Ahhhh! I see, Bad Boid (I'm from Joisey) I shall happily bow to your explanation of the context and stipulate to your grammatical, as well as to your analytical interpretation of the matter.

Cheers,
Ray

Yes, I remember how we used to torture and waterboard those German POWs.

I remember how the Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg were subjected to sleep deprivation, loud noises, having female prisoners point at their genitals while they were photographed in the nude, and how the poor folks like Goehring, Goebbles etc. were physically beaten and humiliated by the Americans guarding them.

Good analogy. The only war where Americans treated prisoners worse than they do now was the civil war, Amereican vs. American.

And we've come to the reason why McCain would be such a dangerous President. His Supreme Court nominees would close the gap between our American democracy and,say, Syria, because it will become constitutional to torture prisoners, deny tnem their day in court, and generally kangaroo them into confinement forever.

You're a real American, you are. America for Americans!

.

Your post suggests that the Bush administration gives a shit about the Geneva Convention, which disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales termed, with full approval from Bush & Co., as "quaint."

And we modern day Americans can't be bothered with "quant". This is the 21st century. Torture and kill. That's not only the terrorist way, it almost became the American way.

It's only a few short, easily taken steps from denying detainees Geneva Convention and Constitutional protection to denying it to you and me. Although if the Conservatives get their way, it'll only be denied to me, for my traitorous liberal views, and not to you real patriots.

Can you explain how the ruling seems to suggest Prisoners of War are entilted to a court ruling? I thought prisoners of war were seen as just doing their job and once the war is over they go back to thier old jobs, depnding on who wins and just how involved they were in certain acts. I thought this was a ruling on whether or not someone can be held without charge simply on the suspicion they may be involved in terrorism?

I haven't read the ruling but will if you can tell me what to look for.

Waterboarding is NOT torture. You lefties need to move on to different lie. This one is getting old.


Again, half-truths and outright lies mixed in with a reference that has NOTHING to do with Guantanamo.


Gosh! Another outright lie. Your cup runneth over, doesn't it?


Your unfounded hysteria is commendable. Maybe the Rt. Rev. Al Gore can use you on his Man-Made Myth of Global Warming Church Board.

I trust our legal system but I think the actions that got those terrorists into Gitmo might not be seen in the same way in a court of law as it is seen in a war zone. I am not sure I can trust our legal system to recognize what the terrorists were doing and why it warranted detainment.

I agree that some court rulings that don't get people's panties in a bunch might be some of the ones we should be watching closer.

Ray, I have to disagree with you. I believe water boarding is indeed torture as defined in the applicable Army Field Manuals and as defined under US law prior to the effort to change said laws. It is disingenuous to decide on something, find it is in fact torture and therefore against the law, and then go back and change the law and pretend its all good...

That said, its no secret that I think we ought to relook our prohibitions on torture and that torture at times may well be justified. We would need a vigorous oversight system if we were accept that proposition. I do not think the administration's current approach is the right approach though. I would much prefer an open and honest appraoch that said basically: Torture is distasteful but sometimes circumstances call for it. In those circumstances, we are going to do that which is necessary and submit the actions for review.

As a complete aside...Imagine we had a means of inflicting enormous amounts of pain and the accompanying fear without any possibility of actually causing long term physical harm or disability. Would the use of that means to gather essential and time sensitive information from uncooperative subjects under extraordinary circumstances be acceptable?

I thought we already had the means to do that with a car battery, jumper cables, and water. Or light and sound frequency weapons that incapacitate people, or give them massive headaches and the like.

I would think an actor, proven a capable enemy, being subject to such methods (even more) would not be out of line. I would hope this were reserved for actors known to have the means to provide useful information in such a case and not simple soldiers who may have accidently been made aware of 'plans' or likely not. I can see where making the determination that any particular person is 'in the know' may not be easy but I have to believe even terrorists employ soldiers as front line troops where their knowledge is less valuable than their ability to discharge weapons. I base this on my belief that an adult who makes the decision to be an integral part of some action should be expected to suffer the consequences of those actions but that not all actors are as involved as that and those not so involved may serve us better being treated fairly.

Perhaps there is no such thing as a simple soldier in the terrorist ranks but then I might think they should only have the opportunity to make a final confession as some actions should have severe consequences.

And I think this is a perfect example of people in the Pentagon and Congress, who go into a panic in the face of current or past public opinion, and bend over to avoid the maelstrom instead of standing firm and declaring, "NO! You are wrong, and it doesn't matter how much you whine about it."

In this case, water boarding is certainly unpleasant, but it is NOT even in the same room as smashing fingers with a hammer and breaking cheek bones and knee caps with a baseball bat. It does not cause severe damage to organs or permanent physical impairment to the subject of the water boarding.