Since when do liberals have moral standards? Isn’t that a Judeo Christian thing, that they respond to with: keep your morals off my body? Don’t they then go into the moral relativistic drone, all cultures, morals, religions, societies are equal? Don’t liberals elect and reelect persons without any moral standards whatsoever, time after time, and even elect them to high positions in the Legislature and Executive Office (even ckoeber could name quite a few). Congress has never outlawed waterboarding or even defined waterboarding as torture, despite the leftwing loons bleating about it, same with the other so called harsh interrogation techniques. All that was done was to remove certain techniques from the Army Field Manual, but that didn’t remove them from CIA or other intelligence agency operations.

Next, the libs state that a certain Japanese individual was killed for the same thing (waterboarding) that we supposedly did. Another liberal lie (I know redundant to say liberal and lying). The Japanese POW was sentenced to fifteen years, his crimes were beating our POWs with sticks and clubs (funny how liberals omit such details), stealing Red Cross Supplies (funny how that’s omitted too) other physical abuse, water torture (running water into open nostrils and mouths of prisoners without any medical personnel present) which does not even compare to waterboarding committed by the US, and what that POW did was so dangerous it is not practiced in the US or any civilized country.

As for the “183 times” ridiculousness. That refers to each water unit dropped into the waterboarded person’s cloth covering. Further, there were explicit limits as to the amounts of such water flows in any two hour setting, forty eight hour period and limit on how many times it could be used per month and time periods that must intervene between each usage. I believe it was no more than 6 water units in two hours, and the 180-plus times refers not to sessions of waterboarding, but to “pours” — that is, to instances of water being poured on the subject.

Under a strict set of rules, every pour of water had to be counted — and the number of pours was limited.

Also: Waterboarding interrogation sessions were permitted on no more than five days within any 30-day period.

No more than two sessions were permitted in any 24-hour period.

A session could last no longer than two hours.
There could be at most six pours of water lasting ten seconds or longer — and never longer than 40 seconds — during any individual session.

Water could be poured on a subject for a combined total of no more than 12 minutes during any 24 hour period.

You do the math.

ALSO important points:

1) Such detailed rules suggest that serious thought was given to where to draw the line between coercion — “stress and duress” — and torture. You can disagree with where those lines were drawn, but I don’t see how you can say no attempt was made to set limits.

Not only lawyers but also physicians and psychologists were involved in these decisions. Indeed, these interrogations were supervised by physicians and psychologists who had the power to stop them. (My column today touches on this question.)

Time and intensity are relevant factors. Who would argue that a single night of sleep deprivation constitutes torture? Who would argue that a month of sleep deprivation is not?

2) Remember that Abu Zubaydah said: “Brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardships.”

Any interrogator worth his salt would understand this means it is his job to bring his subject to the point at which cooperation is no longer betrayal but permitted according to his religious beliefs. Can that be achieved short of torture? Sure. Can it be achieved without coercive interrogation techniques? Not bloody likely.

These and other fascinating analyses based upon sources contacted by the corner of national review contain the relevant details that libtards refuse to state in bad faith. These details show there was such a legal framework that you couldn’t possibly call this technique torture.

The same liberals who misrepresent our limited interrogation techniques applaud our President who grovels before foreign leaders and who gives foreign leaders abject apologies to nations that have a documented history of employing the following “enhanced interrogation methods”: electrocution, starvation, dismemberment, genital mutilation, disembowelment, eye-gouging, and beheading.
The NKVD, of Russia, one example, employed some of these methods not for purposes of interrogation, but for the sake of inflicting pain and destroying the humanity of the victim — thereby crushing the spirit of anyone allied with the victim. (The progressive party morons who are in a lather today over the supposed barbarity of our CIA techniques, are the same party morons who supported the use of the NKVD’s techniques in Russia and other peoples ‘paradises’)

In fact, some of these foreign leaders who are unapologetic about their own ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ hail from countries where these “enhanced interrogation methods” aren’t mere history, but current practice. Yet there’s no evidence that they offered apologies on behalf of their respective countries either to their own citizens or to foreign lands. And there’s no evidence that the the president rebuked any of these leaders. On the contrary, there’s evidence that our President grinned at them, joked with them, embraced them, and bowed before them.

If the libtards are really interested in the scope of proper interrogation techniques perhaps the republicans could get behind a balanced blue ribbbon panel to investigate the following:

review all relevant interrogation techniques and then report to the President which are effective?

Then the president can indicate which of these effective techniques:

we never do, no matter what (because they “shock the conscience” and therefore constitute torture under American law);

we will only do in the most extreme circumstances and under specific presidential authority;

the DNI may authorize on his own under approved guidelines;

SOP for all qualified CIA interrogators;

SOP for all military interrogators (e.g. the Army Field Manual).

Isn’t that the way to strike a balance?

If the democraps and libtards were serious

eaglewingz08 on April 24, 2009 at 7:13 AM