OPINION:Waterboarding is Not Unconstitutional

[Billy the Great Khan]

i don't know if the current waterboarding method is torture -- however, you flat out ignore treaties and state as fact that the current system is not torture. you are not an expert, nor have you ever undergone such treatment.

you have zero facts, all you have is opinion. period.

The current U.N. human rights committee (which the U.S. is a member of) has determined it to be. Probably a couple committees before it too, I think it was back in 06, but not positive.

 

[Canceled2]

The continued attempt at equivalency here is now bordering on comical.

Your inability to understand the argument is not my problem it is yours. The man whose article I linked is a political liberal...obviously, one more intellectually honest and intelligent, then you- I disagree with his premise, as I do not ever think our national safety should be subject to any other document accept the Constitution-that said, I do agree with him, that it is time for reform to take place, given the nature of unlawful combatants and terrorism.

Brandon lives in Chicago and works as a Project Coordinator for Illinois Legal Aid Online. He has a LL.M. in International Law and International Relations from Flinders University in Adelaide. Brandon has worked as a lobbyist for Amnesty International Australia and as an intern for U.S. Congressman Dave Loebsack. He also holds a B.A. in Political Science, Philosophy and Psychology from the University of Iowa. His interests include American and Asian politics, human rights, war crimes and the International Criminal Court.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

do you know what the word "or" means? you have called me a liberal in the past....and if you notice after the word "or" i correctly said what you claim i am now, is a liberal suck ass. you're a nutcase. anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR principles is a liberal or a liberal suck ass. it is the main point of your debate. you can't stand the fact that anyone who leans right thinks differently than you. you are the GOD of the right dixie, everything you say is HOLY SCRIPT. that is your debate tactic.

You don't "lean right" ....you stagger around like a drunk between left, right, and center, and no one really knows what you are. It just all depends on any given day, who you think may give you some sugar for agreeing with them, or who you disagree with based on owing a favor to someone else. You have no compass, you have no basic common sense. You are just a doting misfit idiot who needs to be loved by liberals. It's really pathetic and sad.

you haven't presented any facts dixie

Yes I have, idiot.

and you have ignored treaties and laws.

No I haven't, idiot.

let me repeat and make clear to you -- i don't know if the current waterboarding method is torture -- however, you flat out ignore treaties and state as fact that the current system is not torture. you are not an expert, nor have you ever undergone such treatment.

you have zero facts, all you have is opinion. period.

And let me repeat myself, I have never said that waterboarding is or isn't "torture" --I have corrected the other idiots who maintain that it IS torture, based solely on their OPINION it is torture. I have pointed out, and ID has as well, that waterboarding is not unconstitutional, and it doesn't fit the criteria of "torture" according to US Code of Law or the Convention on Torture which keeps being presented. You may have a different opinion, you are welcome to that, but you are not entitled to create your own FACTS here.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so lets start there:

Treaties signed and ratified by the U.S. are also the supreme law of the land, therefore treaties=Constitution in weight and authority.
U.S. code is of less weight and authority than the U.S. Constitution. Therefore U.S. Code<U.S. Constitution.

Thus, we can see that treaties signed and ratified>U.S. Code. And since the U.N. is the arbitrating authority in this matter, waterboarding, having been declared torture, is unconstitutional.

 

[Onceler]

Your inability to understand the argument is not my problem it is yours. The man whose article I linked is a political liberal...obviously, one more intellectually honest and intelligent, then you- I disagree with his premise, as I do not ever think our national safety should be subject to any other document accept the Constitution-that said, I do agree with him, that it is time for reform to take place, given the nature of unlawful combatants and terrorism.

Brandon lives in Chicago and works as a Project Coordinator for Illinois Legal Aid Online. He has a LL.M. in International Law and International Relations from Flinders University in Adelaide. Brandon has worked as a lobbyist for Amnesty International Australia and as an intern for U.S. Congressman Dave Loebsack. He also holds a B.A. in Political Science, Philosophy and Psychology from the University of Iowa. His interests include American and Asian politics, human rights, war crimes and the International Criminal Court.

American & International standards for interrogation have absolutely nothing to do with proper protocol for hunting down and either apprehending or killing fugitives & criminals. Why are you unable to argue the waterboarding issue on its own, without trying to create moral equivalency with what happened with OBL, as some sort of attempt to find a double-standard where none exists?

Waterboarding is not what America is about; is just isn't. If you want to start down the slippery slope of "it works," or "it's just as bad as this," have at it....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The current U.N. human rights committee (which the U.S. is a member of) has determined it to be. Probably a couple committees before it too, I think it was back in 06, but not positive.

The waterboarding by the US CIA took place in 2002... what some committee determined in 2005-2006... doesn't matter in 2002.... what fucking part of that are you having trouble with, moron? How could they know in 2002, that some committee was going to make a determination in 2006? Does the CIA have a Crystal Ball or something? Do you believe that people who work for the CIA should be psychics who can see into the future?

Waterboarding.... or Water Surfing.... COULD be torturous! It depends on how it is implemented and for what purpose and intent. That's the whole thing you seem to be missing... you want to make all waterboarding under any circumstance for any reason and under any condition... TORTURE... because you THINK it is, and nothing more. Something tells me, if President Obama had ordered it instead of Bush, you'd be sitting here defending the shit out of it!

 

[Canceled2]

American & International standards for interrogation have absolutely nothing to do with proper protocol for hunting down and either apprehending or killing fugitives & criminals. Why are you unable to argue the waterboarding issue on its own, without trying to create moral equivalency with what happened with OBL, as some sort of attempt to find a double-standard where none exists?

Waterboarding is not what America is about; is just isn't. If you want to start down the slippery slope of "it works," or "it's just as bad as this," have at it....

You have no clue what you are talking about with regards to international law! If you did you would understand your hypocritical application of it- provide me a link to your assertion that the Geneva Convention makes it legal for us to have entered, without permission, a sovereign nation and gun downed an unlawful combatant who was unarmed?.

Water boarding and the killing of bin Laden are two sides of the same CIA coin...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so lets start there:

Treaties signed and ratified by the U.S. are also the supreme law of the land, therefore treaties=Constitution in weight and authority.
U.S. code is of less weight and authority than the U.S. Constitution. Therefore U.S. Code<U.S. Constitution.

Thus, we can see that treaties signed and ratified>U.S. Code. And since the U.N. is the arbitrating authority in this matter, waterboarding, having been declared torture, is unconstitutional.

Sorry, but the Constitution doesn't grant any authority to the UN to determine Constitutionality or US Code of Law. You are making some big leaps to get there, and you have no basis to declare things as factual here. What you are doing, is dishonestly manipulating the circumstances and events, and attempting to apply a finding made in 2005 or 2006, to interrogations which were conducted in 2002. By executive order, former President Bush ended the enhanced interrogation known as waterboarding in 2006, and Obama followed suit in 2009, we no longer waterboard any terrorist detainees. If the Supreme Court rules tomorrow, that waterboarding is unconstitutional, it will be unconstitutional then, but that hasn't happened. If and when it does happen, you can't retroactively SAY it was unconstitutional in 2002.

 

[Canceled2]

Snip>Opposition to the Iraq War may be legitimate on the grounds that it did not further the goal of keeping us safe (I will not weigh on that here). Opposition based on not having a U.N. resolution was, well, stupid. Those who used that as an excuse must now explain their hypocrisy concerning the Abbottabad operation or declare the United States illegal in violating Osama bin Laden's rights; I do not envy them that position. This should serve as a lesson against using empty phrases. If you cannot clearly tell me where international law comes from, what it is, how we can uniformly tell what international law says, it may be best not to base arguments on it. The same is true for terms like "fair prices" and "social justice." Perhaps some other source of international law could or was cited against the Iraq War, but I am willing to bet it is no stronger than a U.N. resolution. At the very least, we can tell when the latter exist or do not. Other sources of international law will likely not be clear and even if such clear laws do exist, it remains to be proven that they trump the goals of governments to secure their own citizens' rights.

Secondly, it is now clear that Osama bin Laden was unarmed when Navy SEALS burst into his room. There are accounts (admittedly from bin Laden's wife and hence suspect) that the terrorist leader was executed. It is certain that the order to the SEALS was to kill rather than capture bin Laden. The most likely holding treaty here is the Third Geneva Convention, often used as an authority against the status of Illegal Combatant used by President Bush. Neoconservatives, President Bush's administration, and myself argued that as Al Qaeda terrorists are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions, do not meet the specifications required by Article 4, and do not follow the Conventions themselves (which, according to Article 2 would entitle them to protection), these combatants are ineligible to such legal protection.

Again, those making the case that holding prisoners at Gitmo and waterboarding a small number of them was illegal need to be in an uproar against what President Obama has ordered in Abbottabad. Osama bin Laden was unarmed and likely executed on the spot; if the Third Geneva Convention rules apply to Al Qaeda, this is a gross violation of Article 3, section 1, subsection a (banning "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture"), subsection d ( prohibiting "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples"), and Article 13 in its entirety. Again, a small number of hard core Leftists are making this argument, but the vast majority of Americans who criticized waterboarding, Gitmo, and the status of Illegal Combatant celebrated the death of bin Laden. Once again, these people need to explain their hypocrisy or defend poor bin Laden; once again, I do not envy that position.<snip

rest here

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Waterboarding is not what America is about; is just isn't...

You know, I am about sick of you telling us what America is about. Apparently, America is about assassinating unarmed suspects without a trial, by conducting covert operations inside a sovereign nation without their knowledge or permission, and you are totally okay with that, as long as it was a Democrat who ordered it! Had Bush done it, there's no doubt liberals would be demanding we impeach him for it! You want to parade around here giving Obama all the credit for doing this, and yammering your objections to people making a moral equivalency with your objections to waterboarding.... well, in a sense, you are right, there is no 'moral equivalency' at all... waterboarding is a relatively harmless interrogation technique, and assassination is permanently terminal. What Obama did was MUCH worse from a 'moral' standpoint... but he got a big 5 point bump from it, so you are okay with it! Why don't you just admit that's where your morals and principles rest, and save us the bullshit and bilge?

 

[charver]

I have to say, it has been a long, long time since i last read a thread that was simultaneously laugh out loud hilarious and also jaw-droppingly disturbing.

 

[Onceler]

You know, I am about sick of you telling us what America is about. Apparently, America is about assassinating unarmed suspects without a trial, by conducting covert operations inside a sovereign nation without their knowledge or permission, and you are totally okay with that, as long as it was a Democrat who ordered it! Had Bush done it, there's no doubt liberals would be demanding we impeach him for it! You want to parade around here giving Obama all the credit for doing this, and yammering your objections to people making a moral equivalency with your objections to waterboarding.... well, in a sense, you are right, there is no 'moral equivalency' at all... waterboarding is a relatively harmless interrogation technique, and assassination is permanently terminal. What Obama did was MUCH worse from a 'moral' standpoint... but he got a big 5 point bump from it, so you are okay with it! Why don't you just admit that's where your morals and principles rest, and save us the bullshit and bilge?

I was hoping for years during the Bush era that we'd get news on how close we were getting to OBL, or that we'd actually take him "dead or alive." OBL was behind the worst attack on America in my lifetime. Instead, we devoted most of our resources & focus to Iraq, which I never agreed with.

I don't care if you're sick of my take on what we're about. I defy anyone to watch a video of waterboarding and try to claim that it would give us moral authority in the world, or that it is consistent with our stand on human rights.

 

[christiefan915]

You know, I am about sick of you telling us what America is about. Apparently, America is about assassinating unarmed suspects without a trial, by conducting covert operations inside a sovereign nation without their knowledge or permission, and you are totally okay with that, as long as it was a Democrat who ordered it!

Personally I have mixed feelings about the Osama killing. One one hand it closes a chapter in our history that caused the nation a lot of pain. On the other hand, I believe bin Laden should have been taken alive and tried for his crimes. But your assertion that liberals are okay with "conducting operations inside a sovereign nation without their knowledge or permission, as long as it was a Democrat who ordered it" is false. For example, I would have criticized a Dem president invading the sovereign nation of Iraq just as much as I criticized bush.

Had Bush done it, there's no doubt liberals would be demanding we impeach him for it!

True, some of us did demand bush's impeachment over Iraq but we got nowhere. But as much as I might disagree with Obama on how he handled OBL, the fact remains that we did not launch a war on Pakistan that resulted in the deaths of thousands of troops and countless citizens.

You want to parade around here giving Obama all the credit for doing this, and yammering your objections to people making a moral equivalency with your objections to waterboarding.... well, in a sense, you are right, there is no 'moral equivalency' at all... waterboarding is a relatively harmless interrogation technique, and assassination is permanently terminal.

bush said "he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive, either way. It doesn't matter to me. I don't know whether we're going to get him tomorrow, or a month from now, or a year from now. I really don't know. But we're going to get him.... He may hide for a while, but we'll get him."

Before him, Clinton said "I authorized the arrest and, if necessary, the killing of Osama bin Laden and we actually made contact with a group in Afghanistan to do it," he said. "We also trained commandos for a possible ground action but we did not have the necessary intelligence to do it in the way we would have had to do it."

Clearly, getting OBL "dead or alive" was on the agenda since before 2001, so I find your indignation just a bit selective. And the situation isn't analogous with waterboarding.

What Obama did was MUCH worse from a 'moral' standpoint... but he got a big 5 point bump from it, so you are okay with it! Why don't you just admit that's where your morals and principles rest, and save us the bullshit and bilge?

I wouldn't play the morality card if I were a conservative, given the Iraq debacle. When you condemn that war with the same fervor you're condemning the assassination, then you'll have a leg to stand on.

 

[christiefan915]

Christie it's a shame you are so ignorant you don't understand what was said. I'm glad you have that in your sig though, it illustrates what a complete dumbass you are... not that people wouldn't know it by talking to ya, but this way they can confirm you really are a dumb ass, before investing any time in trying to have an intelligent conversation. I think you did everyone a great service....thanks!

This is all you've got? LOL.

I can't think of anything more disturbing than you and your groupie trying to justify waterboarding because it's not explicitly forbidden in the Constitution.

It's people like you who can make me ashamed to be an American.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This is all you've got? LOL.

I can't think of anything more disturbing than you and your groupie trying to justify waterboarding because it's not explicitly forbidden in the Constitution.

It's people like you who can make me ashamed to be an American.

Actually, the OP linked story is by a LIBERAL! It is a LIBERAL making the argument that waterboarding is not unconstitutional, not me or ID! I've not attempted to justify anything in this thread, just pointing out that you people justify assassination while maintaining the enhanced interrogations which ultimately led to the assassination, are "not what we're about." It's a bizarre twist of morality, in my opinion. I have no problem with you being morally outraged over Iraq, or even waterboarding, but why are you inconsistent? Is it okay that we invaded a sovereign country and assassinated an unarmed man because OBAMA did it? What if a Republican president had done this, and let's say... it went wrong? Another "Black Hawk Down" situation? What would Liberals be saying about that? Would you say, well... at least we tried... too bad we didn't get him? No, you would be ready to impeach! You'd be demanding to know how a president could do something like that! But because a DEMOCRAT president did it, and was successful, and got a great big needed bump..... you are perfectly giddy about it, and there is no inkling of moral indignity about it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I was hoping for years during the Bush era that we'd get news on how close we were getting to OBL, or that we'd actually take him "dead or alive." OBL was behind the worst attack on America in my lifetime. Instead, we devoted most of our resources & focus to Iraq, which I never agreed with.

I don't care if you're sick of my take on what we're about. I defy anyone to watch a video of waterboarding and try to claim that it would give us moral authority in the world, or that it is consistent with our stand on human rights.

And I defy anyone to watch a video of our "HIT" on Osama and try to claim it would give us moral authority in the world! What the fuck is wrong with you? Is THAT somehow consistent with our stand on human rights? I thought people were innocent until proven guilty, and they deserved their day in court? I thought we needed permission from the UN to go into a sovereign country with our military? You can turn a blind eye to the inconsistent moral stand you've taken, but I think most people will see through it... I would forever shut my mouth about waterboarding AND Iraq, if I were you! You only continue to expose yourself as absolute hypocrites who have a bizarre selective morality! And what is even more bizarre, is how it seems to be directly related to your politics!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have to say, it has been a long, long time since i last read a thread that was simultaneously laugh out loud hilarious and also jaw-droppingly disturbing.

You're right, it is jaw-droppingly disturbing to have liberals parading around condemning interrogation but okay with assassination! You think it's awful to give detainees at Gitmo military tribunals... it's much better to let them sit there and rot without any sort of trial, while you figure out that you can't bring them into civilian courts! Capturing them alive and attempting to get information from them to save American lives, is abhorrent and wrong.... but sending a hit squad in to execute them.... hey, that's fine and dandy, and look... our guy got a big bump in the polls! Hallelujah!

 

[Onceler]

And I defy anyone to watch a video of our "HIT" on Osama and try to claim it would give us moral authority in the world! What the fuck is wrong with you? Is THAT somehow consistent with our stand on human rights? I thought people were innocent until proven guilty, and they deserved their day in court? I thought we needed permission from the UN to go into a sovereign country with our military? You can turn a blind eye to the inconsistent moral stand you've taken, but I think most people will see through it... I would forever shut my mouth about waterboarding AND Iraq, if I were you! You only continue to expose yourself as absolute hypocrites who have a bizarre selective morality! And what is even more bizarre, is how it seems to be directly related to your politics!

It was a combat operation, and the shooter said he was reaching for something. Why do you doubt him?

No, Dixie - try as you might, the situations are not remotely comparable. We had moral authority to go after Osama Bin Laden. Waterboarding is a different story altogether; your very strongest argument, your trump card, seems to be "we do other bad stuff, too."

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It was a combat operation, and the shooter said he was reaching for something. Why do you doubt him?

No, Dixie - try as you might, the situations are not remotely comparable. We had moral authority to go after Osama Bin Laden. Waterboarding is a different story altogether; your very strongest argument, your trump card, seems to be "we do other bad stuff, too."

I've not seen the interview with the shooter, can you link me up to that?

And again, I am not making ANY moral judgement here! I am for waterboarding, detaining at Gitmo, military tribunals, invasions, assassinations... whatever the fuck it takes to find and kill these scumbags! I am only pointing out YOUR HYPOCRISY! The inconsistent moral position which makes it wrong and bad to pour water on someone's head, but perfectly okay to blow their head off in a covert raid.

 

[charver]

You're right, it is jaw-droppingly disturbing to have liberals parading around condemning interrogation but okay with assassination! You think it's awful to give detainees at Gitmo military tribunals... it's much better to let them sit there and rot without any sort of trial, while you figure out that you can't bring them into civilian courts! Capturing them alive and attempting to get information from them to save American lives, is abhorrent and wrong.... but sending a hit squad in to execute them.... hey, that's fine and dandy, and look... our guy got a big bump in the polls! Hallelujah!

Personally, i'm not too keen on either torture or targeted assassination.

Do i get a prize for consistency?