sesquipedalian on May 14, 2009 at 5:14 PM

You said, quite clearly: “…if kids at your local college waterboard someone while hazing, they’ll go to prison.”

Prison. Your words.

Now, you say the AG said it is a crime.

The AG.

Is the Attorney general the lawgiver?

Or, is the Attorney General the primary Cabinet-rank law enforcement officer in the nation?

If there is a federal crime committed, and the AG does not prosecute, is this a violatino of law?

is a college student committing a violation of federal law whilst hazing, that includes waterboarding?

Once again, provide proof that even one college student has been sent to prison for waterboarding.

Then, provide proof of indictments against federal employees or the former President, former SecDef or DCI for waterboarding.

Then, provide a citation from the US Code, showing the actual criminal offense to which that indictment[s] were established before a federal grand jury.

We are, still, a Nation of Laws…not a nation of personality cults. The AG said anyone who does not talk about race is a coward. I know many many people of color who do not constantly talk about race…and who have served honorably and well over the years…are they cowards merely because the AG said so?

Keep your responses simple.

coldwarrior on May 14, 2009 at 5:24 PM

it was not against the subjects’ will and they didn’t think they’d die. next question?

sesquipedalian on May 14, 2009 at 6:05 PM

Never had to go through SERE training did you?

Mandatory for future assignments, and for certain current assignments. And as for “they didn’t think they’d die” well, when I went through in the 80’s, there had been at least two deaths reported in Navy SERE school in the late 1970’s. So, yes, there was a fear of death.

coldwarrior on May 14, 2009 at 6:15 PM

sesquipedalian on May 14, 2009 at 6:24 PM

Simple.

Has nothing to do with torture.

It stopped in 2005, because the need for EIT’s on the three AQ members had revealed enough operational information to go after other key members, disrupt ongoing operations and disrupt plans, and the three became more appreciative of their circumstances, as they explained to the International red Cross…when they cooperated they received nicer treatment. But, not before having been broken.

EIT’s were not used just for the hell of it, nor as a matter of habit or policy. In a few select cases, at a time when operational intelligence and actionable intelligence about AQ, in light of the common belief all across government and Congress that more AQ attacks were forthcoming, EIT’s served their purpose.

Now, how about Obama himself admitting that in peculiar circumstances in the face of a terrible threat, he’d do the same. In effect, he has kept EIT’s on the table for rare and limited and only rare and limited usage.

Waterboarding only three out of the several thousand AQ and Taliban fighters captured seems to be…rare…and limited.

If it was rare and limited under Bush, and to be rare and limited under Obama…what’s the difference?

coldwarrior on May 14, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Cannot find the reference…but…

“CIA Director Leon Panetta, in his first meeting with reporters…also said that while CIA interrogations will have new limits, President Barack Obama can still use his wartime powers to authorize harsher techniques if necessary.”

So, if Pelosi pushes the envelope a bit too far on this one, she will be directly opposing Obama…and he’ll cut her off at the knees. [Or, maybe Rahm will, more his style.]

coldwarrior on May 14, 2009 at 6:48 PM

massrighty on May 14, 2009 at 9:18 PM

I’d prefer the Kansas City phone book myself. You know, smack in the middle of the country. No coastal bias.

Besides going after the “many footed one” on matters of clarity and fact, still no answerr on which college students have been sent to prison for waterboarding whilst hazing, I was attempting to engage in a discussion of matters of law…as they are written…to get to the bottom of this mess, rather than regurgitating the constant emotive appeal to feelings.

Thus, if a President says he will prosecute a federal official…then do it…under law, in full view of the nation. If a member of Congress proposes to do the same, then charge the Executive Branch with fulfilling its obligations under law.

This constant harping about frog-marching officials out of the White House in leg irons, or sending federal employees to prison for following the letter of the law, or worse, sending federal lawyers to prison for merely offering their best legal summation for a problem they were tasked to address by a President, serves no purpose other than to engender contempt for the rule of law and provide food for trolls and pundits on the left who have no other argument in their arsenal other than “Bush Lied!”

If federal laws were broken…then the White House has no other recourse under law than to make public which laws were broken and which federal officials broke them and under what circumstances, a federal grand jury indictment in hand specific to each defendant, and proceed with a public trial, in full view of all America, and under the rules of court allow all those charged to have access to all federal records, memos, and documentation and testimony covering the full scope of all charges made against them.

None of this “truth commisison” pap.

Take it right before the federal bench.

In the absence of that, then the current Administration and the current Congress should best just shut the hell up. There are far far more important things that threaten this nation that need to be addressed and with far more immediacy.

coldwarrior on May 14, 2009 at 9:42 PM