mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 08:55 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Thanks. But since I'm perhaps the only person here who doesn't follow that other forum you may excuse my question.


It was an honest question, and I gave you an honest answer.
You need not be excused for your question, it was a good question.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 08:58 am
mysteryman, one you aint celebrating is justice. The case certainly was not dropped on it's merits. Those who brought charges and who will continue to do so are highly educated and have compiled a case and a half. A case that played out daily in the press. That America has committed crimes against humanity under Bushie is set in concrete. You're in a minority on earth who defend his "blatantly sadistic" war crimes. You rejoice not at Rummy's righteousness but at his power to get away with unrighteousness. "Judge Orders Release of Abu Ghraib Photos"

By Greg Mitchell

Published: September 29, 2005 12:45 PM ET

NEW YORK A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image. Last year a Republican senator conceded that they contained scenes of "rape and murder" and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said they included acts that were "blatantly sadistic."

link
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 09:03 am
mysteryman, I still say Rummy will be prosecuted. Like Hitler once did you count your chickens before they hatch. There's no staute of limitations on Rummy's war crimes. Time is on the side of truth. What's sad is your defense of the blatantly sadistic.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 09:14 am
blueflame1 wrote:
mysteryman, I still say Rummy will be prosecuted. Like Hitler once did you count your chickens before they hatch. There's no staute of limitations on Rummy's war crimes. Time is on the side of truth. What's sad is your defense of the blatantly sadistic.


Prosecuted by who?
The French prosecutor has thrown the case out, and no legal authority has stepped up to take the case.
So, if nobody will take the case, who is going to prosecute him?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 09:46 am
mysteryman, the case wont go away and there are other venues. Halfway through WW2 Himmler was still caressing lampshades made out of ther skin of his victims.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2007 02:09 am
So the CIA destroyed in 2005 videotapes showing the harsh interrogation of at least two terrorism suspects, the New York Times reported.

The destruction could raise serious legal issues if the CIA is shown to have withheld tapes from federal prosecutors and the 9/11 commission. The tapes included the 2002 questioning of suspected al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, who was subjected to waterboarding.

CIA chief Gen. Michael Hayden said the agency destroyed the tapes to protect the identities of undercover agents involved in the interrogations; sources told the Times it was done to protect agents from legal risk.
One member of the 9/11 commission, which requested all such information, called the revelation "a very big deal" and said it could amount to obstruction of justice.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2007 06:58 am
Congress to Clash With Bush Over "Torture" Technique
By Elana Schor and Mark Tran
The Guardian UK

Thursday 06 December 2007

Congress is set to clash with George Bush on the contentious practice of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques as it prepares legislation on intelligence funding.

Senate and House officials have included the ban on waterboarding - condemned by human rights groups as a form of torture - in their respective bills authorising 2008 spending for intelligence programmes.

The move would set up another veto fight with Bush, who last summer issued an executive order allowing the CIA to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" that go beyond what is allowed in the 2006 army field manual.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120607S.shtml
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 03:18 pm
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say

By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01


In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 10:22 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Water boarding does not involve "pints of water are forced into his lungs", it involves disorientation (head lower then chest), simulated drowning, pouring copious amounts of water over a rag over the mouth. Considering a person can down if even a cup of water is introduced into the lungs should be enough to tell you Nance is full of **** and is exaggerating for effect. Water boarding is a psychological device meant to scare and bewilder the person, not kill them.

"Fills up his lungs", please. What an idiot.


"gigo"

Cycloptichorn


Go blow it out your ass, that seems to be something you are expert at. Especially on this topic. You have no idea what you are talking about beyond the garbage spoon fed you.


Oh, and you derive your information on this topic from where, exactly?

Mmm hmm.

I notice that you didn't mention your recent embarrassment. Still claiming that you read the article, you incredible fraud?

Cycloptichorn


Well, seems I was wrong. Water is not poured over a rag, but cellophane.

I was correct in saying that no water enters the lungs. If it does, the interrogator is doing it wrong.

Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'

Quote:
Waterboarding begins by placing a suspect on a table with the suspect's feet slightly elevated, said Kiriakou, who was waterboarded several years ago as part of his CIA training. He said he elected not to learn how to perform the technique, which is designed to emulate the sensation of drowning.

Once a suspect is secured on the table, interrogators wrap his or her face in a cellophane-like material, Kiriakou said.

"There is a bladder, or a water source, above the head with water pouring down on the mouth, so no water is going into your mouth, but it induces a gag reflex and makes you feel like you're choking," Kiriakou said.


Like I said.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 10:58 am
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Water boarding does not involve "pints of water are forced into his lungs", it involves disorientation (head lower then chest), simulated drowning, pouring copious amounts of water over a rag over the mouth. Considering a person can down if even a cup of water is introduced into the lungs should be enough to tell you Nance is full of **** and is exaggerating for effect. Water boarding is a psychological device meant to scare and bewilder the person, not kill them.

"Fills up his lungs", please. What an idiot.


"gigo"

Cycloptichorn


Go blow it out your ass, that seems to be something you are expert at. Especially on this topic. You have no idea what you are talking about beyond the garbage spoon fed you.


Oh, and you derive your information on this topic from where, exactly?

Mmm hmm.

I notice that you didn't mention your recent embarrassment. Still claiming that you read the article, you incredible fraud?

Cycloptichorn


Well, seems I was wrong. Water is not poured over a rag, but cellophane.

I was correct in saying that no water enters the lungs. If it does, the interrogator is doing it wrong.

Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'

Quote:
Waterboarding begins by placing a suspect on a table with the suspect's feet slightly elevated, said Kiriakou, who was waterboarded several years ago as part of his CIA training. He said he elected not to learn how to perform the technique, which is designed to emulate the sensation of drowning.

Once a suspect is secured on the table, interrogators wrap his or her face in a cellophane-like material, Kiriakou said.

"There is a bladder, or a water source, above the head with water pouring down on the mouth, so no water is going into your mouth, but it induces a gag reflex and makes you feel like you're choking," Kiriakou said.


Like I said.


No, not like you said. How is the gag reflex engaged if no water enters the mouth? Doesn't make much sense to me. My guess is that this description is incomplete at best.

I will say that you cut out the important part of the article:

Quote:
said Tuesday that the controversial interrogation technique of "waterboarding" has saved lives, but he considers the method torture and now opposes its use.


How interesting - he considers it torture. Something that you and others have denied.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 08:06 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, not like you said. How is the gag reflex engaged if no water enters the mouth? Doesn't make much sense to me. My guess is that this description is incomplete at best.

Cycloptichorn


Do you flinch when someone swings at you? It's a reflex action. The gag reflex is a reflex action to close your wind pipe to keep you from drowning.

The description comes from someone who has experienced it. I doubt it's incomplete, it just doesn't equate out to what your liberal sources have told you.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 08:28 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, not like you said. How is the gag reflex engaged if no water enters the mouth? Doesn't make much sense to me. My guess is that this description is incomplete at best.

Cycloptichorn


Do you flinch when someone swings at you? It's a reflex action. The gag reflex is a reflex action to close your wind pipe to keep you from drowning.

The description comes from someone who has experienced it. I doubt it's incomplete, it just doesn't equate out to what your liberal sources have told you.


The centrist, shoveling yet another 16 tons.

The USA prosecuted a Japanese national for waterboarding, calling it what it is, torture and a war crime. Y'all are such f**king hypocrites!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 09:47 pm
McGentrix wrote:

The description comes from someone who has experienced it.


That someone, if he's the same one I think he is, also said he only lasted about 5 seconds under this treatment and that he believes it is torture.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 07:16 am
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

The description comes from someone who has experienced it.


That someone, if he's the same one I think he is, also said he only lasted about 5 seconds under this treatment and that he believes it is torture.


Yeah, everyone is entitled to their opinion, huh?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 02:43 pm
There are many others who have undergone the torture who disagree with your source, McG - who, by the way, agrees with them and I that Waterboarding is, in fact, torture.

Today, the House of Reps passed a bill specifically stating this.

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=993

Quote:
House passes ban on waterboarding.

In a 222-199 vote, the House today passed the FY2008 Intelligence Authorization bill, which bans waterboarding and confines the CIA "to the interrogation tactics permitted by the Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations. Rep. Jerrold Nadler's (D-NY) remarked, "[This] means no more torture, no more waterboarding, no more clever wordplay, no more evasive answers, no more dishonesty." Watch it:


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 02:54 pm
Will Bushie veto the bill banning waterboarding? http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2223149,00.html
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 02:59 pm
And blueflame don't forget to read this.

Alan Dershowitz: Only "sterile" needles can be used while conducting torture
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11542
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 03:15 pm
Rama, Dershowitz should sterilize his own sick self and sorry soul.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 03:23 pm
I strongly support your above statment Blueflame.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 03:49 pm
Ramafuchs wrote:
And blueflame don't forget to read this.

Alan Dershowitz: Only "sterile" needles can be used while conducting torture
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11542


I read this piece as I was wondering what scenario entailed use of "needles". Injections? Drugs or painkillers?

God knows about those, but Dershowitz is talking about needles being shoved under the fingernails! This is one of the iconic portrayals of torture as used by, for example, the soulless 'japs' in WW2.

The Dershowitz Distopia.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Waterboarding
  3. » Page 14
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.89 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 10:41:02