AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

So far nobody but political hacks and leftwing extremists groups/sources have disputed the NRO story. I have no reason to think the information in the NRO story isn't accurate. The NRO story didn't say nobody who ever did waterboarding was executed. It only said that those who ONLY did waterboarding were executed. What credible source do you have to dispute that?

But back to topic: If the President, his legal advisors, and the Congressional oversight committees all know about the type of waterboarding--described in that article--that we apparently did on three terrorists, did not disapprove it, and Congress then funded it......and when those involved stopped after Congress decided to finally outlaw it......what justification do YOU find for prosecuting those who did it with the prior permissions?

According to what I posted last night, even Barack Obama is beginning to understand the problem with that. We can only hope.

From Wiki:

Classification as torture
Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[4][5][29] politicians, war veterans,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11] David Miliband, the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary described it as torture on July 19, 2008, and stated "the UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture."[30] Arguments have been put forward that it might not be torture in all cases, or that it is unclear.[31][32][33][34] The U.S. State Department has recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in other circumstances, for example, in its 2005 Country Report on Tunisia.[35]
The United Nations' Report of the Committee Against Torture: Thirty-fifth Session of November 2006, stated that state parties should rescind any interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[36]

World War II
During World War II both Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, and the officers of the Gestapo,[64] the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture.[65] During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred. This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.[66][67][68]
Chase J. Nielsen, one of the U.S. airmen who flew in the Doolittle raid following the attack on Pearl Harbor, was subjected to waterboarding by his Japanese captors.[69] At their trial for war crimes following the war, he testified "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again… I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."[29]

United States law
The United States Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law."[142] However, the United States has a historical record of regarding waterboarding as a war crime, and has prosecuted as war criminals individuals for the use of the practice in the past. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out various acts of torture including kicking, clubbing, burning with cigarettes and using a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.[75] The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."[143] In addition, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in February 2008 that local considerations do not negate the absolute torture prohibition under international law.[129][130]

For the record, I won't be responding further to OE as long as he continues to accuse me of stating things I have not stated or supporting things that I do not support

and most especially when he thinks that Media Matters is a reliable or credible source.

I am noting his opinion and also noting that he has yet to address the issue I have been discussing.

the issue is whether Congress after approving and funding a program, can then presume to try to file criminal charges against those who were ordered to carry it out.

Here's my point of view: investigate and, if necessary, prosecute everyone who's involved in this whole torture mess.

It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044188941045415.html

But the techniques employed by our own CIA--confirmed in those very declassified memos--described something very different than what the Japanese did to their prisoners and are explicit that we took major precautions were taken to avoid any injury or extreme pain to the subject.

The International Tribunal

The IMTFE was principally concerned with Japanese crimes against states including acts of aggression and crimes against peace but it also considered charges of misconduct against 82 military personnel and civilians including murder, rape and torture.

The Judgement of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East held that:

The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at
practically all places occupied by Japanese troops, both in the occupied territories
and in Japan. The Japanese indulged in this practice during the entire period of the
Pacific War. Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to
indicate policy both in training and execution. Among these tortures were the
water treatment...

Judgement of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East at 49,663.

Another detailed description before the IMTFE was provided by a Swiss engineer held by the Japanese in the Dutch East Indies:

The third degree of punishment was “suffocation by immersions.” A towel was
fixed under the chin and down over the face. Than many buckets of water were
poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising
further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious
and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6
times in succession. Did the prisoner not confess, he was mostly led back to the
cell to pass the night in his wet clothes.

Report of Dr. R. Flachs on treatment by Japanese Kenpeitai [military police] at Bandung, Dutch East Indies, Admitted as Prosecution Exhibit 1752A, 27 December, 1946, IMTFE Record at 13,691.

A French prisoner of the Japanese at Cao-Bang in Vietnam described “water punishment” applied to him:

I was submitted to another group of torturers: a soldier held my head with one
hand and with the other stopped my mouth"during this time a second soldier
poured cold water from a teapot into my nostrils, my head thrown backwards to a
position lower than the bench on which I was lying. This operation was repeated
about fifteen times and the teapot was filled as many times. This produced in me
the early stages of asphyxia and I estimate that I must have had 3 or 4 litres of
water forced down me.

Affidavit of Marcel Robert, Admitted as Prosecution Exhibit 2134-A, 16 January, 1947, IMTFE Record at p. 15,339.

Steven G Bradbury, May 10 2005, p.13:

13. The "waterboard". In this technique, the detainee is lying on a gurney that is inclined at an angle of 10 to 15 degrees to the horizontal, with the detainee on his back and his head toward the lower end of the gurney. A cloth is placed over the detainee's face and cold water is poured on the cloth from a height of approximately 6 to 8 inches. The wet cloth creates a barrier through which it is difficult - or in some cases not possible - to breathe. A single "application" of water may not last for more than 40 seconds, with the duration of an "application" measured from the moment when water - of whatever quantity - is first poured onto the cloth until the moment the cloth is removed from the subject's face. See August 19 ❚❚❚❚ Letter at 1. When the time limit is reached, the pouring of water is immediately discontinued and the cloth is removed. We understand that if the detainee makes an effort to defeat the technique (e.g. by twisting his head to the side and breathing out of the corner of his mouth), the interrogator may cup his hands around the detainee's nose and mouth to dam the runoff, in which case it would not be possible for a detainee to breathe during the application of the water. In addition, you have informed us that the technique may be applied in a manner to defeat efforts by the detainee to hold his breath by, for example, beginning an application of water as the detainee is exhaling. Either in the normal application, or where countermeasures are used, we understand that water may enter - and may accumulate in - the detainee's mouth and nasal cavity, preventing him from breathing. Either in the normal application, or where countermeasures are used, we understand that water may enter " and may accumulate in " the detainee’s mouth and nasal cavity, preventing him from breathing. In addition, you have indicated that the detainee as a countermeasure may swallow water, possibly in significant quantities. For that reason; based on advice of medical personnel, the C.I.A. requires that saline solution be used instead of plain water to reduce the possibility of hyponatremia (i.e., reduced concentration of sodium in the blood) if the detainee drinks the water.

- Yes, I'm saying that you don't think that waterboarding is torture, and that it is quite acceptable. Specifically, your argument was that waterboarding is a procedure that many in our own military voluntarily subject themselves to, and that it is difficult to think of something as torture that many of our combat troops experience during survival training.

The no-filibuster arrangement is fiercely opposed by Republican leaders, who say health care is too important to be exempted from the Senate rules that usually mean major bills must win support from 60 senators.

The question is: Should people who acted via the approval and funding of Congress be now prosectued because some have decided they shouldn't have done it?

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

More confusion in the conservative party:

Quote:

..."Janet Napolitano should resign or be fired," Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, said on Wednesday.

yeah. let's take advice from a texan. like that worked so good for the last 8 years.

To be fair to Texas, I think GWB was more of New Hampshire Kid in cowboy boots.

Sigh. Okay guys. Rave on. Neither of you have a clue what the subject is about and you obviously don't have the courtesy to take your screeds re torture to one of the torture threads. I stand by what I said and I trust honest people to understand what I have said or at least give me an opportunity to clarify. Neither of you seem to be able to do that.

Oh well. My scroll wheel and ignore feature works really well.

The question, rephrased, should people be investigated and prosecuted who WERE following the law or who had every reason to believe they were following the law as consented to by Congress via its knowledge of the program and continued funding of it?