
President Bush today will veto legislation meant to ban the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics and will argue that the agency needs to use tougher methods than the U.S. military to wrest information from terrorism suspects, administration officials said. …
Although long expected, Bush’s formal move to veto the bill reignites the Washington debate over the proper limits of the U.S. interrogation policies and whether the CIA has engaged in torture by subjecting prisoners to severe tactics, including waterboarding, a type of simulated drowning.
The issue also has potential ramifications for GOP presidential nominee John McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of coercive interrogation tactics who nonetheless backed the Bush administration in opposing the CIA waterboarding ban. The Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), both support the ban, though neither was present for last month’s Senate vote for the bill that Bush is to veto.
The legislation would have limited the CIA to using 19 less-aggressive tactics outlined in a U.S. Army field manual on interrogations. Besides ruling out waterboarding, that restriction would effectively ban temperature extremes, extended forced standing and other harsh methods that the CIA used on al-Qaeda prisoners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
John McCain absolutely did not support waterboarding, and the Post misrepresents the issue entirely. John McCain supports the veto not because he supports waterboarding, but because McCain believes it already to be illegal. He has made this plain ever since this bill came to the floor for its vote. His bill in 2006 already made the practice illegal, at least in his opinion, and the portion of this bill that addresses that is superfluous.
More than that, McCain sees it as dangerously limiting to the CIA, for two reasons. First, the Army field manual applies to a different set of circumstances than the CIA faces, primarily because the Army faces a different enemy in the field and has a much different mission than the CIA. The AFM appropriately limits the actions of its interrogators, but it isn’t the ur-text of what constitutes and doesn’t constitute torture. Just because a method doesn’t make it into the AFM doesn’t mean that it’s torture under international convention.
Secondly — and this can’t be said strongly enough — it is wildly inappropriate to publish the limits of interrogatory technique for the CIA. That should be left to the imagination of our enemie, again for two reasons. One, the publication allows our enemies to prepare themselves for the limit of the techniques published, making successful interrogation much more difficult to achieve. Second, having the limits remain unknown allows fear of what might happen to make less-intensive techniques more effective.
McCain opposed the bill for these reasons, not because he supposedly reversed himself on waterboarding. The problems with this legislation don’t involve techniques as much as it involves strategic stupidity.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I found this comment to be useful:
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/10/malcolm-nance-on-waterboarding.html#comment-456776
As a former Naval Aviator who attended SERE school and personally experienced waterboarding – I can say the following:
1. It was scary. Was it torture? In my opinion – no. I was not physically harmed. No water gets to the lungs. I was back to normal within 2 minutes of coming off the board. Most of what made it bad was psychological – fear.
2. It was effective. It got me to talk – and to tell the truth. One of the reasons I was waterboarded, is I was maintaining a “cover story” that my captors figured out was false. People always say: “You can’t rely on what someone says when they are undergoing waterboarding, because they will say anything to make it stop”. When you are actually undergoing it – and you have a choice of telling a lie or telling the truth – you tell the truth. That’s because you want to MAKE SURE THAT IT STOPS! If you tell a lie, it might not stop. When you are a captive you assume your captors will be able to figure out if what you tell them is the truth or not. If you lie….you may stop the waterboarding temporarily – but you will wind up there again. You tell the truth. Everyone that underwent it – told the truth. Even the most hardcore resisters broke….and they broke with the truth. Those who say it is unreliable or ineffective simply don’t know what they are talking about. KSM broke in under 60 seconds – and he spilled the truth.
[Salamantis again] So, according to this SERE school alumnus, Malcolm Nance was lying when he testified before the US Congress that waterboarding involved water being directed into the lungs. In fact, the head is kept lower than the rest of the body precisely so this DOESN’T happen. I’m surprised that he wasn’t prosecuted for perjury.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Aand we disagree on that, however I was not the first one to accuse of moral relativism.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Others disagree, pls see the link in my earlier post of the SEAL instructor who says it is torture.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM
mycowardice on March 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:19 AM
But it is precisely that SEAL instructor, Malcolm Nance, whose veracity I am questioning…
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I commend his service and hope he returns soon, most of my friends have not. I am sorry that you feel that your sons service gives you the authority to question another serviceman’s patriotism.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:23 AM
And while this discussion goes on, please refrain from giving our current adversaries the title of enemy solder, or referring to them as combatants. And quit referring to the Geneva Convention which only applies to uniformed combatants from signatory nations in declared wars.
These definitions were purposely kept out of the convention precisly because of the times when nations would have to deal with scumbags like the ones we are dealing with now.
You people are using the tactics of the left to argue your point. Get the facts straight please.
conservnut on March 8, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Good to know that that SERE school alum feels the need to reveal classified information.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Bingo conservnut at 11:25. Playing by the King’s rules while your opponent is kicking you in the nads (oops.Malkins) is just plain suicidal.
bbz123 on March 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Squid, you are truely a Donk. Most of your friends have not returned ? How many ? From where ? And how about defining “patriotism” for us.
JonRoss on March 8, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Concur.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:29 AM
The respiratory tract is protected, yet the sensation is retained, by using loosly wrapped Saran wrap rather than cloth towels around the head. The technique has been refined for safety since the Algerian days. It isn’t dangerous.
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Patriotism to me is the willingness to lay down ones reputation, material goods and life for the ideals of his or her country. Simple enough for you.
BTW it was three friends so far, not including the ones who are still over there on duty. Not that it is anyones damn business.
BTW there are plenty of Democrats in the Military…
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I have the same doubts about Squid, but would have asked if he is politically to the left. I’m sure we would have little problem finding Democrats who favor waterboarding in the general public.
thuja on March 8, 2008 at 11:36 AM
For the most part it is not, physically that is, however there are lasting mental effects. But lasting physical effects is not the definition of torture is it.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:37 AM
a capella posted:
The respiratory tract is protected, yet the sensation is retained, by using loosly wrapped Saran wrap rather than cloth towels around the head. The technique has been refined for safety since the Algerian days. It isn’t dangerous.
I answer:
Welcome to the wonderful world of plastic…;~)
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
The fact that this discussion happens out in the open is what makes America great.
TroubledMonkey on March 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I am not politically to the left, my standing on this issue in my opinion is not a political one but a moral one.
There are restrictions on active military participation in political discussion, I hope you bear with me as I am walking a tight line.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I don’t care about giving some genocidal terrorist mastermind a complex; he’s already criminally insane, in my opinion.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Apparently it is only open to a point and then you become a scum-sucking liberal
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Shoots milk out of nose…
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:42 AM
scum-sucking liberals are people too, and usualy the only ones you hear because the rest of us do what we need to without talking about it much lol :)
trailortrash on March 8, 2008 at 11:43 AM
For the record, I don’t give a crap what ‘the world’ thinks of the United States of America.
I’m not at all impressed by what ‘the world’ holds up and supports as appropriate conduct of a nation. For reference, note the entirely corrupt U.N. and the unchecked growth of reckless irresponsible maddness in Iran, Syria, Gaza, Venezuela, Africa, and on and on…
techno_barbarian on March 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM
True nuff, I try to stay quiet on most stuff but once and I while I have to say something.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:45 AM
As do I. But you won’t find me discussing electronic countermeasures or sub-hunting techniques on this, or any, board.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Same here, no CIC configurations or TLAM procedures here.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Later everyone. This is a rare weekend off for me and I am going to enjoy the sun. Enjoyed the conversation.
Squid Shark on March 8, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Later Squid, enjoy the weekend!
conservnut on March 8, 2008 at 11:53 AM
If waterboarding has proven to have saved lives, I’m all for it!! Too much of what goes on in the CIA, FBI, and our military is being disclosed. At least they can walk away with thier heads still on thier shoulders.
ChrisIansNana on March 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I have never understood why the terrorists can chop people’s heads off and we are precluded from even hurting their feelings. How can anyone object to doing whatever is necessary to save innocent lives??? How can anyone think America is evil? The rest of the world already thinks that we are so why should we try to be more politically correct to gain the approval of some elitists who would ask for help from us evil torturers the second their precious country was remotely threatened.
Sorry that was a torrent of words/run-on sentence but this topic riles me up.
HawaiiLwyr on March 8, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Squid Shark, quick scenario:
You know a dirty bomb is about to go off in a major city, but don’t know where. There is a terrorist at Gitmo who does, but won’t tell with all of the methods you’ve tried. One concurrence is that waterboarding is an effective method.
What do you do?
Waterboard him and possibly prevent the attack? Or allow thousands (or more) to die in order to avoid torture?
amerpundit on March 8, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Damn. Didn’t reload the thread first.
amerpundit on March 8, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I do not believe the brief and temporary fear that is a result of this method of compelling information from someone is torture. I sincerely doubt any lingering, let alone detrimental, effects other than the guilt and shame of the individual for giving in so quickly and hurting their fellow terrorists who seek to do innocent men, women and children harm.
Any number of people have suffered near drowning or choking accidents where their lives were truly at risk, yet they go on with few permanent mental scars, and no physical ailments. I don’t believe that waterboarding is appropriate in every case when other means are available and effective, but in cases where other methods are tried and are not successful, I have no problem… repeat… NO PROBLEM with a terrorist getting scared, with their life in no jeopardy, into divulging information.
Steel on March 8, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Even if the bill was vetoed, I’m not too concerned with it affecting our ability to obtain information from scumbags.
I guess we can go back to outsourcing most of our intelligence gathering, that worked so well in the past.
God forbid, after the next 9/11 event, will people remember all of these efforts to protect the rights of terrorists?
reaganaut on March 8, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Calling this bill, which is a fairly nicely sized document, the “waterboarding ban bill” is so disingenuous and wrong. The only reason being, of course, is that the media and the Democrats want to pretend that McCain is reversing his opinion on waterboarding.
Just look at what some of the Democrats have said about this bill, and you see that it’s all about playing politics with what is important legislation.
I think Conyers said something like, “if you vote against this bill, you are voting for torture, no question about it.”
This is a charade and a big reason I no longer vote Democrat – they play politics with serious issues like it’s a damn game.
Seixon on March 8, 2008 at 12:34 PM
what he said
Limerick on March 8, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I drowned when I was a child, and had to be revived. I still go swimming.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Never tell your enemy your security [interrogation] secrets.
This info should be discussed and settled in closed session.
Otherwise the enemy can prepare to outwit it.
(The Politicos and Press who fail to grasp this are letting our national security slip away.)
profitsbeard on March 8, 2008 at 12:49 PM
So…the guy who beheaded Daniel Pearl gets waterboarded (for one minute and thirty seconds), and we have people here who feel guilty about that?
Incredible.
capitalist piglet on March 8, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Dang. This national security stuff just brings up the illegal immigration issue again,..I almost had that behind me.:)
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Amerpundit, I have a scenario for you. It’s the same one as yours, except that if you do waterboard, it will inspire many people to commit terrorists act, leading to the death of tens of thousands more. What do you do?
These hypothetical scenarios are only good for 24.
(When is season 7 starting!)
mycowardice on March 8, 2008 at 1:10 PM
While I appreciate a need to limit the techniques our military and other groups use when interrogating prisoners (for our sake, not theirs), I have no hang-ups on moral equivalence. If the decision were mine to be made, and the issue was using harsh interrogation against an unlawful combatant or allowing one little girl to get a bloodly nose, I’d peel the bastard like a grape to get the intel out of him. Not American policy, just my policy.
As for this particular flap, I strongly disagree with publishing interrogation techniques that our intelligence services are permitted to use. It is breathtakingly stupid to advise the enemy as to what coersions they should prepare themselves to face. I don’t think the Democrats are serious about national security. I don’t think they understand how thin the veneer is between them and real violence. If the dogs loose interest in protecting the sheep, the wolves will gut them in a heartbeat. There is nothing more perverse than an anti-dog sheep.
Immolate on March 8, 2008 at 1:14 PM
SquidShark: What an amazing, prolific, and incredibly naive young man. From the start, he owned this tread. No great feat in that, though, I guess. Kinda like walking into a biker bar and shouting out that something stinks in the place.
By his comments I’d guess he’s:
– certainly not in the armed forces
– does not know anyone in the armed forces
– has never even spoken to anyone in the armed forces
– is not married
– has no children
– in fact, probably still a virgin
– is an only child raised in an upper middle-class home located in the suburbs of San Francisco by ultra liberal parents thereby causing him to explore the right perspective which led him here
– takes the “right” view now and then just to drive his mom nuts
– Knows nothing about waterboarding or torture except what he’s heard his mother ranting about and what he has seen Jack Bauer do
– Voted for the first time in his life in the primaries for Obomo
– has an Obomo sticker on his Prius
– has never suffered any hardships in his life
– either still lives at home or with a like-minded boy/man roommate of his age
– masturbates every night and/or morning
– works at Best Buy – (he left not to enjoy the sun but to go to work)
– Watches the SciFi channel, Mythbusters, Spike and that Game channel
– Inflates his low self-esteem by posting contradictory or inflammatory comments into threads then telling his man/boy roommate and workmates at Best Buy that he made fools of all who responded to his posts
– Failed Harvard’s Moral Sense Test at http://wjh1.wjh.harvard.edu/~moral/test.php
This again, I could be wrong. If so, my apologies in advance.
Rod on March 8, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Welp, there’s always harsh language as the best interrogation technique not to be challenged by any legal definition.
Or will it…..?!
Kini on March 8, 2008 at 1:21 PM
We have not used waterboarding in about 5 years, or more and then we only used it on 3 people. I think McCain has been very consistent on this issue and like the Captain I think the Democrats are going to use this bill to try and create political problems for him. That is probably one of the reasons it was written the way it is. I think Bush is right to veto it.
But there will be people on the right who will also try to make it all about politics as well and they will attack McCain too, even though he does not deserve it.
Terrye on March 8, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Associating the Republican Party with waterboarding for months will work about as well as the “meth-fueled gay sex” allegations which were hanging out there before the last election.
Waterboarding can’t lead to the discovery of admissible evidence unless we’re rewriting every other law as well. So it should be illegal and rare, but done anyway when absolutely necessary – hot pursuit of terror plot basically.
Notice the Iranian demontrations can’t crack any major news outlet, but waterboarding will be headlines ’til November.
Beagle on March 8, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Rod:
I do believe you are wrong. There are all kinds of people in the military and squid shark is one of them. Nor do I think he is all that young. Just because he might not agree with you on each and every subject certainly does not make him a liberal or a Democrat or on Obama supporter.
If you think it is does, then I would say you were the one who is naive.
Terrye on March 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM
PALAMINO!
Kini on March 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Squid Shark’s argument on this issue fails to convince me that he even knows what he’s talking about. My critique:
First of all, he’s trying to argue multiple points, but it’s done erratically, incomplete, and his position changes as the thread develops. This suggests that he doesn’t really know or understand the position he’s trying to debate
One of his problems comes down to the apparent definition of torture.
So what is Squid’s definition of torture?
Here’s Merriam-Webster’s definition of torture(11th ed.):
1a: anguish of the body or mind. 2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce or afford sadistic pleasure.
So we see that Squid does not really understand the definition of torture when he says lasting physical effects is not the definition of torture, as burning or crushing of the body would certainly leave long-lasting physical anguish.
His other problem comes from the definition of patriotism. When challenged by JonRoss to define patriotism, Squid responds with this:
Well, not exactly, Squid. Your interpretation of what patriotism means to you strays from the actual definition (again, according to Merriam-Webster’s):
love for or devotion to one’s country.
This is better illustrated by the definition of ‘patriot’, which is what Squid is really referring to when he became indignant by calling a poster an ‘SOB’ in an earlier post.
one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests.
Squid may want to go back and reevaluate what he’s trying to accomplish here. His current debate would be considered more grounded in passion than of logic.
He made passionate statements early in the thread, but they lacked focus. He attempted to claim moral high ground right off the bat, a typical tactic of the weak debater. But he found that slope a bit too slippery.
He then resorted to telling us of friends who haven’t come back. A fall back plan designed to gain sympathy as his argument continued to lose ground.
Then when his position(s)had become completely untenable when challenged and scrutinized by better arguments, he retreated to suddenly becoming distracted by a beautiful day and that operational security and military code of conduct prevented him from expanding on his statements.
In a word: baloney.
Et tu Brute on March 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM
This still creates the problem of making the operators criminally liable if it is illegal. It isn’t right to hang the whole thing on them in the rare instances it has to be used. If it is made illegal, then those responsible for passing the bill into law have to wear the results if failure to obtain timely information leads to a catastophe.
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 1:37 PM
CBS news headline in the “More from CBS News” column: Bush Vetoes Bill Banning Torture
Rico on March 8, 2008 at 1:45 PM
( Okay, vnt, you know you’re going to tick off some lurkers now)
I don’t believe in waterboarding!
I don’t even believe in interrogation!!
I say NUKE ‘EM ALL!!! Let God sort them out!
(Now you’ve done it Vntnrse…)
I don’t care! They want to kill us! I say kill them first!!!
(Why am I channeling Michael Savage at the moment?)
Vntnrse on March 8, 2008 at 1:48 PM
I have no problem with us doing anything to a terrorist. And I do mean anything.
SouthernGent on March 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM
That is one reason I have great respect for Pres. Bush. I wish McCain would be as tough as him. Waterboarding is not torture! Go and see what the jihadist are doing and you’ll know what I mean. Besides I don’t want that moral relativism crap being peddled by the left. There is no moral explanation on why we have to be better compared to terrorists. All these reasoning are moot if we are all dead.
mariloubaker on March 8, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I hope who ever signs any law which bans effective, non-lethal, coercive interrogative techniques considers what myself and a large majority would do if we lose a loved one as a result.
Being a political coward will not suffice as an excuse.
Sonosam on March 8, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Et tu:
Huh???
Why attack squid? Does he not have a right to his opinion? It is not as if he is saying we should not fight the terrorists, he is not a leftist. He just has a problem with this particular technique. I do believe the man who wrote this post, Ed Morrisey has made it plain he too has some qualms himself.
Terrye on March 8, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I think McCain is as tough as Bush, this is not about being tough.
Terrye on March 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Its a matter of what works!
That is the moral-dilemma for the left,
pray tell we have an effective tool, within civilised principles, which buckles hard core baby-killers.
Sonosam on March 8, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Yes, you may be right. I’ve been wrong quite often in my life. I’m sure I will be again.
However, as for my being naive, given that this shortcoming generally afflicts younger members of society (It’s also applied to the “simple minded”. For a good discourse on the “simple-minded” thrust of squidman’s arguments, refer to to the previous post by Et tu Brute), and given that I would be referred to as a much “older” member of society, you’d do better to describe me as either an “old cynic” or perhaps “senile”. Either one will work fine.
Rod on March 8, 2008 at 2:14 PM
I’m glad we didn’t think that way when we were dealing with Japan.
We would have lost more men.
WayWard Fundamentalist Christian on March 8, 2008 at 2:14 PM
That was my critique of Squid’s debate. It was not an attack and you are wrong.
Nowhere did I say he didn’t have a right to express his opinion. Those are your words, not mine, so again, you are wrong.
My critique said nothing about ‘leftists’. That’s your word and a non sequitur.
My critique said nothing about Ed Morrisey’s position on this debate. Again, a non sequitur.
My critique clearly identified Squid’s “technical” problems and summed up his performance accurately.
Thanks for your input.
Et tu Brute on March 8, 2008 at 2:17 PM
That’s the whole problem, the intelligence gotten from Waterboarding has, most of the time, been proven to be wrong. Because the person getting waterboarded tells you anything to get you to stop.
Period.
WayWard Fundamentalist Christian on March 8, 2008 at 2:18 PM
My point was that it either needs to be one or the other. If illegal, but rarely used, it still puts the guys who have to use it on the wrong side of the law. By the time they could fight their way through a mass of authorizations allowing it to be used in exceptional circumstances if illegal, much of the information value could be lost. Look at what the bureacratic lawyer class have cost us in trying to get high value al Qaeda targets when they are in our sights. Our ROE are another example.
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
That’s the whole problem, the intelligence gotten from Water boarding has, most of the time, been proven to be wrong. Because the person getting water boarded tells you anything to get you to stop.
Where do you get those facts?
KSM spilled the beans in 30 minutes or so……..
Do you think our interrogators dont take notes?
You understand that its harder to remember a lie, than the truth, right?
Im not sure that you do.
Sonosam on March 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
He told them what they wanted to hear so they would stop.
Period.
WayWard Fundamentalist Christian on March 8, 2008 at 2:29 PM
You dont think we back-check the information against what we know?
Do you think we are utter fools?
When the false info given by KSM paid dividends was that real?
You dont really believe what you are saying, do you?
Sonosam on March 8, 2008 at 2:33 PM
So, you are saying what he told them about his complicity in all these terrorist events wasn’t true? He just told them lies so they would stop? Don’t you think they corroborate this stuff? Here’s a news flash for ya. People conducting interrogations get lied to a lot. they are used to it. They sort of prepare for that.
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM
This is a bit discouraging, isn’t it?:)
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Okay buddy,…….
Did ya do it?……….
No!
Oh!, ahhh, I guess he didnt do it.
Nobody is that gullible.
Sonosam on March 8, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Wayward needs to reread the thread; the intelligence that we received from the three Al Qaeda terrorist masterminds has resulted in the disruption of several terror plots which, had they proceeded, would have cost thousands of innocent civilian lives, and to the apprehension of several other high-value terrorists.
If it were necessary in order to save a single innocent life, I would have no qualms whatsoever with breaking every bone in a terrorist’s body, then giving him an injection that threw him into convulsions, to get him to talk. But I can understand my country being unwilling to go to such lengths. Luckily, it doesn’t have to. Waterboarding causes no physical pain (it works on the principle of psychological fear), does not cause physical damage, and it works like a charm.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM
A taser on 10 (or highest settng)would give the same results. With less chances of drowning them.
WayWard Fundamentalist Christian on March 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Some people are here drink too much kool-aid.
WayWard Fundamentalist Christian on March 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Our Kool-aid isnt laced with cyanide like yours is.
You have the suicide gene.
Sonosam on March 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM
We can use sniper rifles to cleave their skulls, but simulated drowning is beneath us? We can use bayonets and machine guns to rend their flesh, but waterboarding is too uncivilized and immoral? We can obliterate them with bombs, but a little psychological torture is beyond reason? I really don’t understand the anti-waterboarding folks. Do you oppose it to assuage some feelings of guilt? Just trying to understand why killing them is okay, but waterboarding isn’t.
bojack on March 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Actually, a tazer inflicts pain, which waterboarding doesn’t, can cause fatal heart attacks, and is not as effective an interrogation technique. Plus, waterboarding on an inclined plane with the head lowest, using saran wrap to sheath the face from the water, prevents it from entering the windpipe.
I SOOOO wish that people would try to inform their opinions with facts before they share them…
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Another reason why a Moderate Democrat, like myself, will definitely NOT vote, send money to, or work for a RINO like Juan “Z-Visa” McCain…
STAY HOME ‘08
DfDeportation on March 8, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I disagree…the overriding issue in this race is whether our not our country will persevere in Iraq specifically and the global war on jihadi terrorist generally. On this issue, the difference between McCain and either Dem frontrunner couild not be more critical or more stark. I consider it crucial to the safety and security of this nation that I turn out to vote for McCain, and to urge others to do so, so we do not suffer devastatingly catastrophic consequences both at home and abroad in the following four years.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Our Kool-aid isnt laced with cyanide like yours is.
You have the suicide gene.
Sonosam on March 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM
I think it’s a religious thing…..and THEY have THE SUICIDE DEMON!!!
NO WATERBOARDER IS ILLEGAL!
DfDeportation on March 8, 2008 at 3:01 PM
What does distress me is those who are willing to risk the safety and security of this nation out of petty political spite, when they disagree with McCain on other issues besides the GWOT; be assured that his opponents would retreat and declare defeat in that war, with disastrous and lasting ramifications for our nation, and also be much worse than McCain would be on the issues with which the spiteful folks disagree with him.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 3:06 PM
When the US military ceded control of Abu Ghraid to the Iraqis,
there were stories of the terrorist prisoners begging to go with the Americans.
Soon after, the Iraqi government was holding trials and executing these prisoners.
Not that I feel any sympathy to the cowards, but it goes to show that we really arent the hardest on terrorist scum prisoners.
Sonosam on March 8, 2008 at 3:08 PM
You suggested that you are something other than a liberal.
It is false.
No self-respecting conservative cites Amy Goodman. We’d eat dirt first.
And you cited abuses by Algerians. I thought we were discussing United States policy. You hurl red herring after red herring. It’s all so……….liberal.
drjohn on March 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I can’t vote for a guy who says OUR soldiers, prosecuting this War on Terror, are guilty of using TORTURE TACTICS against the enemy combatants…
DfDeportation on March 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM
But you can allow, by your failure to vote for him, someone to win who would snatch defeat from the jaws of their victory, and ours, in Iraq, and hand a victory to Al Qaeda and Iran there…hmmmm….
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 3:25 PM
I think it’s about Juan “Z-Visa” McCain’s failures…..not mine…
DfDeportation on March 8, 2008 at 3:29 PM
If it walks like a Moby, and talks like a Moby, it must support Obama or Hillary…;~)
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 3:30 PM
As much as I have reservations about John Mccain and some of his policies,
National Security isnt one of them.
In fact, John Mccain would have to do a lot more wrong before id consider the alternative.
Sonosam on March 8, 2008 at 3:30 PM
I’m pretty sure Obama is against waterboarding,..he might let Michelle handle that part. She’s a natural. She might want to go back to the towel. Or even the laser.
a capella on March 8, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Funny, I always thought a nation’s borders had something to do with national security. Silly me.
Grayson on March 8, 2008 at 3:42 PM
As much as I have reservations about John Mccain and some of his policies,
National Security isnt one of them.
In fact, John Mccain would have to do a lot more wrong before id consider the alternative.
Sonosam on March 8, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Real Democrats aren’t considering the alternative. We already have known, for a while now, The New Direction Democrats have sold us out a loooooooong time ago…
DfDeportation on March 8, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Was he reading their minds? How would he know “what they wanted to hear?
SouthernGent on March 8, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Yep, he told them what they wanted to hear…how to disrupt ongoing terror plots, and where high-value Al Qaedans were…and they used that info to disrupt those plots, and apprehend those Al Qaedans.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Just give me a solid reason why I should vote for, give money to, or work for Juan “Z-Visa” McCain…
DfDeportation on March 8, 2008 at 3:53 PM
I applaud Mr Bush for deciding to veto a bill removing waterboarding from being an interrogation technique. So far I have not been convinced by those who oppose waterboarding either who believe it’s torture or otherwise that it should be stopped. Hypotheticals aside, the technique was useful in extracting legitimate intelligence that the government was able to act on and stop terrorist plots. It works every time its been tried and is very effective by real results.
We should be so lucky as to be living in a time where such things as interrogation techniques are so openly discussed and debated. Given a different time, with a much more national urgency, perhaps such a discussion would be moot and irrelevant.
On a different note, while I am firm believer the Democrats should be reduced to a permanent minority in all aspects of government authority, I do not agree with the sentiment that if elected to the presidency, they would retreat out of Iraq and so forth. Historically, when Democrats are in power, they are rather aggressive with the military. Besides, I do not believe the Democrats, even perhaps Mr Obama, want the political consequences of pulling out of Iraq on their watch –which is why they have so fervently tried to get Mr Bush to do it on his watch. They do not want history to rememeber that a Democrat administration withdrew out of Iraq. I’ll bet, as Rush has said, that once the primary is over, we will see the fastest 180 on Iraq from the Democrats that it’ll make our heads spin.
Weebork on March 8, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Okay, Moby D….so that Obama and hillary don’t surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda and Ahmedinejad.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Water boarding is being used as a “straw man”, what was vetoed , covered more than just “water boarding”..
If passed, the CIA would be stuck to just the Army field manual..
Chakra Hammer on March 8, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Jack Bauer(CIA) needs more latitude than what is outlined in the Army field manual. >:D
Chakra Hammer on March 8, 2008 at 4:01 PM
And Weebork, I trust Obama and Hillary to do exactly what they have promised their electoral base and their political colleagues they’d do vis-a-vis Iraq…and further trust that those elements fully intend to hold either one’s feet to the fire until they do it, should either of them be elected to the presidency.
Salamantis on March 8, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Are you telling us you think our guys were all lying when they said several plots were stopped and several bad guys were rounded up?
shibumiglass on March 8, 2008 at 4:03 PM
You could stop “water boarding”, but to throw out the rest of the alternative techniques as well, would be foolish and put us in danger.
(To me the Water boarding done, by the correct trained people with medical staff on hand etc., in extreme, but very limited circumstances should be allowed, but not exceeding a reasonable sustained period of time..)
just my take.
Chakra Hammer on March 8, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »