bbauska wrote:Danivon,

If I were to post anything, you would disagree with it. Why bother?

Not worth either of our electronic energies...

Not true - we have agreed from time to time. But I am putting the effort in to not simply disagree with you, but also:

Ask you to substantiate your position.

Try to provide some of my reasoning.

Maybe your position is immutable and impervious to reason
But so far I have not seen you answer as to why you think tortureworks. Is it because the government said so?

Doctor Fate wrote:
If you and rickyp, in a rare moment of Reagan-love, want to say he wouldn't permit EIT's (nee "torture"), you are welcome to your opinion.

I'll stand by mine: no one can know. He didn't have that experience. He didn't have to concern himself with follow up attacks by Al Qaida.

Speculate all you want. That's all it is.

At least you concede by the use of "nee" (presumably "née" without the accent) that EIT is just the new name for torture.

I am not, however putting any words or deeds down to Reagan that he did not say or do. I have no idea whether he would have done as you have, and decided that 9/11 was enough to turn back on the UN Convention.

Rickyp may have been intending to employ Reagan in the manner you assume, but before you accuse me of it, please ensure you have the dirext quotes from me to prove I was saying what Reagan would or would not do. You appear to have Gish Galloped and filled in some of my thinking for me, so you can piously burn the straw man.

My point is simply as above - The USA, via Reagan in 1998 and Congress in 1994, agreed in the form of a treaty that it would not commit torture.

And now it has committed torture. You want to rationalise it. Bbauska seems to support it. But is it even legal? Suddenly the guys who argue against a strong state and for individual liberty are on the side of letting the Federal government break their own word and likely their own laws and I submit, the intentions of the framers of the USA in the DoI and Constitution, if not the Constitution itself.

Which of those founding fathers said those famous words about trading liberty for security and so losing both?

If the CIA can torture people, what is to stop them applying it to domestic "terrorists"?

danivon wrote:At least you concede by the use of "nee" (presumably "née" without the accent) that EIT is just the new name for torture.

No, I'm returning it to its proper name.

I am not, however putting any words or deeds down to Reagan that he did not say or do. I have no idea whether he would have done as you have, and decided that 9/11 was enough to turn back on the UN Convention.

Good. That's sensible.

I mean, hey, it's not like Obama obeys the Constitution. Drone strikes against American citizens without a trial, without a review, without a declaration of war, without oversight of any kind?

Rickyp may have been intending to employ Reagan in the manner you assume, but before you accuse me of it, please ensure you have the dirext quotes from me to prove I was saying what Reagan would or would not do. You appear to have Gish Galloped and filled in some of my thinking for me, so you can piously burn the straw man.

Bleh. Stop being dishonest. I don't need "dirext" (sic) quotes to know what you meant when you wrote:

If you want to argue Reagan would change his mind, ignore US law, Constitution and values, then fair enough. I'll not believe you without evidence.

If I committed the straw man fallacy, you built the straw man and soaked it in kerosene. All I did was light the match.

My point is simply as above - The USA, via Reagan in 1998 and Congress in 1994, agreed in the form of a treaty that it would not commit torture.

Awesome. Good for them! However, as you admit, that tells us nothing about how Reagan would have responded to 9/11.

And now it has committed torture. You want to rationalise it. Bbauska seems to support it. But is it even legal?

I don't think it's torture. And, no, I don't want to debate it. To me, torture is something that leaves a permanent and physical reminder. If we define "waterboarding" as "torture," then the US tortured its own for quite some time.

Suddenly the guys who argue against a strong state and for individual liberty are on the side of letting the Federal government break their own word and likely their own laws and I submit, the intentions of the framers of the USA in the DoI and Constitution, if not the Constitution itself.

You can submit all you want. I think Jefferson would have declared war on AQ and the like and treated them as harshly as they deserve. It is naive to believe the Constitution was written to protect foreign terrorists from a government that they attacked.

Which of those founding fathers said those famous words about trading liberty for security and so losing both?

Franklin.

If the CIA can torture people, what is to stop them applying it to domestic "terrorists"?

Better to drone them to death, right? That's Obama's "benign" policy.

1. It's not torture.
2. They're not Americans and they're not covered under the Geneva convention.
3. They're entitled to zero Constitutional protections. I don't mean "legally." I mean "morally."
4. I find it difficult to muster compassion for those who have demonstrated a desire to kill everyone they possibly can for no reason other than the ability to do so.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cia-directors-interrogation-program-saved-thousands-lives/story?id=27470215

The former directors argue that the CIA interrogation program “saved thousands of lives” by helping lead to the capture of top al Qaeda operatives and disrupting their plotting.

In a statement, current CIA Director John Brennan agrees with his predecessors that the enhanced interrogation techniques on some of its detainees “did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives. The intelligence gained from the program was critical to our understanding of al-Qa’ida and continues to inform our counter-terrorism efforts to this day.” The Agency also plans to release the approximately 120 page response to the report it provided the committee in June, 2013.

Having not been involved in the EIT program, (you either, I assume Danivon) we need to hear the words of the head of the CIA from 4 different people.

John Brennan - Obama's CIA head
George Tenet - Obama's CIA head
Porter Goss - Bush's CIA head
Michael Hayden - Bush's CIA Head

Is this enough proof?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:At least you concede by the use of "nee" (presumably "née" without the accent) that EIT is just the new name for torture.

No, I'm returning it to its proper name.

So you know that née means "born as" and is used to refer to the original name for someone who changed it (usually through marriage). So saying "X nee Y" means that X is the new name for Y, but it is the same thing.

I mean, hey, it's not like Obama obeys the Constitution. Drone strikes against American citizens without a trial, without a review, without a declaration of war, without oversight of any kind?

I believe the same should apply regardless of who is the President (amd regardless of the nationality of alleged victims). But this is besides the point and "whataboutery". Start a new thread on drones if you like, I started this one to discuss CIA torture.

Bleh. Stop being dishonest. I don't need "dirext" (sic) quotes to know what you meant when you wrote:

If you want to argue Reagan would change his mind, ignore US law, Constitution and values, then fair enough. I'll not believe you without evidence.

If I committed the straw man fallacy, you built the straw man and soaked it in kerosene. All I did was light the match.

Apologies for typos, I'm getting to grips with a new phone.

But sorry, I was responding to your assertion that citing the US signing and ratification of the UN Convention was anachronistic. And that this was so because you were denying that Reagan would not have changed his mind. Whatever rickyp wrote or thought, I never said what Reagan would or would not think post-9/11, but I was asking for anu assertion to be based in evidence. @#$!

@#$!.

My point is simply as above - The USA, via Reagan in 1998 and Congress in 1994, agreed in the form of a treaty that it would not commit torture.

Awesome. Good for them! However, as you admit, that tells us nothing about how Reagan would have responded to 9/11. [/quote]Frankly I don't care or see it as relevant. The question is how the US did react and whether that was right - legally, morally, tactically or strategically.

I don't think it's torture. And, no, I don't want to debate it. To me, torture is something that leaves a permanent and physical reminder. If we define "waterboarding" as "torture," then the US tortured its own for quite some time.

You don't want to debate it, but you do want to assert your own position.

Whatever the ramifications, it has been defined as torture. If it has been used to train people up to withstand torture, and is part of a consensual process in a volunteer military, then it may be justifiable on that basis.

Not all effects from torture are physical, for a start.

Suddenly the guys who argue against a strong state and for individual liberty are on the side of letting the Federal government break their own word and likely their own laws and I submit, the intentions of the framers of the USA in the DoI and Constitution, if not the Constitution itself.

You can submit all you want. I think Jefferson would have declared war on AQ and the like and treated them as harshly as they deserve. It is naive to believe the Constitution was written to protect foreign terrorists from a government that they attacked.

It is designed to protect people from governments. When Jefferson wrote about how "all men" had the same "unalienable rights", it had a clear meaning. He did not say only Americans were entitled to those rights, or that they could be removed for any reason (as that is what alienable would mean).

Just as with Reagan, you have no evidence to back your belief that Jefferson would do what you think he would.

Which of those founding fathers said those famous words about trading liberty for security and so losing both?

Franklin.

I thought as much but didn't want to claim so unless it was incorrect.

Do you agree with old Ben?

If the CIA can torture people, what is to stop them applying it to domestic "terrorists"?

[ODS whataboutery ignored]

1. It's not torture.
2. They're not Americans and they're not covered under the Geneva convention.
3. They're entitled to zero Constitutional protections. I don't mean "legally." I mean "morally."
4. I find it difficult to muster compassion for those who have demonstrated a desire to kill everyone they possibly can for no reason other than the ability to do so.

1. In your opinion, not in fact.
2. Everyone is covered under the Geneva convention. You cannot simply declare a person exempt - under Geneva you have to go through a process first. Also, their nationality is not the issue if they are taken into de facto US jurisdiction - at that point they come under US laws, and as people/persons are covered by parts of the Bill of Rights
3. The US Constitution isn't a moral document, it is a legal one. As you are fond of telling others, if you don't like what the Constitution means in law, Amend it.
4. It is hard. Of course not all of the victims of CIA torture were guilty - some were there as a result of mistaken identity. Do you have an ounce of sympathy for them?

Bbauska - It is not proof. It is the government saying so.

When they show the evidence and that it was something torture alone was needed to obtain, that may constitute proof.

As Hayden has been caught out giving statements that conflict with the evidence, I will certainly not take his word for it.

Now, let us assume that some American lives have been saved by Intel obtained by torture, even if it is debateable:

What about American lives lost to those recruited to jihadist and anti-American causes by the argument that America uses torture?

I can't quantify that, but can you discount it as a real possibility?

danivon wrote:So you know that née means "born as" and is used to refer to the original name for someone who changed it (usually through marriage). So saying "X nee Y" means that X is the new name for Y, but it is the same thing.

Oh my word. You really are a cake-taker. One of the definitions of "Née" is "formerly known as." So, I wanted to make clear what you were calling "torture," I was calling "EIT."

If you don't like the way I explained it, stuff it. But, trying to put words into my mouth is one of your favorite hobbies. It's what makes you so . . . loveable.

I mean, hey, it's not like Obama obeys the Constitution. Drone strikes against American citizens without a trial, without a review, without a declaration of war, without oversight of any kind?

I believe the same should apply regardless of who is the President (amd regardless of the nationality of alleged victims). But this is besides the point and "whataboutery". Start a new thread on drones if you like, I started this one to discuss CIA torture.

Right. You can bring in Reagan and hypotheticals, but woe be unto me if I dare mention what Obama is ACTUALLY doing instead of interrogation.

But sorry, I was responding to your assertion that citing the US signing and ratification of the UN Convention was anachronistic.

Nope, wrong, incorrect, erroneous, you are in error.

Is that clear?

I did NOT say those things were anachronistic. The notion that we can transport President Reagan through time to 9/11, or impose a 0/11 mindset on him is what is anachronistic.

So, please, now that I've clarified things TWICE, stop trying to change my meaning. Thanks.

You don't want to debate it, but you do want to assert your own position.

As do you.

We've debated this in the past. We might as well debate abortion.

Not all effects from torture are physical, for a start.

In that case, the last 6 years have been torture for half of the country . . . and the number is climbing every day.

It is designed to protect people from governments. When Jefferson wrote about how "all men" had the same "unalienable rights", it had a clear meaning. He did not say only Americans were entitled to those rights, or that they could be removed for any reason (as that is what alienable would mean).

No, the Constitution is written to protect Americans from the American government. The DOI is aspirational; it is not a bestowal of American rights everywhere. To do that, we'd have to invade 3/4 of the world.

Just as with Reagan, you have no evidence to back your belief that Jefferson would do what you think he would.

Do you agree with old Ben?

Yes, and I'm not giving up liberty. I'm willing to give up the liberty of foreign terrorists. I feel no particular kinship with them. Maybe you do, but I don't.

1. In your opinion, not in fact.

That's your opinion.

2. Everyone is covered under the Geneva convention. You cannot simply declare a person exempt - under Geneva you have to go through a process first. Also, their nationality is not the issue if they are taken into de facto US jurisdiction - at that point they come under US laws, and as people/persons are covered by parts of the Bill of Rights

What State do they represent? Surely the representatives of their country can raise objections. Oh, they don't have a country? Problem solved.

3. The US Constitution isn't a moral document, it is a legal one. As you are fond of telling others, if you don't like what the Constitution means in law, Amend it.

I don't agree that foreign terrorists should be granted de facto American citizenship. Next thing you know, we'll have to give the widows and orphans Obama is creating Social Security benefits.

4. It is hard. Of course not all of the victims of CIA torture were guilty - some were there as a result of mistaken identity. Do you have an ounce of sympathy for them?

I don't believe anything in the Feinstein report.

As far as I know, three people were waterboarded. None of them were cases of mistaken identity.

danivon wrote:Bbauska - It is not proof. It is the government saying so.

When they show the evidence and that it was something torture alone was needed to obtain, that may constitute proof.

As Hayden has been caught out giving statements that conflict with the evidence, I will certainly not take his word for it.

Now, let us assume that some American lives have been saved by Intel obtained by torture, even if it is debateable:

What about American lives lost to those recruited to jihadist and anti-American causes by the argument that America uses torture?

I can't quantify that, but can you discount it as a real possibility?

Lives are lost to Jihadi elements all the time. Many were lost prior to our torture to get information. Are you saying that the 9-11 attack happened because we were torturing prisoners?

Tenet/Goss and Hayden are no longer in Government. If I am wrong, what position do they hold?
Brennan is the current director.

What does it take for evidence for you? Perhaps you have a special conduit to US government data?

You want me to provide evidence (and don't accept it), but you can't quantify yours? Does that seem like a double standard to you?

bbauska

Tenet/Goss and Hayden are no longer in Government. If I am wrong, what position do they hold?

According to the UN Convention against torture, they are three or four people who might be charged and convicted of the crime of torture.
So their testimony should be treated as self serving,. And in Hayden's case particularly he's contradicted facts in evidence while testifying in Senate hearings before. The Senate investigation used millions of cable and documents to track actual activities...

Part I (Articles 1–16) defines torture (Article 1), and commits parties to taking effective measures to prevent any act of torture in any territory under their jurisdiction (Article 2). These include ensuring that torture is a criminal offense (Article 4), establishing jurisdiction over acts of torture committed by or against a party's citizens (Article 5), ensuring that torture is an extraditable offense (Article 8), and establishing universal jurisdiction to try cases of torture where an alleged torturer cannot be extradited (Article 5). Parties must promptly investigate any allegation of torture (Articles 12 and 13), and victims of torture must have an enforceable right to compensation (Article 14). Parties must also ban the use of evidence produced by torture in their courts (Article 15), and are barred from deporting, extraditing or refouling people where there are substantial grounds for believing they will be tortured (Article 3).

Parties are also obliged to prevent other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to investigate any allegation of such treatment within their jurisdiction (Article 16).

The use of official cables, reports and correspondence in documenting the torture is a fair neutral way for the commission to have conducted its investigation. Those document and reports are not "political|". They are subject to any shading in testimony under questioning. They re record made at the time of the events by the professionals involved personally.
There are plenty of examples of that in the report. In particular the claim that the name of bin laden's courier came as a result of torture. That notion was directly contradicted by the trail of official correspondence...

In 2002, reports from four different detainees held by foreign governments provided important information about the courier's age, physical appearance and family, information that was also acquired prior to any information about the courier being obtained from CIA detainees. Detainees held by foreign governments also said that the courier was close to bin Laden.
It was Hassan Ghul, an al Qaeda operative captured in Iraqi Kurdistan, who provided the most detailed account of bin Laden's courier and his relationship to bin Laden in January 2004, before he entered CIA custody.
According to a CIA official cited in the report, Ghul, who was in Kurdish custody, "sang like a tweetie bird. He opened up right away and was cooperative from the outset."
Ghul described the courier as bin Laden's "closest assistant" and "one of three individuals likely to be with" al Qaeda's leader. And he correctly surmised that bin Laden would have minimal security and "likely lived in a house with a family somewhere in Pakistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/10/opinion/b ... bin-laden/

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Tenet/Goss and Hayden are no longer in Government. If I am wrong, what position do they hold?

I was answering Danivon's statement that these people were in Government and refuting the same.

As for the charges, well, there are no charges...

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So you know that née means "born as" and is used to refer to the original name for someone who changed it (usually through marriage). So saying "X nee Y" means that X is the new name for Y, but it is the same thing.

Oh my word. You really are a cake-taker. One of the definitions of "Née" is "formerly known as." So, I wanted to make clear what you were calling "torture," I was calling "EIT."

If you don't like the way I explained it, stuff it. But, trying to put words into my mouth is one of your favorite hobbies. It's what makes you so . . . loveable.

Same difference. You agree that EIT was formerly known as torture. Yep. Governments are good at redefining simple words into euphemisms. I am not putting words into your mouth, I am parsing the words you actually used.

Right. You can bring in Reagan and hypotheticals, but woe be unto me if I dare mention what Obama is ACTUALLY doing instead of interrogation.

I did not bring Reagan up, rickyp did. But he did so in the context of bringing up a treaty he agreed to that concerns the use of torture.

Nope, wrong, incorrect, erroneous, you are in error.

Is that clear?

I did NOT say those things were anachronistic. The notion that we can transport President Reagan through time to 9/11, or impose a 0/11 mindset on him is what is anachronistic.

So, please, now that I've clarified things TWICE, stop trying to change my meaning. Thanks.

Ok. When you stop telling me what I intended when rickyp quoted the UN Convention.

Not all effects from torture are physical, for a start.

In that case, the last 6 years have been torture for half of the country . . . and the number is climbing every day.

Pathetic. Seriously, you equate having a President you don't really like to being tortured?

No, the Constitution is written to protect Americans from the American government. The DOI is aspirational; it is not a bestowal of American rights everywhere. To do that, we'd have to invade 3/4 of the world.

You could just start with not pissing all over that aspiration in the places you do control or have invaded.

And sorry, the Constitution does not only cover Americans. Where it does, it mentions "citizens". Where it widens out to non-citizens it mentions people or persons.

It is a carefully written document, is it not?

Yes, and I'm not giving up liberty. I'm willing to give up the liberty of foreign terrorists. I feel no particular kinship with them. Maybe you do, but I don't.

It is not in your gift to give up other people's rights or liberties.

1. In your opinion, not in fact.

That's your opinion.

Yep. It is my opinion that you are not even bothering to substantiate that EIT is not torture, despite earlier telling us it was the same thing under a different name.

2. Everyone is covered under the Geneva convention. You cannot simply declare a person exempt - under Geneva you have to go through a process first. Also, their nationality is not the issue if they are taken into de facto US jurisdiction - at that point they come under US laws, and as people/persons are covered by parts of the Bill of Rights

What State do they represent? Surely the representatives of their country can raise objections. Oh, they don't have a country? Problem solved.

They have countries. And as humans they have the rights of redress.

3. The US Constitution isn't a moral document, it is a legal one. As you are fond of telling others, if you don't like what the Constitution means in law, Amend it.

I don't agree that foreign terrorists should be granted de facto American citizenship. Next thing you know, we'll have to give the widows and orphans Obama is creating Social Security benefits.

The Constitution protects residents as well as citizens. If you don't agree to that, don't support importing people into US jurisdiction.

4. It is hard. Of course not all of the victims of CIA torture were guilty - some were there as a result of mistaken identity. Do you have an ounce of sympathy for them?

I don't believe anything in the Feinsteqin report.

But you trust the CIA? Where do you think the committee gleaned the information from? Written CIA reports.

As far as I know, three people were waterboarded. None of them were cases of mistaken identity.

Is that the only form of torture used?

bbauska wrote:Lives are lost to Jihadi elements all the time. Many were lost prior to our torture to get information. Are you saying that the 9-11 attack happened because we were torturing prisoners?

No, but subsequent attacks may well have. I repeat my question as you have attempted to avoid it - do you discount the possibility?

Tenet/Goss and Hayden are no longer in Government. If I am wrong, what position do they hold?
Brennan is the current director.

Indeed Brennan is the director now, and jointly issued that statement in that role. The other three are indeed all speaking as former heads of the CIA.

What does it take for evidence for you? Perhaps you have a special conduit to US government data?

You want me to provide evidence (and don't accept it), but you can't quantify yours? Does that seem like a double standard to you?

My "evidence" is from the report, an investigation over several years using CIA reports. Yours is the self-serving defence of the people who would be responsible.

I have already said what would constitute evidence - documents that show the intel gathered not only actually saved lives but was also unobtainable without torture.

Apparently it is on its way, but you appear to believe it without having seen it.

By the way, the agreed definition of torture is in Part 1, Article 1, paragraph 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture.

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Parts of the "EIT" used by the CIA, its contractors, and by agencies of other nations that suspects were rendered to falls under that definition.

danivon

2. Everyone is covered under the Geneva convention. You cannot simply declare a person exempt - under Geneva you have to go through a process first. Also, their nationality is not the issue if they are taken into de facto US jurisdiction - at that point they come under US laws, and as people/persons are covered by parts of the Bill of Rights

fate

What State do they represent? Surely the representatives of their country can raise objections. Oh, they don't have a country? Problem solve

d.
danivon

They have countries. And as humans they have the rights of redre

When the US Senate certified Reagans signature of the UN Convention on terror, it became US law.
This law protest everyone from torture regardless of citizenship of either the torturer or their victims.

danivon wrote:Same difference. You agree that EIT was formerly known as torture.

No, I "agree" that some people who don't know what they're talking about call it "torture." (How many seconds until rickyp now cites McCain? 10? 20? Look, what was done to McCain was torture--and it was pointless brutality. That's not what the EIT was about).

Yep. Governments are good at redefining simple words into euphemisms. I am not putting words into your mouth, I am parsing the words you actually used.

No, you began by using the definition of "née" that you preferred. You're not parsing them; you're reimagining them.

Right. You can bring in Reagan and hypotheticals, but woe be unto me if I dare mention what Obama is ACTUALLY doing instead of interrogation.

I did not bring Reagan up, rickyp did. But he did so in the context of bringing up a treaty he agreed to that concerns the use of torture.

Rickyp did bring in Reagan and you joined him. Regardless of what Reagan signed, he did so apart from 9/11 and to presume to know what he would/would not authorize in a situation no American President had faced is worse than mere conjecture. (Note well: Pearl Harbor is only analogous regarding numbers of deaths and the surprise of the attack. We knew what nation this was and we declared war immediately.)

Nope, wrong, incorrect, erroneous, you are in error.

Is that clear?

I did NOT say those things were anachronistic. The notion that we can transport President Reagan through time to 9/11, or impose a 0/11 mindset on him is what is anachronistic.

So, please, now that I've clarified things TWICE, stop trying to change my meaning. Thanks.

Ok. When you stop telling me what I intended when rickyp quoted the UN Convention.

He was responding to me. So, what matters is what I intended, not what he twisted it into. Why not ask what Lincoln, Washington, or Andrew Jackson would do? Who bloody cares and who can know? It's all conjecture and meaningless to the current controversy.

Not all effects from torture are physical, for a start.

In that case, the last 6 years have been torture for half of the country . . . and the number is climbing every day.

Pathetic. Seriously, you equate having a President you don't really like to being tortured?

Seriously, you equate psychological discomfort to "torture" and then get upset when I point out that most of the country is in psychological discomfort because of the man in the White House?

Unless we agree on what "torture" is, we can't have a conversation that means anything. Oh, and btw, given that probably 3/4 of the countries in the world engage in something the UN would consider "torture," I'm not sure it has all that much real world meaning.

No, the Constitution is written to protect Americans from the American government. The DOI is aspirational; it is not a bestowal of American rights everywhere. To do that, we'd have to invade 3/4 of the world.

You could just start with not pissing all over that aspiration in the places you do control or have invaded.

All apologies to our puppets in the UK.

And sorry, the Constitution does not only cover Americans. Where it does, it mentions "citizens". Where it widens out to non-citizens it mentions people or persons.

Sorry, but no it doesn't. Ask the President. He denies Constitutional rights to American citizens. Ask Anwar-Al-Awlaki. Oh, you can't? That's right. The President executed him. It's a joke that this man whines about Gitmo while executing Americans without trial or oversight.

Yes, and I'm not giving up liberty. I'm willing to give up the liberty of foreign terrorists. I feel no particular kinship with them. Maybe you do, but I don't.

It is not in your gift to give up other people's rights or liberties.

Foreign terrorists have the right to having their lives end. That's their right. Only Obama, Holder, and the ACLU want to give them Miranda rights.

Yep. It is my opinion that you are not even bothering to substantiate that EIT is not torture, despite earlier telling us it was the same thing under a different name.

I didn't. You referred to EIT as torture. I was correcting the record. If that wasn't clear to you earlier, I pray it is now.

I don't have to substantiate it. It's proven. If it was torture, Obama and Holder would be compelled to go after those responsible with criminal charges. They aren't. I rest my case. You, on the other hand, have to prove that your heroes (Obama and Holder) are wrong.

They have countries. And as humans they have the rights of redress.

They are not representatives of their country. They are not members of a recognized Army or armed forces of a recognized country. They are illegal combatants.

They have no right of redress. They ceased having that right when they declared war on the human race. They can recant and face justice or they can continue and take their chances.

The Constitution protects residents as well as citizens. If you don't agree to that, don't support importing people into US jurisdiction.

They should be held in Guantanamo, secret prisons, or under water. it's all the same to me. We can't give them a "trial of their peers" unless we put Manson on the jury.

But you trust the CIA?

Nice try. I said I don't trust Feinstein. She has political motivations. Her staffers have said the report was released because they were losing the majority. This was all politics.

Where do you think the committee gleaned the information from? Written CIA reports.

With access to the same documents, I could edit them and make them say the Queen of England is a terrorist. It's like writing history: the winners write history. In this case, the majority got to interpret history. It doesn't make it true.

As far as I know, three people were waterboarded. None of them were cases of mistaken identity.

Is that the only form of torture used?

Again, we get back to the definition. You and I do not agree.

So, all we will do is argue. I don't like your position. You don't like mine. So what?