Just Like Donald J. Trump: After he is held to account
Waterboarding is Torture by All Measurements
(Trump and others don't seem to think so)
The Man Who Ordered the CIA Torture Tapes Destroyed
Original post follows this major update:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump has retreated from his promise that if elected president he would order the military to kill family members of militants who threaten the United States.
His campaign issued a statement quoting him as saying he would not order the military to take actions contrary to international or U.S. law.
Just 24 hours earlier, in the last GOP debate, Trump stuck to his position on targeting family members of militants and on an expansive use of torture against captured militants. When a debate moderator asked him what he would do if the military refused to carry out such orders, Trump replied: “They're not going to refuse me. Believe me.”
These points, it seems must be reinforced time and time again and then again for the Trump types:
(1) The use of torture and the killing of civilians are barred by the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is a signatory.
(2) Congress outlawed waterboarding and the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” after the Bush team carried out such acts against suspected al-Qaeda detainees and others in U.S. custody.
(3) Members of our military are bound by duty and tradition to refuse orders they know or believe to be illegal. This includes intentionally targeting civilian noncombatants.
This aspect of the issue drew additional attention recently when more than 100 Republican defense and national security figures, including former senior Pentagon officials, issued a written statement blasting Trump's foreign policy positions and calling his embrace of the expansive use of torture “inexcusable.”
Defining when aggressive interrogation techniques such as waterboarding amount to torture has been a matter of divided debate, but Trump had made clear that as president he would not hesitate to go beyond waterboarding, saying in part: “We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding.”
(I interject at this point once again as I have stated before: Waterboarding is torture and torture is illegal, unlawful, a war crime, and has been for decades. It is useless and ineffective).
Trump had also defended his position on targeting the family of militants, which he first raised during a “FOX and Friends” interview last December, saying among other things:
“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families.”
Now, however, Trump has now reversed course now saying this as the article states (Friday, March 4, 2016) – emphasis added:
“I will use every legal power that I have to stop these terrorist enemies. I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters. I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.”
Wow – another turnaround and about face from this phony man – a man who will do, say, pay, try, lie, imply, or deny anything to win this election. In my humble view – that must never happen.
Original Post from Here:
Introduction: Mr. Rodriquez failed mention that technique was used on our troops to demonstrate and show them how it feels and to teach them as much as possible how to resist interrogation as part of their SERE training. The “R” stands for resistance as part of the SERE acronym. I know. I used to teach our Marines that part.
The use of waterboarding, called “enhanced interrogation technique” by the Bush Administration that was the center of a national firestorm in 2007 when they were accused of using it – which by all standards is torture and is illegal, unlawful, and a war crime in international and U.S. legal circles and has been for decades – not counting it is downright inhumane and ineffective as a tool to gather actionable, let alone valuable information … it has one purpose as torture always does: to inflict pain and get a confession, which in 99.9% of the time is false and used to stop the torture. Ask any professional.
Just don’t ask prospective GOP nominee Donald J. Trump. He did not flinch in a response to a question during a GOP debate recently whether he would use it or not. He told the moderator, David Muir, that he would not only use it, but “would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” He even said it was “minimal torture.” Minimal – like being almost pregnant I guess? Torture is torture, Mr. Trump and for you say you would commit a war crime in advance is the same as admitting to any premeditated crime.
Later during his interview on Meet the Press the very next day Trump went on to explain why, adding: “I would be very much in favor of going beyond waterboarding. And believe me, in terms of getting information, it works.”
So, how do we spell utter nonsense bullshit in this election cycle? Oh, that’s easy. It’s spelled: “Donald J. Trump.”
Then standing with him on the debate platform, Sen. Rafael Edward “Ted” chimed and said he would use it more sparingly, and then noted that waterboarding “is vigorous interrogation, but it does not meet the generally recognized definition of torture.”
So, are Trump and Cruz and any others who think that same way on this issue right or wrong on this question: “Are enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding legal, necessary, and effective in protecting American citizens from future terror attacks?”
In three words: “No; Hell no; and, “Jose, no way in Hell, no.” (Actually that more than three words).
Some of it I have posted many times (see below) and always with the same simple message: “Waterboarding is torture. Torture is illegal, unlawful, and a war crime, and it is ineffective and does not work.” Case closed.
Now someone tell Mr. Trump and those who believe that same crap with him.
The mere thought of having Trump or any other person who in advance gives us notice that he or she would be a war criminal in the Oval Office is mind boggling. I shudder to even ponder that prospect. What about you?
Thanks for stopping by.