When did Waterboarding NOT become torture?

when the terrorist waterboardee got up and walked away unscathed...

your right. my point is that hopefully our leadership will be more common sense based and not based on ideology.

..."it points out that this administration is capable of making decisions based not on idealology but on common sense." Nebe

REALLY???



CNN.com Ruben Navarrette


SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- For someone who insists he is personally opposed to torture, President Obama has a rhetorical knack for it.

This week, Obama tortured the right, left and center with his parsing, hedging, and flip-flopping on newly released Bush-era torture memos and what to do about them.

Along the way, he also tortured logic and consistency, making a total mess of his own position. Only the most die-hard Obama supporters -- those who are invested to the hilt in his presidency and find it hard to see the blemishes -- could deny this.

Obama angered Republicans by releasing the confidential documents, over objections by CIA Director Leon Panetta and Bush administration officials who worried that it would telegraph to terrorists how far U.S. interrogators are permitted to go in trying to extract information.

But he also disappointed Democrats by ruling out the prosecution of interrogators who might have engaged in what some define as torture and initially suggesting that the lawyers who had advised them wouldn't be prosecuted either because, as Obama said several days ago, "this is a time for reflection, not retribution."

And then, this week, while this middle-of-the-road approach was being applauded by those in the center who smile on nuance, he flummoxed them by reversing course and suggesting that the whole matter of whether the three former Bush Justice Department lawyers who wrote the memos -- Jay Bybee, Steven Bradbury and John Yoo -- ought to be prosecuted should be decided by Attorney General Eric Holder.


Nice. And I bet you thought the two men were friends. With friends like Obama, Holder should run out and buy a flak jacket. No matter what Holder decides, he will be criticized. And for all the hay that Senate Democrats made about how former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales allegedly politicized the Justice Department, it's ironic that Obama was so quick to drag his own attorney general into a political firestorm.

Besides, how do you go about prosecuting lawyers for simply offering legal opinions when asked for them? They've broken no law.

A friend of mine who heads up an affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union concedes that is new territory but suggests there could be a case if the opinions were intentionally fraudulent or overly ideological.

I can imagine the same argument from conservatives the next time a liberal-leaning state attorney general issues a legal opinion supporting gay marriage. Just because a lawyer comes back with an opinion you don't like doesn't make it a crime. If Holder says otherwise, good luck to him the next time he asks one of the hundreds of lawyers in his own agency for an opinion on a politically sensitive matter.

Most disturbingly of all, by passing the buck on such an important issue, Obama has fallen short on the Harry Truman leadership scale. This is precisely why we elect a president -- to deal with tough issues, the adjudication of which is never going to make everyone happy. A real leader accepts that fact going in and doesn't cower in the face of it.

For what it's worth, on the issue of torture, I've changed my own view since September 11, 2001. For several years after the terrorist attacks, I bought the argument that the United States couldn't afford to torture terror suspects.

But now, acknowledging that the Bush administration did something right in preventing more attacks, I've come around to the view that we can't afford to take any option away from interrogators as they try to prevent an attack that could cost thousands of lives.

Too many Americans keep forgetting that the threat we face is real, and unrelenting. In fact, the Bush administration claimed that just a few months after 9/11, it thwarted a planned attack on Los Angeles where al Qaeda intended to use shoe bombers to hijack an airplane and fly it into the U.S. Bank Tower, the tallest building in the city. If enhanced interrogation played a role in foiling that plot, wouldn't it have been worth the cost?

After all the bobbing and weaving this week, I'm not really sure what President Obama believes about torture or what to do with those who authorize it. And, at this point, I don't care.

All I care about is that Obama choose a position and sticks to it, and that, as commander-in-chief, he fully grasps the enormous responsibilities that came with the office.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette.

HI Nebe....:wavey:....no fish yet...

Was that the standard after WWII when we prosecuted waterboarding as war crimes?

we got em ova heya.. not lots of them, but they are here and there...

(just did a restoration on a set of old steuben champane flutes.. ground down all of the lips to remove chips and dings... then polished them )

scott,

Of all people to be quoting a commentary of Ruben Navarrette, I would expect you to be one of the last.

First off, the guy is a moron. Any minor policy that tries to prevent Mexicans from coming to this country sets the guy off on fits of screaming racism.
Second, he has a friend that heads up an ACLU affiliate.
Third, most of his commentaries don't make the least bit of sense, present poorly supported points and are generally just ramblings.
Forth, he even looks like a douchebag.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/p.../0829ruben.jpg

That would be contrary to everything that the libs have done in the past. They lead by emotion. There followers, follow because they too are run by emotions. Common sense has never been a word to describe the Democrats, at least the ones that are now in charge.

I'll take emotion over greed and stupidity any day of the week. How about you?

Emotion is running this country into bankruptcy faster then stupidity and greed did.

So how do you explain the Republicans who crossed over to elect Obama? Perhaps they were able to reprogram themselves...

Certainly I'd think you'd agree that they were motivated by anti-Bush emotions. Does this mean they were really closet liberals?

If that's the case, how many closet liberals do you think are out there? What could set them off?

-spence

I don't remember a lot of Republicans campaigning for Obama, I do however remember Lieberman stumping for McCain.

What Republicans?

So you don't think the advantage Obama received in the election came somewhat from Republican leaning independents and otherwise registered Republicans...

Like Colin Powell?

-spence

I really hate to go there, but perhaps Colin Powell voted for Obama for the same reasons the other 98% of the black population. I think race seemed more important than his moderate beliefs. He was against all of the Conservative Supreme Courts Justices. He made a statement during the run up to the election, stating he had a problem with the possibility of McCain picking up to 2 more conservative judges.

Sorry, but I can not see it any other way, if 98% of whites voted for McCain, we would all be racists, but it's not when it's reversed? Colin Powell is most definitely not a conservative, I'd call him a left leaning Moderate at best.

I guess he's as much a Conservative and Lieberman is a Liberal..... So I guess we are even there....:usd:

what to do...what to do...geez JD...I like you and all but it pretty obvious that for you and Spence, anyone that disagrees with your position is a complete idiot in your minds....Spence has dismissed out of hand the opinions of some pretty esteemed journalists as though he has a deeper understanding of...well...everything... , I decide it better to quote Obama supporters on left wing networks and sites since you attack anyone that you consider "conservative" and you still find fault...I heard it stated yesterday that Obama's easiest marks are the elites and those that grossly overestimate their own intelligence....gotts say it's SO TRUE

Obama has the final say on whether and which memos are released....if those that have not been released had evidence refuting Cheney's suggesting that an attempt on LA was averted and supporting Peolsi's claim that she was deaf dumb and blind....those memos would be out there already and Cheney would be savaged...

it came from illegal aliens voting in areas where dems have ensured that you can vote without showing any form of ID:btu:

Or perhaps Powell didn't like what the Republican party had become?

Conservative and Republican are not the same thing by the way.

-spence

http://patriotroom.com/article/liz-c...ell-on-torture

Well put.

She's basically just parroting the same talking points as her father, although I think she's smarter than Nora O'Donnell.

But her core argument is simply wrong. Because we use some of these techniques on our own troops in training doesn't alone legally justify our use on detainees. That's really absurd and very scary when you think about it.

She also makes assertions that are impossible to back up, like the notion that we've gained valuable information only through water boarding. According to the memos that were released, we didn't even really try conventional methods on the high value detainees. Rather they just went strait to the harsh methods.

-spence

One question ..... Why is it OK for Obama to bomb a home of suspected terrorist and kill women and children but He's too righteous to put a know terrorist, that has info on killing US women and children in a cold box?

How do you know again that they have any info?

Besides, the rules of engagement are different if you have someone in custody and they are under your control. By your reasoning we should be able to just execute all suspected terror prisoners.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is it OK if you know they have info???? Answer me, why is it so bad to put a bug in a cage with a known terrorist, but it's fine to blow the crap out of a suspected terrorist's home and kill him and his kids? I'm just trying to find a tiny shread of consistancy with the anti" torture" crowd

My opinion on the theory behind it is due to the enemy being neutralized. As far back as England's Medieval wars (as far back as I could find reference), prisoners were treated as human beings and held under comparatively favorable conditions. Captors that mistreated their prisoners were shunned.

My point being that this isn't a new concept. Yes, some countries have been barbaric, but that has been the case since the beginning of time. Once an enemy is disarmed, they must be treated as a human being.

On your theory, the Geneva Convention was a waste of time. No country should have signed it, because if I can shoot the enemy on the battlefield, then I should be able to shoot them after they surrender; the concept of surrender shouldn't even exist - just execute them where they stand.

So all we have to do is leave the arms attached and we can torture them..... :btu:

Hahaha... :whackin:

Valid points JD. From what I can see, in most cases our POWs have been tortured in just about every war. I still don't believe what the media and the left has described is torture. And I still fail to see the "high road" that the left wants to walk on, when Obamas bombing innocent women and children.

This was nothing more then an emotional decision based on appeasing the left.

I believe the Geneva Convention would stipulate that a prisoner isn't capable of fighting back. You don't seem to be getting this...

Also, the assertion that it's fine to kill a terrorist's wife and kids isn't really valid. Generally speaking, collateral damage is taken very seriously precisely because it is such a big deal. More often than not we'll avoid using force for this reason, and I'm sure with hindsight at times it's even been considered a mistake.

The notion that the "anti-torture crowd" lacks consistancy based on your question is silly because you're trying to apply black and white tests to an issue, like most issues, that is very complex and situationally dependent.

Many people who are generally against the use of torture (as I am) don't base their position simply on the basis that it's unethical (which is highly relative), but also the factor that many credible experts believe it's not reliable.

The same could be said for the death penalty (which I'm also generally against). If it was more cost effective and a proven deterrent I think you'd find more people willing to accept it. But it's not...

Even as a cost/benefit analysis it doesn't make a lot of sense.

-spence

It didn't say it is fine to kill a terrorist's wife and kids . It's what happens when, in some instances Obama approves bombings in Pakastan.
Your right this isn't a black or white thing. Some would consider, as I do, that what the CIA did was harsh interrogation at worse. I don't consider it torture.

Many credible experts believe it's reliable. That's why they did it.

And I have yet to see a person put to death for murder repeat the crime. It is 100% effective. Bundy will never kill again. Trust me

FYI
Now that we are closing Gitmo, the brave Dems will not vote to provide the money to move the prisoners. Typical grandstanding without a plan.They don't want to be know as the ones voting to bring the bad guys to the US. Now the are leaving their hero Obama in the lurch.

Here's a log for the fire.....

Do Liberals consider abortion as torture?

It's ok, to rip the little guy out and leave him on the counter to die (Obama voted for this), but I can't drip water on a canvas draped over some terrorists face?????

Who, #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney? Donnie Rumsfeld....the "chicoms"

Assuming the deathrow inmate is the actual murderer and not some mentally handicapped raggamuffin. You really think the state of Texas or Virginia has never executed someone wrongly convicted of a capital crime. Thats all I need to oppose it. I leave the bloodlusting for rest.

Sounds like collateral damage. Something that we strive to avoid. So I take it you are fully opposed to the US bombing anywhere,anytime and for any reason.

This is off topic...
No, but I'm not a fan of using it for birth control or population control either, I'm Pro-choice, not a rabid ra-ra abortion guy; most liberals probably fall in this category.

Collateral damage is one of the challenges confronting the execution of asymetrical warfare. I do agree we have got to be surgical and much depends on intelligence.

But as it relates to Bush-doctrine-war, I oppose any "US Bombing anywhere, anytime and for any reason"

Now with regard to the death penalty, prosecutors dont always get good "intelligence" on the situation and its not cost effective. I can understand support for the death penalty in theory, but real world practice speaks volumes to our civil imperfections.

Not to mention that it seems death sentences are handed out like candy when the victim is white. Simply put, the courts in Ohio would have us believe that the lives of whites are worth more than blacks.


I think were talking to different types of collateral damage.

As an American,a decendent of genocide(Armenian that is) and most of all a Veteran I am appalled by the idea that we(our government) tortured people.

We're Americans.Are we not better than this?Do we need to step down to the level of the religious/political fanatics in order to gain info?

We're American.Want info?Dominate the freaks and force them through shear firepower and technology.Waterboarding my ass,we are better than that.

We're better than torture.We're American.

This isn't about the Bush doctrine. I asked about Obama bombing in Pakastan and how it balances with his decision to ban harsh interrogation.

The courts do take black on black crime one way and black on white crime quite the different. It is not always the case but there is about a 10% difference. That's not a reason to stop capital punishment. If it were "fair" more blacks would be on death row, not less.

IT WASN'T TORTURE!

Actually it is.

Would you like to be waterboarded?.....Of course not,you neither have the nads or the ability to withstand it.And if you think you do,you are delusional.Its torture or we wouldn't use it.If you believe the threat of "I'll kill you" will even elicit a response from these freaks, once again you are delusional.I've been gassed as part of basic and trust me that was mild in comparison.

WTF did you miss in my post about domination through technology and firepower?Seriously,did you miss that part?

Another armchair quarterback who thinks he knows whats best.Join the rest,including those you constantly argue with here.

Waterboarding has been defined by the international community to be torture. That same international community that the US is a part of. All of which have signed a document against the torture of any individuals.

News outlets need to stop using Euphemisms like "Enhanced Interrogation" or "Harsh Interrogation." Torture by any other name is still torture.

If I wrap my arm around someone's throat and squeeze, can I call it a Happy Hug so as not to be prosecuted?