Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 118

Thread: Osama Bin Laden Raid Wasn't Based On CIA Torture Interrogations, Senators Say

  1. #101
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756

    Re: Osama Bin Laden Raid Wasn't Based On CIA Torture Interrogations, Senators Say

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    In 1983, the Department of Justice affirmed that the use of water torture techniques was
    indeed criminal conduct under U.S. law. Sheriff James Parker of San Jacinto County, Texas, was
    charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over
    their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be
    confessions. The officers were charged with violations of the prisoners’ civil rights.

    Count One of the Indictment asserted that the defendants conspired to:
    ...subject prisoners to a suffocating “water torture” ordeal in order to coerce
    confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and
    mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner
    began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or
    drowning.

    The Sheriff and his deputies were all convicted by a jury under Count One, (as well as
    under other counts alleging constitutional violations for the same conduct), resulting in at least
    a four year sentence on that Count. The trial included testimony of another former deputy that
    the Sheriff and the other Defendants “gave [a prisoner] the water treatment:”
    A towel was draped over his head. He was pulled back in the chair and water was
    poured over the towel.

    "Ex-Deputy Tells Jury of Jail Water Torture, New York Times, 1 September, 1983".

    The victims’ testimony was strikingly familiar to other instances of water torture at other
    times and places :
    Q: Were you frightened?
    A: Yes.
    Q: What were you afraid of?
    A: Afraid of drowning; it was hard to breath.

    Testimony of former inmate Kevin Coffman.

    ...My hands was handcuffed up under the table and water was poured into the face of the
    towel until I started suffering a state of suffocation and I felt that my life was in danger.

    Testimony of former inmate Craig Punch.

    “I thought I was going to drown”
    Testimony of former inmate James Hicks.

    On an appeal by one of the deputies the Fifth Circuit described the trial below:

    Lee was indicted along with two other deputies, Floyd Baker and James Glover,
    and the County Sheriff, James Parker, based on a number of incidents in which
    prisoners were subjected to a “water torture” in order to prompt confessions to
    various crimes. On the morning trial was to begin, Floyd Baker's counsel
    informed the court and his co-defendants that Baker intended to admit the
    government's allegations were true but would argue that he did not have the “state
    of mind” required for criminal liability. Lee, Glover and Parker each intended to
    defend on the ground that they did not participate in any torture incidents and
    were unaware that any such incidents were taking place. Counsel for the other
    defendants immediately moved for severance. The district court deferred a ruling
    on these motions pending some clarification of exactly what Baker's defense and
    testimony would be.
    At trial, Baker's defense as developed by his counsel and his testimony rested on
    two points. The first was that he actively participated in only a single torture
    episode, and then only because ordered to do so by his superiors-a “Nuremberg
    defense.” The second was that while he believed the torture of prisoners immoral,
    he did not at the time think it was illegal. In the course of Baker's testimony, he
    identified Lee as a participant in the torture of several prisoners. Seven other
    witnesses also connected Lee with various torture incidents. At the close of the
    evidence, the district judge severed Baker, and put the case of the remaining
    defendants to the jury. Lee was convicted on three counts.

    Lee’s conviction was affirmed on appeal, and all the defendants received substantial
    prison sentences. United States District Judge James DeAnda’s comments at sentencing were
    telling. He told the former Sheriff that he had allowed law enforcement to “...fall into the hands
    of a bunch of thugs....The operation down there would embarrass the dictator of a country.”

    ExSheriff Given Ten Year Sentence, New York Times, 27 October, 1983 (emphasis added)

    http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/...t_20061016.pdf
    That article got the facts wrong. It wasn't San Jacinto County. It was Jacinto City in Harris County. I remember it well. I lived in Jacinto City at the time it happened. And the police chief there was Jamail, who was convicted and sent to prison for using water torture on prisoners in order to extract confessions from them.

    EDIT: I wonder if these are actually 2 different cases of the same crime.
    Last edited by danarhea; 05-09-12 at 05:01 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #102
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: Osama Bin Laden Raid Wasn't Based On CIA Torture Interrogations, Senators Say

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Cutting heads off. Starvation. Cruel and unusual punishment. "Waterboarding."

    After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents.
    Paul Begala: Yes, National Review, We Did Execute Japanese for Waterboarding

    I don't understand why people run from their histories. Are we Europeans now? We get to pretend that the past didn't happen? This simply did happen. Own it. I do...and shrug.
    I didn't "run" from anything. I posted the actual info from the Tokyo trials, including the defendants hanged, and the charges convicted on, not some blog post from Paul Begala.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  3. #103
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: Osama Bin Laden Raid Wasn't Based On CIA Torture Interrogations, Senators Say

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Yes you did, right here:
    No, you THINK I did, because you do not understand how caselaw works. I used specific terms for specific reasons.


    What part of "water torture" is not "torture", what part of "water torture" is not waterboarding?


    That's why you have to examine the facts, champ. I've only been trying to do this throughout this entire exchange, but no, you want slogans only.


    What part of "water torture" is not a legal violation of ones civil rights?
    I never claimed that waterboarding wasn't a violation of civil rights. Stay on topic. A violation of civil rights is not the same thing as "torture."



    Again, that is one page from a multipage appeal, the original case was United States v. Parker et al, CR-H-83-66 (S.D. Tex., 1983), but so far I can only find the NYT articles about it, not the actual transcript.

    If a jury is presented with a case where the civil rights of those detained were violated by the "water torture", it seems as though they recognized that water torture is torture and a violation of US law.
    I said that. In one district in Texas. Not the entire 5th Circuit (they did not affirm on that issue, because they didn't even take it up), and certainly not in the US Supreme Court (which actually WOULD make it what you're claiming).

    This is not the same as saying "waterboarding is torture under US caselaw." No. A particular act was considered torture by one district court. This does not affect anything other than that district, and it certainly doesn't affect all of "US Law."



    I guess what you are grasping at is the specious argument that "waterboarding" is not specifically spelled out as a method of torture in US law (but then neither has putting bamboo shoot under finger nails, or the removal of finger nails), even tough many courts have found that it does meet the criteria.
    Really.

    Show me the "many" cases where "waterboarding" was found to meet the legal definition of "torture."
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #104
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Osama Bin Laden Raid Wasn't Based On CIA Torture Interrogations, Senators Say

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I didn't "run" from anything. I posted the actual info from the Tokyo trials, including the defendants hanged, and the charges convicted on, not some blog post from Paul Begala.
    Seems to me that you are running.

    How about somethiing from Evan Wallach..

    After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

    Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

    In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

    A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.

    The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:



    Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

    You may read the account at the site if you wish.
    Last edited by MSgt; 05-09-12 at 05:41 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #105
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Osama Bin Laden Raid Wasn't Based On CIA Torture Interrogations, Senators Say

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    No, you THINK I did, because you do not understand how caselaw works. I used specific terms for specific reasons.
    Dude, you are not a lawyer, and all you are doing is semantic gymnastics. Torture is recognized as a violation of civil rights, that is how Lee et al were convicted.


    That's why you have to examine the facts, champ. I've only been trying to do this throughout this entire exchange, but no, you want slogans only.
    No, you are not even facing the facts in the case, you are denying that Lee et al were convicted of the torture they committed.




    I never claimed that waterboarding wasn't a violation of civil rights. Stay on topic. A violation of civil rights is not the same thing as "torture."
    Again, the semantic gymnastics, when they tortured they did in fact violate the civil rights of those detained. Torture is a violation of ones civil rights.





    I said that.
    You said what?
    In one district in Texas.
    One FEDERAL DISTRICT.
    Not the entire 5th Circuit (they did not affirm on that issue, because they didn't even take it up), and certainly not in the US Supreme Court (which actually WOULD make it what you're claiming).
    What is the subject of this sentence, the thing you are trying to negate is not stated.

    This is not the same as saying "waterboarding is torture under US caselaw." No. A particular act was considered torture by one district court. This does not affect anything other than that district, and it certainly doesn't affect all of "US Law."
    Again with the semantic gymnastics, this court found it as so, if you have other case law that contradicts the find of this court, by all mean present it. I don't understand how when I present a case where waterboarding is found to be torture, that torture is a violation of civil rights, you can then say it is not "US case law showing that waterboarding is torture". It was a federal case brought by the Reagan DOJ.





    Really.

    Show me the "many" cases where "waterboarding" was found to meet the legal definition of "torture."
    I have already posted the links to the documentation of cases of waterboarding by US military courts in WWII, Vietnam and Criminal courts in the US.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  6. #106
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Osama Bin Laden Raid Wasn't Based On CIA Torture Interrogations, Senators Say

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    That article got the facts wrong. It wasn't San Jacinto County. It was Jacinto City in Harris County. I remember it well. I lived in Jacinto City at the time it happened. And the police chief there was Jamail, who was convicted and sent to prison for using water torture on prisoners in order to extract confessions from them.

    EDIT: I wonder if these are actually 2 different cases of the same crime.
    Are you talking about this one?

    Political resurrection/Jamail riding crest of civic comeback as Jacinto City mayor after tempestuous civil rights trial 08/02/1987 | Archives | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

    Not the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  7. #107
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: Osama Bin Laden Raid Wasn't Based On CIA Torture Interrogations, Senators Say

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Dude, you are not a lawyer
    Heh. I have documentation which says otherwise.

    Do I spend any time advertising it? No. Because it's irrelevant. What's right is still right regardless of credentials.


    and all you are doing is semantic gymnastics.
    You think that because you're not grasping a word I'm saying. We've been over this.


    Torture is recognized as a violation of civil rights, that is how Lee et al were convicted.
    Um, you're confusing yourself. When I make any claim opposing this?

    What I said was that something being a violation of civil rights doesn't make it torture.


    No, you are not even facing the facts in the case, you are denying that Lee et al were convicted of the torture they committed.
    I acknowledged this at least twice, probably more. Don't know why you're still confused.



    Again, the semantic gymnastics, when they tortured they did in fact violate the civil rights of those detained. Torture is a violation of ones civil rights.
    And again, I never said otherwise. See above.



    You said what? One FEDERAL DISTRICT.What is the subject of this sentence, the thing you are trying to negate is not stated.
    This paragraph makes no sense. But, taking a stab, if you're trying to claim again that I said they weren't convicted for what they did, or that the lower court used the word "torture" to describe it, you're still wrong.

    Again with the semantic gymnastics, this court found it as so, if you have other case law that contradicts the find of this court, by all mean present it. I don't understand how when I present a case where waterboarding is found to be torture, that torture is a violation of civil rights, you can then say it is not "US case law showing that waterboarding is torture". It was a federal case brought by the Reagan DOJ.
    OK, first of all, they called what was done in the case to be "torture." They didn't call it "waterboarding." It was a specific set of acts, and if it's going to be applicable to any other case, the acts must be found to be substantially the same as what these defendants did. Thus, you must examine facts. I tire of repeating this over and over.

    Second, they did not convict anyone of "torture," so they did not apply the legal definition of "torture" or put the facts of the case up against it. Thus, while they used the term generically, they didn't find anything having to do with "torture" as defined under US law. The charges were violating and conspiring to violate the civil rights of prisoners in their custody.

    Third, I have never once denied that the defendants violated the prisoner's civil rights.


    I have already posted the links to the documentation of cases of waterboarding by US military courts in WWII, Vietnam and Criminal courts in the US.
    The military courts in WWII have no application to US criminal or civil law. And you provided one case -- the one we're talking about -- in one district court. This is not "many."

    Let's see if I can find another way to explain this.

    A federal district court in SoCal found that denying same-sex marriage was a violation of the Constitution. Did that settle the matter for all of US law? No, it did not, obviously. Why? For the same reasons I've been trying to get across to you here -- it's just one district court. It has no effect outside that district. It doesn't affect the whole circuit, and it absolutely does not affect the whole of US law.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #108
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Osama Bin Laden Raid Wasn't Based On CIA Torture Interrogations, Senators Say

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post

    What I said was that something being a violation of civil rights doesn't make it torture.
    Who cares what semantic gymnastics you are making, that was never the issue....ever. Discrimination is a violation of civil rights, but no one is suggesting that discrimination is torture. What is the case though is that torture is a violation of ones civil rights.






    This paragraph makes no sense.
    It wasn't a paragraph, you combined three separate sentences into a "paragraph"...whata crock.
    or that the lower court used the word "torture" to describe it, you're still wrong.
    Again, it was posted multiple times that the court DID describe it as "water torture", why you cannot accept that is the problem.



    OK, first of all, they called what was done in the case to be "torture." They didn't call it "waterboarding."
    There you go again with your semantic gymnastics, it was called "water torture" and that is recognized by various courts as waterboading.
    It was a specific set of acts, and if it's going to be applicable to any other case, the acts must be found to be substantially the same as what these defendants did. Thus, you must examine facts. I tire of repeating this over and over.
    The description of the act was described in detail in a previous post, the technique has minor variations, but they have no substantial differences. Again, this is just more dancing and gymnastics.

    Second, they did not convict anyone of "torture," so they did not apply the legal definition of "torture" or put the facts of the case up against it. Thus, while they used the term generically, they didn't find anything having to do with "torture" as defined under US law. The charges were violating and conspiring to violate the civil rights of prisoners in their custody.
    Again, this is the same argument from before. And again, the use of water torture as described in the court documents was a violation of the detainees civil rights.

    Third, I have never once denied that the defendants violated the prisoner's civil rights.
    Non sequitur.




    The military courts in WWII have no application to US criminal or civil law. And you provided one case -- the one we're talking about -- in one district court. This is not "many."
    Non sequitur, you asked "Show me the "many" cases where "waterboarding" was found to meet the legal definition of "torture." and I did. If you don't care to read the links, it is not my problem.

    It has no effect outside that district. It doesn't affect the whole circuit, and it absolutely does not affect the whole of US law.
    That wasn't the argument, the argument was whether "waterboarding is torture under US case law". It is. And your only defense is to deny that water torture and waterboading are one in the same. That would be arguing that pulling a nail from a finger is different from pulling a finger from a nail. It makes no difference to the individual, the results are the same.
    Last edited by Gimmesometruth; 05-09-12 at 07:00 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  9. #109
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: Osama Bin Laden Raid Wasn't Based On CIA Torture Interrogations, Senators Say

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Who cares what semantic gymnastics you are making, that was never the issue....ever. Discrimination is a violation of civil rights, but no one is suggesting that discrimination is torture. What is the case though is that torture is a violation of ones civil rights.
    Derp.

    You have thoroughly and completely confused yourself. You don't even know what you're arguing for or against.



    It wasn't a paragraph, you combined three separate sentences into a "paragraph"...whata crock.
    Looking at your original post, yes, you're right; you didn't make it a paragraph. However, neither did I; it's how it came up using the Reply With Quote function.


    Again, it was posted multiple times that the court DID describe it as "water torture", why you cannot accept that is the problem.
    Uh, no, that wasn't "posted multiple times," and I also acknowledged it I don't even know how many times now.


    There you go again with your semantic gymnastics, it was called "water torture" and that is recognized by various courts as waterboading.
    Again, you've confused yourself, and you don't know what you're arguing anymore.

    Find me any court which determined "water torture" is "waterboarding."


    The description of the act was described in detail in a previous post, the technique has minor variations, but they have no substantial differences.
    Well, look at that -- you're actually acknowledging that you have to examine facts. Progress!



    Again, this is the same argument from before. And again, the use of water torture as described in the court documents was a violation of the detainees civil rights.
    And "again," I never said they didn't. Christ on a stick, what's the matter with you?


    Non sequitur.
    Good grief. It's one of things you keep saying I won't admit. Do you even know what "non sequitur" means?


    Non sequitur, you asked "Show me the "many" cases where "waterboarding" was found to meet the legal definition of "torture." and I did. If you don't care to read the links, it is not my problem.
    What "links," and if you're talking about "US law," then yeah, the cases need to be applicable to it.


    That wasn't the argument, the argument was whether "waterboarding is torture under US case law".
    See? This is what I'm telling you. I'm discussing what YOU say is the argument, only you don't know enough about US law and how caselaw works to even recognize it.

    It is.
    You have not shown this. You don't know how to.

    [quote]And your only defense is to deny that water torture and waterboading are one in the same. [quote]

    Uh, no, that's not my defense at all, let alone my only defense. I'm trying to tell you how to take a case and apply it to US law in general, but you're not interested. You don't know what you don't know.


    That would be arguing that pulling a nail from a finger is different from pulling a finger from a nail. It makes no difference to the individual, the results are the same.
    No, really, that's not a similar argument in any respect.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #110
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Osama Bin Laden Raid Wasn't Based On CIA Torture Interrogations, Senators Say

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Heh. I have documentation which says otherwise.
    I seriously doubt that.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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