Pelosi caught in bold faced lie!!

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
The Bush Administration treated terrorist suspects as "enemy combatants" in 2001. Because of that designation, "enemy combatants" maintain "combatant immunity" under the Geneva Conventions. Not wearing a uniform isn't a crime under the laws of war. If it were, select units (SEALS, Special Forces who many times operate out of uniform) would technically be classified as war criminals.

The correct term is UNLAWFUL enemy combatants. There is a difference.

As for SEALs, Black Ops, etc. they can be treated as spies but not unlawful combatants (assuming they are in a theatre of war or under threat of war. If a SEAL team were to enter, say, Georgia, and piss off the Russians, I'm not sire what the status would be.
 

Cerise

Well-Known Member
Nope. They announced they supposedly foiled this LA attack in 2002 to try and justify wiretapping. Now they want to try and justify torture with it. KSM wasn't even captured until 2003.


Sounds like a tinfoil timeline to me. :shrug:
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Really? You're using Ann Coulter as a source of information?

Oh, yeah, I forgot. If someone goes out and looks up the historical record, and then reiterates that record, that record becomes historical fallacy because the wrong person reiterates it. I suppose that only Obama could reiterate the same facts as Coulter for you to believe the historical record.

If Coulter stated that the President just took delivery of a new, black Cadillac limousine you would call her to question even though copious numbers of recent news reports verify that statement.

The fact is that she does her homework and footnotes all of her research in her books.

Maybe you should actually go to the Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov and enter the search term "Japanese war crimes trials" and see what you come up with. It in no way resembles what has been done to the three -- count 'em -- three people who have actually been waterboarded by the CIA. Forcing a garden hose down someone's throat and filling their stomach to distention and then beating on that distended stomach until it ruptures is NOT waterboarding. THAT is what the Japanese did.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Really? You're using Ann Coulter as a source of information?

Try a little bit man.

If it's gonna be like that then here's a better one...
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php...history-waterboarding-was-considered-torture/

How's this for trying?

Here's a little conundrum for you.

Your posted article at your link states:

The prosecution of members of the Japanese military for their treatment of Americans during World War II. Seitara Hata was just one Japanese soldier charged with a war crime for waterboarding; Hatara was sentenced to 25 years hard labor.

So which is it: Hata or Hatara?

So I went to the Library of Congress and, after a bit of searching on "japanese war crimes trials", I was able to come up with the 1949 official United Nations "Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals".

So I entered "Law Reports of Trial of War Criminals" (including the quotes) into the search engine and was able to access the entire 15 volume report which I downloaded.

I then went through each and every volume, thousands of pages, and searched on the term "Hata" or "Hatara" and ya know what? There was no one in the entire report named "Seitara Hata" or "Hatara". Even Volume 15, which lists in ANNEX II "INDEX OF CASES REPORTED OR CITED IN THESE VOLUMES" and, again, I found no reference to anyone named "Seitara Hata" or "Hatara" having ever been tried before the United Nations War Crimes Commission.

I did find Minoru Hatada but no "Seitara Hatada".

So, what do you make of that? Maybe he simply failed to show up at role call; or do you think that someone is simply, as you so often put it, making shit up?

Here are the links to the report:

THE SEARCH TERM RESULT

VOLUME 15 Including ANNEX II

Hadamar Trial (Trial of Alfons Klein and 6 others)
Hagendorf, Heinz
Hangobl, Joseph
Hans, Oscar (Trial by Norwegian Court) ..
Hans, Oscar (Trial by British Court)
Hashinoto, Chogo . . . .
Hatada, Minoru, and 2 others
Hatakoyama, Kunito
Hawk v. Olson
Hebestreit, Horst
Heering, Arno
Heithamp, Hans .. .. .. .. ..
Heyer, Erich, and 6 others (see Essen Lynching Trial)
High Command Trial (Trial of Leeb, Wilhelm von, and others)
Hiranaka, Teruma, and another Hisakasu, Tanaka
Hoess, Rudolf Franz Ferdinand
Holstein, Franz, and 23 others
Holzer, Robert, and 2 others
Homma,lnre
Hostages Trial (Trial of List, Wilhelm, and others)
Hotazo, Artachi

But there is no Hata or Hatara.

Hatada was found guilty of "commission of hostilities contrary to the terms of the surrender of Kokio dated 2nd September, 1945". They were shown to have participated
in the operations of Indonesian rebels after the Japanese surrender." In other words, they continued to wage hostilities after the war had ended.

Minoru Hatada and two others were sentenced to death by a Temporary Court Martial at Macassar(1) having been found guilty of "commission of hostilities contrary to the terms of the surrender of Kokio dated 2nd September, 1945". They were shown to have participated in the operations of Indonesian rebels after the Japanese surrender. The Court held, inter alia, that "by the above actions the accused have violated Article 35 of the Rules of Land Warfare 1907, seeing that they frustrated the surrender of Kokio, dated 2nd September, 1945, whereby the defeated enemy power Japan-whose subjects the accused are-surrendered unconditionally to the Allied forces ". The Article referred to provides that :

" Article 35. Capitulations agreed upon between the contracting parties must take into account the rules of military honour. " Once settled, they must be scrupulously observed by both parties."

(1) Trial not previously treated in these Reports.

-- Volume 15 Page 132
 

spike

New Member
Oh, yeah, I forgot. If someone goes out and looks up the historical record, and then reiterates that record, that record becomes historical fallacy because the wrong person reiterates it.

She's well known for being a lying bitch Jim. Hardly a legitimate source of information.

The fact is that she does her homework and footnotes all of her research in her books.

Noshe makes footnotes to make it loook like she did research. :laugh:

http://slannder.homestead.com/

Forcing a garden hose down someone's throat and filling their stomach to distention and then beating on that distended stomach until it ruptures is NOT waterboarding. THAT is what the Japanese did.

No Jim, they also were tried for waterboarding.

"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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

You should pay attention to what your buddy McCain says:

(AP) Republican presidential candidate John McCain reminded people Thursday that some Japanese were tried and hanged for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding.

"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans," McCain said during a news conference.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml
 
Don't you get it spike? It is noble if the right breaks the rules because they always do it for the benefit of the country. They never lie unless it's in our best interest. The left however always has evil purpose on it's mind. They lie just to deceive and when they step out of line it is just purely to do evil acts!

Repeat after me:

Bush GOOD!

Obama BAD!
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
No Jim, they also were tried for waterboarding.

"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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

Let's first look at what the official description of the technique says:

SOURCE

OLC Memos Define Official Waterboarding Procedure

A recently declassified four memos has shed light on the recently banned practice of waterboarding. For the first time, the memos publicly describe the officially sanctioned waterboarding interrogation procedure:

Jay S. Bybee, August 1 2002, p.3-4:

In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual's blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of "suffocation and incipient panic," i.e., the perception of drowning. The individual does not breathe any water into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths. the sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout. You have orally informed us that this procedure triggers an automatic physiological sensation of drowning that the individual cannot control even though he may be aware that he is not in fact drowning. You have also orally informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application.

Steven G Bradbury, May 10 2005, p.13:

13. The "waterboard". In this technique, the detainee is lying on a gurney that is inclined at an angle of 10 to 15 degrees to the horizontal, with the detainee on his back and his head toward the lower end of the gurney. A cloth is placed over the detainee's face and cold water is poured on the cloth from a height of approximately 6 to 8 inches. The wet cloth creates a barrier through which it is difficult - or in some cases not possible - to breathe. A single "application" of water may not last for more than 40 seconds, with the duration of an "application" measured from the moment when water - of whatever quantity - is first poured onto the cloth until the moment the cloth is removed from the subject's face. See August 19 Letter at 1. When the time limit is reached, the pouring of water is immediately discontinued and the cloth is removed. We understand that if the detainee makes an effort to defeat the technique (e.g. by twisting his head to the side and breathing out of the corner of his mouth), the interrogator may cup his hands around the detainee's nose and mouth to dam the runoff, in which case it would not be possible for a detainee to breathe during the application of the water. In addition, you have informed us that the technique may be applied in a manner to defeat efforts by the detainee to hold his breath by, for example, beginning an application of water as the detainee is exhaling. Either in the normal application, or where countermeasures are used, we understand that water may enter - and may accumulate in - the detainee's mouth and nasal cavity, preventing him from breathing. Either in the normal application, or where countermeasures are used, we understand that water may enter — and may accumulate in — the detainee’s mouth and nasal cavity, preventing him from breathing. In addition, you have indicated that the detainee as a countermeasure may swallow water, possibly in significant quantities. For that reason; based on advice of medical personnel, the C.I.A. requires that saline solution be used instead of plain water to reduce the possibility of hyponatremia (i.e., reduced concentration of sodium in the blood) if the detainee drinks the water.

Note that says "the individual does not breathe any water into his lungs." This is true. The individual breathes water into his mouth, nose, sinuses, larynx, pharynx, and trachea but not the lungs. The lungs are elevated by the inclination of the board to keep them "above the waterline" to prevent the water from actually drowning the individual.

So let's look at what the official record says about what Yukio san actually did as opposed to your link which says "small amounts of water were poured over his face."

Specification 5. That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 December, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture John Henry Burton, an American Prisoner of War, by beating him; and by fastening him head downward on a stretcher and forcing water into his nose.

Ya see anything there about a cloth? Anything about "small amounts" of water being poured over his face?

So what else did your author from YOUR LINK say about the war crimes of Yukio Asano:

58The charge and specifications against Asano were:

Charge: That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 August, 1944, , at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Yukio Asana, then a civilian serving as an interpreter with the Armed Forces of Japan, a nation then at war with the United States of America and its Allies, did violate the Laws and Customs of War.

Specification 1: That in or about July or August, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Morris O. Killough, an American Prisoner of War, by beating and kicking him; by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring water up his nostrils.

Specification 2: That on or about 15 May, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O Cash and Munroe Dave Woodall, American Prisoners of War by beating and kicking them, by forcing water into their mouths and noses; and by pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies.

What has been described is NOT waterboarding.

Ya see anything there about a cloth? Anything about "small amounts" of water being poured over his face?

So how about what the author says about the elusive Hata san:

57The charge and specifications against Hata were:
Charge: That the following member of the Imperial Japanese Army with his then known title:

Seitaro Hata, Surgeon First Lieutenant,, at the times and places set forth in the specifications hereto attached, and during a time of war between the United States of America and its Allies and Dependencies, and Japan, did violate the Laws and Customs of War.

Specification 3. That in or about July or August, 1943, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp Number Three, Fukuoka ken, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Seitaro Hata, did willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Morris O. Killough, an American Prisoner of War, by beating and kicking him; by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring water up his nostrils.

Specification 5. That on or about 15 May, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp Number Three, Fukuoka ken, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Seitaro Hata, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O Cash and Munroe Dave Woodall, American Prisoners of War by beating and kicking them; by forcing water into their mouths and noses; and by pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies.

Doesn't sound like waterboarding to me.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
I see you think the cloth makes all the difference? :laugh:

Yes.

Why are you ignoring McCain's comments?

Because McCain is a blathering idiot.


Coerced confessions are illegal whether they are done through verbal, environmental, threats, intimidation, or actual physical contact.

Nothing new here. Still not torture.

By the way, your link doesn't work. I'll try again later.
 

Frank Probity

New Member
The correct term is UNLAWFUL enemy combatants. There is a difference.

The term "unlawful enemy combatant" was a misnomer.
It was a term that had no meaning and was bandied about by the Bush Administration.
In order to be a viable terminology as was the intent by the Bush Administration with its use, an "unlawful enemy combatant" would have to kill an innocent civilian before the term applied with any legal interpretation.
The Bush Administration tried to justify those detained as "unlawful enemy combatants" so they were not granted POW status. A federal judge decided most of the "unlawful enemy combatants" were determined to have never done anything wrong but were instead, people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
The GC describes those that are considered civilian & military. It decribes those that are not.

The US Supreme Court ruled against them im 1942
"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

Case
 

Frank Probity

New Member
The GC describes those that are considered civilian & military. It decribes those that are not. The US Supreme Court ruled against them im 1942/QUOTE]

True in 1942.
But in the case, Hamden v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court later ruled that the military commissions set up by the Bush Administrations violates the Uniform Military Code of Justice and Geneva Conventions (1949). Justice Antonin Scalia has said the decision in the case Ex parte Quirin is "not this courts finest hour."

Just one more example of yet one more legal maneuver by the OLC that gives good reason to question the integrity of the Bush Administration.
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
For the record, the description of "water boarding" is the exact procedure that was performed by the Spanish Inquisition. In most instances the cloth was allowed to slide into the victim's throat and then yanked out. This caused pain in the throat of the victim along with the perception of drowning.

Interesting. ;)
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
True in 1942.
But in the case, Hamden v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court later ruled that the military commissions set up by the Bush Administrations violates the Uniform Military Code of Justice and Geneva Conventions (1949). Justice Antonin Scalia has said the decision in the case Ex parte Quirin is "not this courts finest hour."

Just one more example of yet one more legal maneuver by the OLC that gives good reason to question the integrity of the Bush Administration.

And just another example of how a civilian court hasn't the background on the Geneva Convention can make a dubious decision. You do realize that the term "illegal combatant" is in the GC, right? You also realize that an "illegal combatant" has no rights under the GC, and is treated any way the capturing agency wishes, right? While I don't think torture is a way to win the "hearts and minds" of those captured, summarily executing them is a bit less tasteful...
 

Cerise

Well-Known Member
Pelosi: Bush briefers lied to me

When asked why she didn't protest when she learned the truth, Pelosi replied: "They mislead us all the time" and called the entire line of questioning a "diversion" from more important questions about the behavior of Bush administration officials at the time.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), speaking to reporters Thursday, reiterated his call for an investigation into what members of Congress were told about the interrogations.

"I've dealt with our intelligence professionals for the last three and a half years on an almost daily basis, and it's hard for me to imagine that anyone in our intelligence in our area would ever mislead a member of Congress," he said. "They come to the Hill to brief us because they are required to under the law. I don't know what motivation they would have to mislead anyone. And I don't believe - and don't feel - that in the briefings that I've had that I've been mislead at any one point."


Put madam speaker under oath and see what she says.

How soon before someone calls for her to step down?
 
Top