US called Waterboarding a War Crime in 1947.

Balogny Tits

It's not that were better, were just less worse
May 26, 2005
1,049
2
236
Canada
#1
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/10/29/mukasey-wont-say-waterboarding-is-torture/

Mukasey Won’t Say Waterboarding Is Torture But in 1947 the U.S. Called It a War Crime, Sentenced Enemy Officer to 15 Years Hard Labor
Posted by Jon Ponder | Oct. 29, 2007, 12:30 pm

Immoral Relativism: George Bush’s nomination of Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general — once thought to be smooth sailing — is experiencing a bit of turbulence. The problem is, Mukasey can’t bring himself to say whether or not waterboarding is torture:

“I don’t know what’s involved in the techniques. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.”
– Mukasey

During his confirmation hearings earlier this month, Mukasey said he believes torture violates the Constitution, but he refused to be pinned down on whether he believes specific interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, are constitutional.

“I don’t know what’s involved in the techniques. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional,” he said.

But after World War II, the United States government was quite clear about the fact that waterboarding was torture, at least when it was done to U.S. citizens:

[In] 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

“Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. “We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II,” he sai

Mukasey’s non-answer has raised doubts among Democrats, and even some Republicans, on the Senate Judiciary Committee:

[The] Democrats on the committee signed a joint letter to Mukasey, making sure that he knew what’s involved, and demanded an answer to the question as to whether waterboarding is torture.

Then two days later, the doubts grew louder. Two key Democrats, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT ) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) both said publicly that their votes depended on Mukasey’s answer to the waterboarding question.

Then it was Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who saw an opening after Rudy Giuliani refused to call waterboarding torture (”It depends on who does it.”). Most certainly it’s torture, McCain said. When pressed, he stopped short of saying that he would oppose Mukasey’s nomination if he didn’t say the same, but he added to the chorus of those who professed to be interested in what Mukasey’s answer to follow-up questions will be.

Yesterday, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said that if Mukasey “does not believe that waterboarding is illegal, then that would really put doubts in my own mind.”

Rep. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has also thrown in his lot of doubts and concerns.

Of course, if the past is a guide, Mukasey will easily win nomination, and nearly all these senators who have expressed concern will vote for him.

Waterboarding has become an isssue because the Bush White House signed off on it as an interrogation technique — and thus moved the United States into the company of pariah states that permit torture — after the 9/11 attacks.
 

TheDrip

I'm bi-winning.
Jan 9, 2006
5,051
3
228
#3
I hear he was also unclear on whether he felt that hooking a car battery to your nuts, dosing you with LSD, then lowering your feet into hydrochloric acid, actually constitutes torture.
 

Myhairygrundle

Screw you guys, I'm going home.
Jul 16, 2005
6,797
1,944
543
Texas
#5
How about some of this shit.
Looks good to me. Captured terrorists should be subject to any and all of those methods and whatever else the CIA or military comes up with.

Pussy politicians (Democrats and Republicans) need to wake the fuck up. The folks who want to kill us cut off heads.

Fuck em....fuck em in the lips.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#7
ive said this before but i belive the real question is is do these folks fall under the Geneva Conventions which are designed to leave this kind of enemy out of its protection.the convention are designed to protect soldiers who have honorably served their country from abuse by a victorious governments.if you serve you're country honorably and wear a uniform and have a rank and serial number then you're o.k.if you target civilians dont wear a uniform and are on a borderlis jihad then you do not fall under the Geneva Conventions.

just a thought.

i am not familiar with the 1947 incident.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#9
because that'll fucking solve/change anything.

January 2013 can't..no wait...January 2017...wait, that's not it...2021? Nope...still won't matter
QFT.

The very title of the thread proves that Bush didn't invent waterboarding, and if you think that it wasn't practiced by every scumbag to hold that office for the past 50 years, you're most likely mistaken. The only reason we hear it now is that the people who are in charge of deciding what we see and hear on the "news" have decided that they don't like this particular guy in the White House a lot more than they disliked previous guys.

And as mean as it sounds, I really don't give a fuck if they waterboard some uncut savage, whether he wants to blow up our people or not.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#10
I just want to deal with one group of criminal idiots at a time.
You're smarter than that. By the way did you hear that if Hillary wins, Sandy Berger may be Sec. of State? He's a convicted felon and can't even get a security clearance. Great, huh? Six of one/Half a dozen of the other.
 
#11
And as mean as it sounds, I really don't give a fuck if they waterboard some uncut savage, whether he wants to blow up our people or not.
Of course you don't. And if actual American citizens get the same treatment you probably wouldn't care either.. Which is the issue those of us, who actually give a shit care about.

As a matter of fact if Hillary won in 2009 how many nanoseconds would it take to hear a different tone from you guys?
 

Jimmy's Dignity

Pound my bloody fudge!!
Staff member
Wackbag Staff
May 27, 2005
63,682
411
663
Phoenixville
#12
Hillary wins...torture continues. Obama wins...torture continues. Ron Paul wins...torture continues.



don't you fuckin dare allow yourself to be so fucking deluded that by flipping a lever (or pressing a screen) that it's going to stop. It won't be covered as greatly in the press, but it won't stop...don't be naive
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#13
And if actual American citizens get the same treatment you probably wouldn't care either
Actually I would care then. No one wants to see actual citizens tortured unless it is a legitimate Jack Bauer type situation, which of course happens so rarely in real life it's not worth mentioning.

As a matter of fact if Hillary won in 2009 how many nanoseconds would it take to hear a different tone from you guys?
Actually the only way I'd support Hillary is if she came out tomorrow and built her whole campaign on making the savages suffer. I'd even put up with a tax increase if we wiped militant Islam off the face of the earth.
 
#14
Hillary wins...torture continues. Obama wins...torture continues. Ron Paul wins...torture continues.



don't you fuckin dare allow yourself to be so fucking deluded that by flipping a lever (or pressing a screen) that it's going to stop. It won't be covered as greatly in the press, but it won't stop...don't be naive
I'm not naive at all about it. The difference is I refuse to advocate, or enable by being passive or apathetic, or approve of it.

It's one thing to know the big picture of what's going on, quite another to sit and say nothing.

And I can assure anyone. Any time a government is allowed broad sweeping unchecked power it will abuse it.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#15
I'm not naive at all about it. The difference is I refuse to advocate, or enable by being passive or apathetic, or approve of it.

It's one thing to know the big picture of what's going on, quite another to sit and say nothing.

And I can assure anyone. Any time a government is allowed broad sweeping unchecked power it will abuse it.
like monitoring private citizens phone calls?
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#17
Sure, which no one has a problem with either.

This country's gone to shit.
that was a loaded question and i hate people who do that i promise never to do it again.....

i wounder if its so easy to monitor our own citizens why would this happen?

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=203142
War on Terror
See other War on Terror ArticlesTitle: 'WIRE' LAW FAILED LOST GI ~ 10-HOUR DELAY AS FEDS SOUGHT TAP TO TRACK JIMENEZ CAPTORS IN IRAQ
Source: NYPost
URL Source: http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152007/news/nationalnews/wire_law_failed__lost_gi.htm
Published: Oct 15, 2007
Author: CHARLES HURT
Post Date: 2007-10-15 09:40:35 by r-u-n-n o-f-t
8 Comments

October 15, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year, The Post has learned.
This week, Congress plans to vote on a bill that leaves in place the legal hurdles in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - problems that were highlighted during the May search for a group of kidnapped U.S. soldiers.
In the early hours of May 12, seven U.S. soldiers - including Spc. Jimenez - were on lookout near a patrol base in the al Qaeda-controlled area of Iraq called the "Triangle of Death."
Sometime before dawn, heavily armed al Qaeda gunmen quietly cut through the tangles of concertina wire surrounding the outpost of two Humvees and made a massive and coordinated surprise attack.
Four of the soldiers were killed on the spot and three others were taken hostage.
A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.
Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.
For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.
Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.
"The intelligence community was forced to abandon our soldiers because of the law," a senior congressional staffer with access to the classified case told The Post.
"How many lawyers does it take to rescue our soldiers?" he asked. "It should be zero."
The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied.
U.S. officials had no way of knowing if Jimenez and his fellow soldiers were still alive during the nearly 10-hour delay.
The body of one was found a few weeks later in the Euphrates River and the terror group Islamic State of Iraq - an al Qaeda offshoot - later claimed in a video that Jimenez and the third soldier had been executed and buried.
"This is terrible. If they would have acted sooner, maybe they would have found something out and been able to find my son," said Jimenez's mother, Maria Duran. "Oh my God. I just keep asking myself, where is my son? What could have happened to him?"
Duran said she was especially frustrated, "because I thought they were doing everything possible to find him."
"You know that this is how this country is - everything is by the law. They just did not want to break the law, and I understand that. They should change the law, because God only knows what type of information they could have found during that time period."
churt@nypost.com
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#19
apparently not in this case.
 
#20
Well this is what we get when we have heaping piles upon piles of government. Yet for some reason government is supposed to save us. The government is getting bigger and bigger, encompassing more and more of everything, encroaching on more and more liberties, and yet we're still a cunt hair from death, so fear everything.

This is why I'm slowly disconnecting myself from the entire process.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#21
if you are truly worried about the monitoring of private citizens how do you suppose that happened in a time of war on an enemy suspect on [SIZE=-1]Foreign Soil[/SIZE]?
 
Nov 29, 2006
3,452
374
523
FL
#23
I hear he was also unclear on whether he felt that hooking a car battery to your nuts, dosing you with LSD, then lowering your feet into hydrochloric acid, actually constitutes torture.
Lose the hydrochloric acid, and this sounds like a good time.
 

Fr. Dougal

Registered User
Feb 17, 2004
5,853
0
216
#24
In a perfect world for liberals:

Interrogator: "Mr. Terrorist... sorry, Mr. Freedom Fighter... Please tell us where you planted... sorry, allegedly planted... the roadside bomb. Pretty please with icing on top?"

Ter... er... Freedom Fighter: "Sure, no problem, and thank you for asking so nicely."

Result: Bomb found, lives saved.


In reality if liberals get their way:

Interrogator: "Mr. Terrorist, tell us where the bombs are. And all we can do is ask you this question."

Terrorist, not fearing for his life: "Allah alalalala lal alalala ala!!!"

Result: Bomb goes off, killing our soldiers.
 
#25
In a perfect world for liberals:

Interrogator: "Mr. Terrorist... sorry, Mr. Freedom Fighter... Please tell us where you planted... sorry, allegedly planted... the roadside bomb. Pretty please with icing on top?"

Ter... er... Freedom Fighter: "Sure, no problem, and thank you for asking so nicely."

Result: Bomb found, lives saved.


In reality if liberals get their way:

Interrogator: "Mr. Terrorist, tell us where the bombs are. And all we can do is ask you this question."

Terrorist, not fearing for his life: "Allah alalalala lal alalala ala!!!"

Result: Bomb goes off, killing our soldiers.
Now, for the bonus question. Define liberal.


Then again, why bother.


I know why Ron says and feels like he does more and more everyday.