handing over people to other countries if we know they’ll get tortured is immoral and against the law.
sesquipedalian on April 24, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Which law?
We have executive orders put in place for America during the Ford years, but nothing I saw on Lexis/Nexis regarding the US Code of Justice says anything about sending prisoners away to foreign judicial systems regardless of whether they will face extrordinary methodes of quesioning, or even torture.

Put up or shut up.

Wait, we’re going to lose a city now?
The worst terrorist attack to hit America killed 3000 people, .01% of the population of New York.

Is it your belief the next attack by some guys in caves will take out a city?

e-pirate on April 24, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Gee, thanks for the math – I guess, since it was only .01%, it must be acceptable.

The point is, the next attack could, in fact, be larger, or smaller, or the same size. So, we should do whatever is necessary to prevent the next attack. If that includes waterboarding, or any of the other means currently being called aggressive or enhanced interogations, that’s fine.

Remember, the methods we used don’t cause permanent physical harm; they appear to have been used in a small number of cases; they were used on people that were absolutely known bad actors.

Given the circumstances, remarkable restraint was shown.

See, this is logic.

and maybe this whole matter will be put to rest.

and for the former “torture” lawyer being on the 9th circuit, well, hot damn.

strangelet, you still didn’t answer whether you meant to “literally” hang them.
hawkdriver on April 24, 2009 at 6:14 PM

Did it ever answer?
Because if it comes to that, people like it better watch its own a**.
Now go complain to the FBI, strange fruit.
baldilocks on April 24, 2009 at 7:21 PM

Okfine.
Literally hang them then.
Like when we hung the japanese waterboarders.

After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as ‘water cure,’ ‘water torture’ and ‘waterboarding,’ according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.” Politifact went on to report, “A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps.”

Pardon, fair Juliette, but I was busy on this torture thread.
AllahP serves us an embarassment of riches ce soir.
;)

The Laird has gone off to bed. Its a good thread though.
Deep.
The MacLeod remainds me of my Shakespeare professor and Prospero….

This rough magic….I here abjure…and deeper than ever plummet sound..
I’ll drown my book

hey, let me know when obama sends somebody abroad to be tortured. he won’t. he never said he would. the news you heard was that they maintained the administration’s position in a trial to protect the secrecy of information about bush’s extraordinary rendition program. to protect the disgraced ex-president.

sesquipedalian on April 24, 2009 at 7:11 PM

That’s called rendition.

Barack Oblahblah upheld the practice within 2 days of taking office.

what’ll the number be if those two memos prove Cheney right about waterboarding having prevented attacks?

Presumably the plan going forward is to let the matter drop and then, when Cheney gets his docs, to accuse him of trying to refight old battles from which the country’s moved on. Savor the irony.

The problem is the media won’t cover it the way they should. Just like letting Dems call Bush a liar on WMDs, when those same Dems made the same case for 13 years. The media never held their feet to the fire. Do you think, if Cheney gets the docs, that the media is going to suddenly say “thank you Bush/Cheney, you were right all along and you saved thousands of lives by giving baths to 3 smelly terrorists!”?

Please! The corruption is so bad now that word of what really happened will never make it to the people.

I hope he doesn’t let up on him or the rest of the Dhimmis either. If the freaking POTUS wants to cede our national security and attempt to make political hay out of targeting those who put the U.S. first to make himself feel good then someone has got to step in. It seems Cheney fits that bill.

So, in other words, sometimes it is OK?
redshirt on April 24, 2009 at 6:17 PM

Yes. Sometimes it is ok. But it is NEVER legal.
You need a special waterboard? Built to government torture standards?
F*ck off, criminal.
MY country doesn’t torture.

strangelet on April 24, 2009 at 6:31 PM

strangelet is perfectly fine with torturing someone…as long as its not he/she that is doing it, and they don’t know about it! How else could it be ok to do sometimes, but not legal? Its okay to do sometimes (as long as someone else is doing it), but not legal (when its convenient/politically empowering to turn on those that DID the necessary “torturing”). That’s a pretty sad attitude to take.

They live in a quiet, safe area of the States and believe that terrorism can’t reach them. They have the luxury to engage in sanctimonious arguments because they’re not at the pointy end of the spear.

Republicans: open about what they believe needs to be done to protect the country and people of the United States. They get legal advice to make sure that they aren’t torturing anyone, and let those that need to know what they think has to be done to keep people safe.

Democrats: believe that “what you don’t know can’t hurt you” and would rather have someone else do the dirty work, whatever it takes, as long as they don’t know about it. IE: stick their fingers in their ears and go “NA NA NA NA..don’t tell me! If I don’t “know” about what you are doing its all okay!” And then turn around and blame those that actually DID the dirty work when things turn against the democrats.