Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: Dem voters no longer fight battle of Iraq

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740

    Dem voters no longer fight battle of Iraq

    .........what else needs to be said............
    Dem voters no longer fight battle of Iraq
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...le_of_ira.html

    The successes of President Bush's troop surge in Iraq are quieting things down in another, unexpected place: the Democratic campaign trail in Iowa and New Hampshire.

    When asked, voters in the early presidential states all say the war in Iraq is important to them.

    But when they quiz candidates, Iraq seldom comes up these days - even for Hillary Clinton, who was grilled relentlessly on her vote to authorize the war when she launched her campaign.

    "We haven't heard as much bad news out of Iraq lately," said Kevin Carson of Exeter, N.H. "Maybe it's the economy that's scaring people now."

    No one is sure what impact that will have on the battle for the Democratic nomination as the candidates return to the trail today for a final push before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses and Jan. 8 New Hampshire primary.

    "Clinton does well among blue-collar, working-class people, so a focus on domestic issues could help her," said the University of New Hampshire's Dante Scala. "On the other [hand], if people feel less threatened, they may be more willing to take a chance on [Barack] Obama."

    Camp Clinton has been playing her experience as its trump card. If Americans are less worried about an uncertain world, it could play more like a deuce.

    "You could argue it either way," said communications strategist Howard Wolfson.

    But rivals, including Obama, have relied on voters who wouldn't forgive Clinton for her war vote. Obama's opposition to the war from the start still counts, his team maintains.

    "The reality is the war was a mistake," said strategist David Axelrod.

    And the war matters less to voters now?

    "I think they're riled up about the general state of affairs in Washington: foreign policy, domestic policy," Axelrod said. "They want someone who is willing to challenge all of that."

    Clinton leads in most surveys asking which candidate is best at handling issues at home. But it's John Edwards who has made fighting poverty the foundation of his campaign. And Obama has played up the cross-issue theme of hope.

    It's not as if people have forgotten Iraq. "We still think a lot about the boys over there - I have a nephew and grandnephew there," said Mary Melka of Independence, Iowa. But she has another reason it's no longer a decisive issue for Democrats. "All the candidates would pretty much bring them home," she said.With Michael Saul in Iowa

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    The surge worked better than anyone could have expected or hoped(or in the case of liberals it's working better then their worst fears).The Democrats are being hurt by the fact that attacks on US soldiers are down, thats pretty sad. You don't hear a peep out of them now about the war, those bunch of scamballs. Maybe now they will have to focus on how Bush is destroying the whole Earth with global warming which is a hard sell in the winter, they usually wait till a heat wave in the middle of summer or during a hurricane to harp on that fear.

  3. #3
    the war is still illegal and dems should (although they will as usual) not run away from the issue.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06 View Post
    You don't hear a peep out of them now about the war, those bunch of scamballs.
    I guess you didn't read the article. The last paragraph says:

    It's not as if people have forgotten Iraq. "We still think a lot about the boys over there - I have a nephew and grandnephew there," said Mary Melka of Independence, Iowa. But she has another reason it's no longer a decisive issue for Democrats. "All the candidates would pretty much bring them home," she said.With Michael Saul in Iowa

    They don't talk about the war as much because "All the candidates would bring them home," she said.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    the war is still illegal and dems should (although they will as usual) not run away from the issue.
    they run away from the issue, even though they control Congress, because it only has merit on left-wing blogs...........

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    they run away from the issue, even though they control Congress, because it only has merit on left-wing blogs...........
    they run because they are afraid republicans will call them names and that many of them support the war even though they pretend to oppose it. A lot of the criticism is that "Bush rushed to war", "we didn't send enough troops", "we should fixed Afghanistan first" not the concept of preemptive war is immoral and illegal. Remember than democrats controlled the Senate when the Patriot Act, Afghan war resolution, and Iraq war resolution were passed. Also, that many democrats supported while many republicans opposed Clinton's bombing of Kosovo.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    they run because they are afraid republicans will call them names and that many of them support the war even though they pretend to oppose it. A lot of the criticism is that "Bush rushed to war", "we didn't send enough troops", "we should fixed Afghanistan first" not the concept of preemptive war is immoral and illegal. Remember than democrats controlled the Senate when the Patriot Act, Afghan war resolution, and Iraq war resolution were passed. Also, that many democrats supported while many republicans opposed Clinton's bombing of Kosovo.
    Why don't you sight the laws which make this war illegal...........

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    Why don't you sight the laws which make this war illegal...........
    The war was not about self-defense because Iraq had not attacked us and was not in the process of attacking us, Congress did not declare war and has not done so since WW2, and the UN Security Council did not improve of attacking Iraq (although I don't agree the UN Security Council so justify attacking countries).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    The war was not about self-defense because Iraq had not attacked us and was not in the process of attacking us, Congress did not declare war and has not done so since WW2, and the UN Security Council did not improve of attacking Iraq (although I don't agree the UN Security Council so justify attacking countries).
    still waiting.........
    Unless you do not want the facts to skew your world views.........

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Venice CA
    Posts
    1,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    still waiting.........
    Unless you do not want the facts to skew your world views.........
    Section 3, paragraph B, of the Congressional authorization for force is quoted below.

    (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

    (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

    (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
    This says congress does not authorize the use of force unless Bush proves to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited

    Thus the administration has no authority from congress to use force in Iraq, and the "war" is technically illegal. I don't think congress has pressed the issue, cause we're kind of too deep in it now.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Coop77 View Post
    Section 3, paragraph B, of the Congressional authorization for force is quoted below.

    This says congress does not authorize the use of force unless Bush proves to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited

    Thus the administration has no authority from congress to use force in Iraq, and the "war" is technically illegal. I don't think congress has pressed the issue, cause we're kind of too deep in it now.
    I hope that you did not spend alot of time on this.
    Knowing that Congress voted on this back in 2003, what is your point........?
    Why do you think the Dems keep pointing fingers at one another in attempt to tie their presidential opponents to voting for the war.

    I guess that all of the following acts "were illegal wars" as well....
    US military conflicts since WW2. (None of which was done under a Congressional Declaration of War):
    Korean war (1950-1953) (BTW, we are still there........)
    Bay of Pigs (1961)
    Dominican Republic (1965)
    Vietnam War (1961-1973)
    Lebanon (1982–1984)
    Grenada (1983)
    Panama (1989)
    Gulf War (1991)
    Somalia (1993)
    Bosnia (1994–1995)
    Kosovo (1999)
    Afghanistan (2001–present)
    Iraq War (2003–present)

    Another bit of trivia:
    There are fewer troops deployed on foreign soil today than during the average year of the late 20th century. Roughly 386,000 troops were stationed overseas in 2005 compared to an average of 535,540 during 1950–2000. Deploy­ments have ranged from a high of 1,082,777 troops in 1968 to a low of 206,002 in 1999.

    Liberals tend to have big problems with providing facts to support their crazy claims.
    NEXT.....

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Venice CA
    Posts
    1,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    I hope that you did not spend alot of time on this.
    Knowing that Congress voted on this back in 2003, what is your point........?
    You requested someone "sight the laws", whatever that means. I cited the congressional authorization given to the president, and its stipulations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    Why do you think the Dems keep pointing fingers at one another in attempt to tie their presidential opponents to voting for the war.
    Because the "war" is a ****ed up mess and political poison, and everyone knows it. They want to seem like they didn't fall for the administration's ruse about supposed Iraqi WMD and ties to Al Qaeda, but a lot of them did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    I guess that all of the following acts "were illegal wars" as well....
    US military conflicts since WW2. (None of which was done under a Congressional Declaration of War):
    Korean war (1950-1953) (BTW, we are still there........)
    Bay of Pigs (1961)
    Dominican Republic (1965)
    Vietnam War (1961-1973)
    Lebanon (1982–1984)
    Grenada (1983)
    Panama (1989)
    Gulf War (1991)
    Somalia (1993)
    Bosnia (1994–1995)
    Kosovo (1999)
    Afghanistan (2001–present)
    Iraq War (2003–present)
    None of those were technically wars. They were military campaigns. A declaration of war isn't needed for a president to use military force. But unless it's an emergency, the president does need permission from congress in some form. That's what I quoted in my previous post.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Middle East
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    I hope that you did not spend alot of time on this.
    Knowing that Congress voted on this back in 2003, what is your point........?
    Why do you think the Dems keep pointing fingers at one another in attempt to tie their presidential opponents to voting for the war.

    I guess that all of the following acts "were illegal wars" as well....
    US military conflicts since WW2. (None of which was done under a Congressional Declaration of War):
    Korean war (1950-1953) (BTW, we are still there........)
    Bay of Pigs (1961)
    Dominican Republic (1965)
    Vietnam War (1961-1973)
    Lebanon (1982–1984)
    Grenada (1983)
    Panama (1989)
    Gulf War (1991)
    Somalia (1993)
    Bosnia (1994–1995)
    Kosovo (1999)
    Afghanistan (2001–present)
    Iraq War (2003–present)

    Another bit of trivia:
    There are fewer troops deployed on foreign soil today than during the average year of the late 20th century. Roughly 386,000 troops were stationed overseas in 2005 compared to an average of 535,540 during 1950–2000. Deploy­ments have ranged from a high of 1,082,777 troops in 1968 to a low of 206,002 in 1999.

    Liberals tend to have big problems with providing facts to support their crazy claims.
    NEXT.....
    He cited the laws, and then you cited numerous examples of subversion of said laws. Because the law has been constantly abused in times passed and present, does not make that law void.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Couch
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock View Post

    They don't talk about the war as much because "All the candidates would bring them home," she said.
    Too bad she's wrong because the only one who's committed to it is Kucinich, and he has less chance of getting the Dem nomination than Paul has of getting the bid from the GOP.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Couch
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
    He cited the laws, and then you cited numerous examples of subversion of said laws. Because the law has been constantly abused in times passed and present, does not make that law void.
    Good post. Because it'd be hard to argue that several of those weren't wars. lol

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    still waiting.........
    Unless you do not want the facts to skew your world views.........
    I responded to your post in the other thread. So what did you think about the US trying a Japanese officer for waterboarding a US civilian?

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock View Post
    I guess you didn't read the article. The last paragraph says:

    It's not as if people have forgotten Iraq. "We still think a lot about the boys over there - I have a nephew and grandnephew there," said Mary Melka of Independence, Iowa. But she has another reason it's no longer a decisive issue for Democrats. "All the candidates would pretty much bring them home," she said.With Michael Saul in Iowa

    They don't talk about the war as much because "All the candidates would bring them home," she said.


    If this were true, why aren't all the democratic senators running for the presidency filibustering the war funding? Why don't they speak loudly like Kucinich is about cutting war funding? The only democrats and republicans running (who have been in the debates) and are opposed to the war and are adamant about pulling our troops are Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Gravel.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Coop77 View Post
    You requested someone "sight the laws", whatever that means. I cited the congressional authorization given to the president, and its stipulations.

    Below is the link to said authorization. So what is your point? Are you guys seriously this ignorant of the facts?
    http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

    Because the "war" is a ****ed up mess and political poison, and everyone knows it. They want to seem like they didn't fall for the administration's ruse about supposed Iraqi WMD and ties to Al Qaeda, but a lot of them did.

    Yes, but the point is that many Dems voted for the above authorization. The authorization that you said the President did not have........

    None of those were technically wars. They were military campaigns. A declaration of war isn't needed for a president to use military force. But unless it's an emergency, the president does need permission from congress in some form. That's what I quoted in my previous post.
    None of those are technically wars? You need to acquaint yourself with history..........I have unequivocally proven that the Iraq war is NOT ILLEGAL. Perhaps you feel that it is, but your feelings are at odds with the facts!
    Quit making statements that are false, all of you.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    I responded to your post in the other thread. So what did you think about the US trying a Japanese officer for waterboarding a US civilian?
    I will answer when you answer. I will not allow you to avoid answering the question by changing the topic. The fact is, and you know it, that there are no facts with which to support your stance. Man up.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
    He cited the laws, and then you cited numerous examples of subversion of said laws. Because the law has been constantly abused in times passed and present, does not make that law void.
    Here is the authorization. People should know the facts before making outlandish, unsubstantiated claims......
    http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    I will answer when you answer. I will not allow you to avoid answering the question by changing the topic. The fact is, and you know it, that there are no facts with which to support your stance. Man up.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    Congress did not declare war in any of those event. They just a**icated their constitutional powers and have essentially allowed to president to conduct "police actions" as he sees fit.

    Explain to me what a liberal fascist is? Your unquestioned belief of whatever the government tells you would make any authoritarian dictatorship.

    Logan13
    Exactly my point!


    What did you think about the US trying and convicting a Japanese officer for waterboarding US civilian?

    What is a liberal fascist?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    Congress did not declare war in any of those event. They just a**icated their constitutional powers and have essentially allowed to president to conduct "police actions" as he sees fit.

    Explain to me what a liberal fascist is? Your unquestioned belief of whatever the government tells you would make any authoritarian dictatorship.

    Logan13
    Exactly my point!


    What did you think about the US trying and convicting a Japanese officer for waterboarding US civilian?

    What is a liberal fascist?
    The only answer you could give is to concede as your statements have been thoroughly proven false.

    The History of Liberal Fascism is a book by Jonah Goldberg, a very good read.

    I know nothing about the Japanese officer, do you have a link? If this was done to a CIVILIAN, than it should not surprise anyone that he was convicted.

    "The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano(the japanese oficer) also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward." wikipedia

    Cry me a river.....
    If you are going to make an attempt at making a point, at least tell the whole story......
    Last edited by Logan13; 01-15-2008 at 07:01 PM.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    The only answer you could give is to concede as your statements have been thoroughly proven false.

    The History of Liberal Fascism is a book by Jonah Goldberg, a very good read.

    I know nothing about the Japanese officer, do you have a link?
    Here's an article the mentions the Japanese officer being tried for waterboarding

    Waterboarding Historically Controversial
    In 1947, the U.S. Called It a War Crime; in 1968, It Reportedly Caused an Investigation

    By Walter Pincus
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, October 5, 2006; Page A17

    Key senators say Congress has outlawed one of the most notorious detainee interrogation techniques -- "waterboarding," in which a prisoner feels near drowning. But the White House will not go that far, saying it would be wrong to tell terrorists which practices they might face.

    Inside the CIA, waterboarding is cited as the technique that got Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the prime plotter of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to begin to talk and provide information -- though "not all of it reliable," a former senior intelligence official said.


    Soldiers in Vietnam use the waterboarding technique on an uncooperative enemy suspect near Da Nang in 1968 to try to obtain information from him.
    Soldiers in Vietnam use the waterboarding technique on an uncooperative enemy suspect near Da Nang in 1968 to try to obtain information from him. (United Press International)
    Who's Blogging?
    Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

    * Cogitamus
    * PoliGazette
    * Top trends


    Full List of Blogs (66 links) »

    Most Blogged About Articles
    On washingtonpost.com | On the web

    Save & Share Article What's This?
    Digg
    Google

    del.icio.us
    Yahoo!

    Reddit
    Facebook

    ad_icon
    Click here!

    Waterboarding is variously characterized as a powerful tool and a symbol of excess in the nation's fight against terrorists. But just what is waterboarding, and where does it fit in the arsenal of coercive interrogation techniques?

    On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth. The picture, taken four days earlier near Da Nang, had a caption that said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk."

    The article said the practice was "fairly common" in part because "those who practice it say it combines the advantages of being unpleasant enough to make people talk while still not causing permanent injury."

    The picture reportedly led to an Army investigation.

    Twenty-one years earlier, 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 said.

    A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

    The KUBARK manual was the product of more than a decade of research and testing, refining lessons learned from the Korean War, where U.S. airmen were subjected to a new type of "touchless torture" until they confessed to a bogus plan to use biological weapons against the North Koreans.

    Used to train new interrogators, the handbook presented "basic information about coercive techniques available for use in the interrogation situation." When it comes to torture, however, the handbook advised that "the threat to inflict pain . . . can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain."

    In the post-Vietnam period, the Navy SEALs and some Army Special Forces used a form of waterboarding with trainees to prepare them to resist interrogation if captured. The waterboarding proved so successful in breaking their will, says one former Navy captain familiar with the practice, "they stopped using it because it hurt morale."

    After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the interrogation world changed. Low-level Taliban and Arab fighters captured in Afghanistan provided little information, the former intelligence official said. When higher-level al-Qaeda operatives were captured, CIA interrogators sought authority to use more coercive methods.

    These were cleared not only at the White House but also by the Justice Department and briefed to senior congressional officials, according to a statement released last month by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Waterboarding was one of the approved techniques.

    When questions began to be raised last year about the handling of high-level detainees and Congress passed legislation barring torture, the handful of CIA interrogators and senior officials who authorized their actions became concerned that they might lose government support.

    Passage last month of military commissions legislation provided retroactive legal protection to those who carried out waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants View Post
    Here's an article the mentions the Japanese officer being tried for waterboarding

    Waterboarding Historically Controversial
    In 1947, the U.S. Called It a War Crime; in 1968, It Reportedly Caused an Investigation

    By Walter Pincus
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, October 5, 2006; Page A17

    Key senators say Congress has outlawed one of the most notorious detainee interrogation techniques -- "waterboarding," in which a prisoner feels near drowning. But the White House will not go that far, saying it would be wrong to tell terrorists which practices they might face.

    Inside the CIA, waterboarding is cited as the technique that got Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the prime plotter of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to begin to talk and provide information -- though "not all of it reliable," a former senior intelligence official said.


    Soldiers in Vietnam use the waterboarding technique on an uncooperative enemy suspect near Da Nang in 1968 to try to obtain information from him.
    Soldiers in Vietnam use the waterboarding technique on an uncooperative enemy suspect near Da Nang in 1968 to try to obtain information from him. (United Press International)
    Who's Blogging?
    Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

    * Cogitamus
    * PoliGazette
    * Top trends


    Full List of Blogs (66 links) »

    Most Blogged About Articles
    On washingtonpost.com | On the web

    Save & Share Article What's This?
    Digg
    Google

    del.icio.us
    Yahoo!

    Reddit
    Facebook

    ad_icon
    Click here!

    Waterboarding is variously characterized as a powerful tool and a symbol of excess in the nation's fight against terrorists. But just what is waterboarding, and where does it fit in the arsenal of coercive interrogation techniques?

    On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth. The picture, taken four days earlier near Da Nang, had a caption that said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk."

    The article said the practice was "fairly common" in part because "those who practice it say it combines the advantages of being unpleasant enough to make people talk while still not causing permanent injury."

    The picture reportedly led to an Army investigation.

    Twenty-one years earlier, 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 said.

    A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

    The KUBARK manual was the product of more than a decade of research and testing, refining lessons learned from the Korean War, where U.S. airmen were subjected to a new type of "touchless torture" until they confessed to a bogus plan to use biological weapons against the North Koreans.

    Used to train new interrogators, the handbook presented "basic information about coercive techniques available for use in the interrogation situation." When it comes to torture, however, the handbook advised that "the threat to inflict pain . . . can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain."

    In the post-Vietnam period, the Navy SEALs and some Army Special Forces used a form of waterboarding with trainees to prepare them to resist interrogation if captured. The waterboarding proved so successful in breaking their will, says one former Navy captain familiar with the practice, "they stopped using it because it hurt morale."

    After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the interrogation world changed. Low-level Taliban and Arab fighters captured in Afghanistan provided little information, the former intelligence official said. When higher-level al-Qaeda operatives were captured, CIA interrogators sought authority to use more coercive methods.

    These were cleared not only at the White House but also by the Justice Department and briefed to senior congressional officials, according to a statement released last month by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Waterboarding was one of the approved techniques.

    When questions began to be raised last year about the handling of high-level detainees and Congress passed legislation barring torture, the handful of CIA interrogators and senior officials who authorized their actions became concerned that they might lose government support.

    Passage last month of military commissions legislation provided retroactive legal protection to those who carried out waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques.
    I know nothing about the Japanese officer, do you have a link? If this was done to a CIVILIAN, than it should not surprise anyone that he was convicted.

    "The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano(the japanese oficer) also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward." wikipedia

    Cry me a river.....
    If you are going to make an attempt at making a point, at least tell the whole story......

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    This is the same type of crap that got you into spewing false statements in regards to the legality of the Iraq war. Do more of your own research, it took me merely 2 minutes to find the rest of this story, which paints quite a different picture. Do not attempt to make reality fit into your perception of it as this only blinds you from the truth.......

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    The only answer you could give is to concede as your statements have been thoroughly proven false.

    The History of Liberal Fascism is a book by Jonah Goldberg, a very good read.

    I know nothing about the Japanese officer, do you have a link? If this was done to a CIVILIAN, than it should not surprise anyone that he was convicted.

    "The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano(the japanese oficer) also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward." wikipedia

    Cry me a river.....
    If you are going to make an attempt at making a point, at least tell the whole story......
    He was tried for more than just waterboarding but the fact remains that one of the charges he was convicted was for torturing people like that?

    The first line of the wikipedia page says that "Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages."

    I'm not at the library, could you give me the gist of what a liberal facist is?

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    I know nothing about the Japanese officer, do you have a link? If this was done to a CIVILIAN, than it should not surprise anyone that he was convicted.

    "The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano(the japanese oficer) also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward." wikipedia

    Cry me a river.....
    If you are going to make an attempt at making a point, at least tell the whole story......

    He was tried for more than just waterboarding but the fact remains that one of the charges he was convicted was for torturing people like that?

    The first line of the wikipedia page says that "Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages."

    I'm not at the library, could you give me the gist of what a liberal facist is?

    Cry me a river, you must be a big Justin Timberlake fan

  28. #28
    Logan13
    "The only answer you could give is to concede as your statements have been thoroughly proven false."

    Just look at the thread: USA Today: Surge's Success Hold...."

    In my first two post I say that the Iraq war was illegal because it wasn't about self-defense, it was not approved my the UN Security council, and that Congress did not declare war (and hasn't since WW2). Your the one who ended up agreeing with one of my points.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    This is the same type of crap that got you into spewing false statements in regards to the legality of the Iraq war. Do more of your own research, it took me merely 2 minutes to find the rest of this story, which paints quite a different picture. Do not attempt to make reality fit into your perception of it as this only blinds you from the truth.......
    Your insulting researchers and people who use their brain and not just parrot what their told by acting as though you research the news to form your opinions.

    The officer was charged and convicted of multiple crimes and one those was for waterboarding. So Attorney General Mukasey can't pretend he does know whether it is torture or not and he can not pretend like it is not a crime because we convicted some one for doing this.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock View Post
    I guess you didn't read the article. The last paragraph says:

    It's not as if people have forgotten Iraq. "We still think a lot about the boys over there - I have a nephew and grandnephew there," said Mary Melka of Independence, Iowa. But she has another reason it's no longer a decisive issue for Democrats. "All the candidates would pretty much bring them home," she said.With Michael Saul in Iowa

    They don't talk about the war as much because "All the candidates would bring them home," she said.
    Then why hasn't the democratic controled congress brought them home? Why was the troop surge passed by a democratic controlled congress? What plan has ANY of the democratic candidates laid out for bringing them home, that I would love to see.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Venice CA
    Posts
    1,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    None of those are technically wars? You need to acquaint yourself with history..........
    That's right. None of those were technically wars, in the context of this discussion about congressional authorization and the legal authority of the president, because war was never declared by congress. All the constitutional rules change regarding the authority of the president when war is declared. Whole sections of the constitution come into play.
    In the sense of them being violent conflicts, of course they were wars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    I have unequivocally proven that the Iraq war is NOT ILLEGAL. Perhaps you feel that it is, but your feelings are at odds with the facts!
    You have an odd concept of unequivocal proof. Especially since you yourself posted a link to the congressional authorization document, which states that authorization is dependent on (1) protecting the US from threat (i.e. WMD), and (2) the alleged links between Iraq and 9-11.
    I don't "feel" that there were no WMD, and no connection between Iraq and 9-11. It's been proven.

    But really.. the whole term "illegal war" is pretty stupid. I only used that term because others in the discussion did. The whole point is that Bush mislead congress and the people with WMD & terrorist BS in order to get authority to invade Iraq, which was planned long before 9-11.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •