OPINION:Waterboarding is Not Unconstitutional

[Lowaicue]

Here's all you need to remember... If not for America, you would be goose-stepping around Buckingham Palace, speaking German. We've saved you ignorant people TWICE from totalitarian dictatorship, and you still seem hell-bent on returning to that water hole. I don't know what the fuck is the matter with you Europeans, that you feel compelled to give up your freedoms to authority, but you seem to have something in your DNA which draws you in that direction. Now, in the past, we've always been the ones to have to come save your bacon... but within the past 30-40 years in America, our younger generations have been brainwashed by Communists, and have begun to think more and more like Europeans. So the next time a Hitler or Mussolini emerges, we probably won't be there to rescue your stupid asses. Then, maybe your vitriol and hate toward the US will be understandable, but for now, you sound like a complete and total retard to me, who doesn't understand history.

Tell you what, Trixie, don't 'save us' again, heh? Saving us cost us millions and we had to pay brain deads like you for every last bullet. Now. Piss off with your phoney, loud mouthed, hairy arsed stupidity. We dont want you and we sure dont need you save for a good laugh now and then.

 

[midcan5]

"You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders." Bob Cesca

"Reagan's DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff for Waterboarding Prisoners"

Jason Leopold

"George W. Bush's Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn't even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan's Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions."

http://antemedius.com/content/reagans-doj-prosecuted-texas-sheriff-waterboarding-prisoners-0

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders." Bob Cesca

"Reagan's DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff for Waterboarding Prisoners"

Jason Leopold

"George W. Bush's Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn't even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan's Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions."

http://antemedius.com/content/reagans-doj-prosecuted-texas-sheriff-waterboarding-prisoners-0

We've been over this already, retard. Law enforcement is required to meet a completely different standard than the CIA and military. I am not okay with ANY enhanced interrogation of US citizens who have been ARRESTED on American soil. That has not one thing to do with enemy combatants captured on foreign fields of battle in war. Military operations and police operations are two different things, pinheads should really try and discern the difference.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Tell you what, Trixie, don't 'save us' again, heh? Saving us cost us millions and we had to pay brain deads like you for every last bullet. Now. Piss off with your phoney, loud mouthed, hairy arsed stupidity. We dont want you and we sure dont need you save for a good laugh now and then.

Like I said, you don't have to worry about that, most of our younger generations have been brainwashed by Communists and now think like Europeans. Next time you decide it's a good idea to cater to totalitarian thugs, you're on your own. This time, it's probably going to be radical Islam, so I hope you've been memorizing your Koran.

 

[Rune]

Reagan would not have allowed many of the terror tactics started by Bush and Cheney and continued in the face of pressure by the Obama administration. Don't believe it? -- let me count the ways:

A) Reagan was a staunch opponent of torture by Americans, signing in 1988 the International Convention Against Torture, which said "[n]o exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

B) The official policy of the Reagan administration was civilian trials for terrorists, as elaborated in a speech by the official overseeing the policy, Paul Bremer (yes, THAT Paul Bremer) who said in 1987 "a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are -- criminals -- and to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law against them."

C) Reagan would not have approved of drone-fired missile attacks aimed at killing terrorists; as president he several times rejected anti-terrorism operations for the sole reason that civilians would have been killed by collateral damage. In 1985, he surprised aides such as Pat Buchanan by ruling out a military response to a Beirut hijacking for fear of civilian casualties; Lou Cannon reported then in the Washington Post that Reagan said "retaliation in which innocent civilians are killed is 'itself a terrorist act.'

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

TE=Rep. Joe Wilson R;816406]Reagan would not have allowed many of the terror tactics started by Bush and Cheney and continued in the face of pressure by the Obama administration. Don't believe it? -- let me count the ways:

you can count?

A) Reagan was a staunch opponent of torture by Americans, signing in 1988 the International Convention Against Torture, which said "[n]o exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

ok....that still does not prove reagan would be against the technique used now. you're making huge ASSumptions.

B) The official policy of the Reagan administration was civilian trials for terrorists, as elaborated in a speech by the official overseeing the policy, Paul Bremer (yes, THAT Paul Bremer) who said in 1987 "a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are -- criminals -- and to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law against them."

your quote does not support your claim. the rule of law does not mean "civilian" trials.

C) Reagan would not have approved of drone-fired missile attacks aimed at killing terrorists; as president he several times rejected anti-terrorism operations for the sole reason that civilians would have been killed by collateral damage. In 1985, he surprised aides such as Pat Buchanan by ruling out a military response to a Beirut hijacking for fear of civilian casualties; Lou Cannon reported then in the Washington Post that Reagan said "retaliation in which innocent civilians are killed is 'itself a terrorist act.'

again....major assumptions that you want to pass off as fact. we live in a very different world now. to say what a past president (especially over 20 years ago) would do now is absurd.

 

[Rune]

What part of "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever" do you not understand?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Reagan would not have allowed many of the terror tactics started by Bush and Cheney and continued in the face of pressure by the Obama administration. Don't believe it? -- let me count the ways:

A) Reagan was a staunch opponent of torture by Americans, signing in 1988 the International Convention Against Torture, which said "[n]o exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

The official policy of the United States is still, and has always been, against torture. Your problem is, you are calling something "torture" which isn't torture. This has been pointed out repeatedly, but you still insist on referring to the enhanced interrogation technique known as waterboarding, as something it is not. It may be YOUR opinion it is torture, it may be the opinion of others, but opinions do not make things fact, they just don't.

B) The official policy of the Reagan administration was civilian trials for terrorists, as elaborated in a speech by the official overseeing the policy, Paul Bremer (yes, THAT Paul Bremer) who said in 1987 "a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are -- criminals -- and to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law against them."

Up until alQaeda declared war on America, our collective viewpoint on how to deal with terrorism, was as you describe, to use a 'law enforcement' strategy. In fact, even up through the Clinton presidency, this was considered the best approach. It was only after the attacks on 9/11, did our strategy and approach change to a military response. To try and go back in time and pretend that our thinking in 1980 should somehow be how we would think today, is patently stupid... but you are a pretty stupid person.

C) Reagan would not have approved of drone-fired missile attacks aimed at killing terrorists; as president he several times rejected anti-terrorism operations for the sole reason that civilians would have been killed by collateral damage. In 1985, he surprised aides such as Pat Buchanan by ruling out a military response to a Beirut hijacking for fear of civilian casualties; Lou Cannon reported then in the Washington Post that Reagan said "retaliation in which innocent civilians are killed is 'itself a terrorist act.'

Reagan didn't have drone-fired missiles in 1980. Reagan was all about some technology though, remember Star Wars? As for collateral damage, this was much of the reason Bush chose to invade Iraq to topple Saddam, instead of simply firing cruise missiles indiscriminately into Baghdad like Clinton did. Bush never fired missiles from drones in Pakistan, that began under President Obama.