To: Karl, From: George, Subject: Y'all Should Pretend to Drown 'Em

Ana, thanks for posting this very important news here.

How is this not impeachable behavior? How is this less offensive then the Watergate scandal? Of all the scandals that you attach a gate to, wouldn't this be something that should be covered extensively? Saying bitter isn't a huge scandal, deliberately enabling the torture of people is. It's very sickening.

I guess the media's Bush bashing cloaked as defense of the murdering mullahs will only end when McCain takes office.

There really should be a chair on The View for at least one of you Osamite gals from Time-Kos-CNN-Jazeera.

BTW, when Walter Crankcrap (sweet Allah bless him) finally croaks, does Dan Rather get to do the Evening News intro for Roger Mudd?

Seriously the trolls like obamish need a way to be ignored. At least they should try harder then something a random word generator could do. How about for your future post obamish you use only alliteration, at least it would be amusing instead of wasting space.

Ok, I'm going to kick over a beehive here. I keep seeing a lot of criticism of the Administration for "authorizing torture", but nothing I have yet seen from them even suggests that torture is acceptable. Instead, they have argued that waterboarding is not torture. Given that it inflicts no physical damage and causes no pain, that's not an outlandish argument. Have I missed something?

(And before you totally lose it: I do not approve of waterboarding. We're better than that.)

Bush says OK to slap around some murder bombers?

Liberal outrage!

GOP says end abortion-on-demand as federalized birth control?

Liberal outrage deluxe!

Move On, tenured pseudo-Americans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml

Robert Sullivan, your understanding is that Waterboarding causes no pain?

What a surprise, and what did Time F@cking Magazine do to investigate torture ordered by the Bush administration? Next to nothing. Stengel decided it was unpatriotic to question the actions of the Torturer-in-Chief, and so the stories were spiked and attention was directed elsewhere. All Americans are tainted by this evil, but the worst blame falls on those who knew it was there and failed in their duty to expose it. Shame on you, Time Magazine "reporters!" Shame on you all!

Bush, Cheney, and their whole sick and sadistic crew should be thrown out of office on their evil asses, and they should be tried for war crimes. Time Magazine isn't asleep in this matter; it is morally dead.

Robert Sullivan - "Given that it inflicts no physical damage and causes no pain, that's not an outlandish argument. Have I missed something?"

Yes, that it can cause physical harm including actual drowning and does cause *intense* physical pain. Waterboarding is torture. Full stop.

Anyone want to tell me again why McCain's decision not to hold the CIA to Army Field Manual standards for prisoner interrogation AND not to define unlawful techniques AND not to provide a clear path for the prosecution of those who violate such rules was no big deal?

For an individual that endured torture as a POW, knows that any evidence gained via abuse is unreliable and inadmissible (in US courts anyway), and knows that prisoner abuse by Americans severely undermines our credibility and our human rights efforts with respect to countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. And as a straight talking, principled man of towering integrity- this makes McCain look like a week-kneed hypocrite.

Ok, I'm going to kick over a beehive here. I keep seeing a lot of criticism of the Administration for "authorizing torture", but nothing I have yet seen from them even suggests that torture is acceptable.

Yoo's torture memos deliberately redefined torture to be inflicting only the most extreme forms of pain. This is a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions and all existing anti-torture laws. Yoo's loophole made any pain inflicted to extract a confession legitimate as long as it was declared to be below his invented threshold of torture pain. This is pernicious nonsense. Hurting people, physically or mentally, to make them talk is torturing them. Period.

Yoo is a moral monster who authorized torture out of political expediency. He should be tried for war crimes.

"Bush says OK to slap around some murder bombers?"

"Murder bombers"?

If i kept you up for days it causes no physical pain but it still is torture. If I played a tape of your wife screaming that she was being raped in the room next to your cell it is torture, if you are very much convinced you are about to die of drowning and cannot breathe that is torture. When your lungs cannot draw enough oxygen it causes physical pain and panic. It doesn't leave a mark, but that it does torture. Unless you want to argue that someone who is drowning is not suffering?

If i kept you up for days it causes no physical pain but it still is torture. If I played a tape of your wife screaming that she was being raped in the room next to your cell it is torture, if you are very much convinced you are about to die of drowning and cannot breathe that is torture. When your lungs cannot draw enough oxygen it causes physical pain and panic. It doesn't leave a mark, but that it does torture. Unless you want to argue that someone who is drowning is not suffering?

The description I heard (from NPR) was that waterboarding involves covering a person's face (briefly) with thin plastic and pouring water over the face. They said that it induces an intense, uncontrolable panic reaction. Is that incorrect?

sorry for double post.

I'm just glad that none of this info will show up on my evening news or the cable news shows. It would be simply awful if a broader part of the citizenry were to learn of this report (or the one about the administration using military analysts to propagandize the public or about John McCain's corrupt services on arranging sweetheart land deals).

Forced suffocation and inhalation of water is actual drowning, not simulated drowning. Jesus Christ, it is hard for me to believe we are still talking about this like it's just another subject. Torture is an abomination and an affront to human dignity.

The idea that it's OK to do something to your worst enemy but not to "an average American" is situational ethics, by the way.

I like the question a student posed to John Ashcroft recently:

ME: Actually, Mr. Ashcroft, my question was about this other document. (laughter and applause) This other document is a section from the judgment of the Tokyo War Tribunal. After WWII, the Tokyo Tribunal was basically the Nuremberg Trials for Japan. Many Japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture. And among the tortures listed was the "water treatment," which we nowadays call waterboarding...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) This is a speech, not a question. I don't mind, but it's not a question.

ME: It will be, sir, just give me a moment. The judgment describes this water treatment, and I quote, "the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach." One man, Yukio Asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding American troops to obtain information. Since Yukio Asano was trying to get information to help defend his country--exactly what you, Mr. Ashcroft, say is acceptable for Americans to do--do you believe that his sentence was unjust? (boisterous applause and shouts of "Good question!")

ASHCROFT: (angrily) Now, listen here. You're comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges. We don't do anything like what you described.

ME: I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water down their throat...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting, red-faced, shouting) Pouring! Pouring! Did you hear what she said? "Putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water on them." That's not what you said before! Read that again, what you said before!

ME: Sir, other reports of the time say...

ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read what you said before! (cries of "Answer her f**king question!" from the audience) Read it!

ME: (firmly) Mr. Ashcroft, please answer the question.

ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read it back!

ME: "The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach."

ASHCROFT: (shouting) You hear that? You hear it? "Forced!" If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring...does this college have an anatomy class? If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring...

ME: (firmly and loudly) Mr. Ashcroft, do you believe that Yukio Asano's sentence was unjust? Answer the question. (pause)

ASHCROFT: (more restrained) It's not a fair question; there's no comparison. Next question! (loud chorus of boos from the audience)

As Scott Horton explained in a great piece of his last year, the prohibition against torture has been a bedrock principle of Anglo-American law going back almost 400 years.

The masochistic media mutts pretending to be journalists wouldn't know a viable threat to world peace if it was wearing a KERRY-EDWARDS 2004 tube top in downtown Tehran next to the latest nuke lab door.

Case in point (and the only one apparently needing daily undivided paid speech fee attention) IS old Jihad Joe Klein, that as recently as this month insists that Iran has no intention of using offensive nukes -- never mind their arming Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the New & Improved Taliban, Al Sack of Shiite, and the Persian Petrol Boys Gulf Naval Recon Choir.

Honest to Allah, IS there anything the lib loons won't run away from (or from which they won't run away, if publicly educated without a gun and Bible in the house)?

There will be 10,000 (ten THOUSAND) Crips versus Blood deaths in the United States THIS YEAR alone.

But by all means, keep bashing Bush and the troops, libniks.

Those violent, clueless, hopeless, changeless people in Philadelphia and Oakland don't really want us there anyway, spreading any more silly neighborhood building or actual responsibility.

After all, domestic peace might break out, and then what would the police and teachers unions do for work?

I'm just following Tom Hayden logic here.

= AYERSHEADS ACCOMPLISHED =

And to add to the huge heap of items the Bush White House has added to the "withheld from disclosure bin," the list of Bush cronies who have slept in the Lincoln Bedroom. That's right, folks. The wingnuts had so much fun with those disclosures in the Clinton years that Bush decided that the comings and goings at the White House can not be disclosed, by his decree. (This came out in the CREW v. Secret Service lawsuit). And Big Media looked the other way.

Anyone want to tell me again why McCain's decision not to hold the CIA to Army Field Manual standards for prisoner interrogation AND not to define unlawful techniques AND not to provide a clear path for the prosecution of those who violate such rules was no big deal?

SHHHHHH!!!!!

Such things are not to be spoken about here at Swampland. St. McCain is opposed to torture. He says so himself. His actual pro-torture behavior is irrelevant.

Robert, from my understanding of the training it's putting plastic over their nose so they cannot breath through it, then putting a rag in their mouth and starting to pour water on the rag, as the rag becomes more and more soaked with water it becomes less and less able to breath. They do so usually until the prisoner has started pissing themselves in terror, then remove the gag ask a few questions and put the gag back on and start again. There is the possibility of death from waterboarding and some of the inmates have died under interrogation. Of course we don't have the cause of death of the inmates but still. It is torture. It's not just a little psych game.

Waterboarding
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head tilted downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

J.J.: "the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach"

Are you saying that this is what's being done at Gauntanamo? That's not what they described on NPR. Does anyone know which is correct?

Ok, I'm going to kick over a beehive here. I keep seeing a lot of criticism of the Administration for "authorizing torture", but nothing I have yet seen from them even suggests that torture is acceptable. Instead, they have argued that waterboarding is not torture. Given that it inflicts no physical damage and causes no pain, that's not an outlandish argument. Have I missed something?

(And before you totally lose it: I do not approve of waterboarding. We're better than that.)

...

The description I heard (from NPR) was that waterboarding involves covering a person's face (briefly) with thin plastic and pouring water over the face. They said that it induces an intense, uncontrolable panic reaction. Is that incorrect?

The problem is we don't know the exact method of waterboarding, as all these sorts have been used, historically and recently. Sometimes it's a wet rag continually soaked while still in the victim's mouth. Sometimes, the whole head is covered. Sometimes it's the cellophane and while you might think the cellophane might not constitute actual 'drowning', think of the struggle you might put up with cellophane over your mouth and water poured through, especially with a hole poked into the cellophane like some accounts.

It's designed to either simulate or facilitate drowning. Even in the case that it might not actually force water into your mouth, it's designed to induce a response in a way that it could be deemed mental torture, and when it DOES facilitate forced drowning, it is quite literally physical torture. And remember, this is done REPEATEDLY.

It's torture. Want more proof?

We prosecuted the Japanese for war crimes after WWII for it.

"This is a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions..."

Could someone not McCain make the case for these outdated relics of "peace" treaty shackles?

When have the long known and practicing enemies of actual peace & justice -- Red China, North Korea, mullahed Iran, Ho's Vietnam, allah's Pakistan, Putin's Russia, Spitzer's Albany, Jimmy Carter's HABITAT FOR HATRED, Reverend Wrong's tax free career -- EVER abetted the good intentions of NATO and The Hague and the United Natives?

Hello?

Anyone Homer?

McCain has the moral high ground and ugly experience at the hands of the NVA and VC to speak forever on the subject, to be sure -- but does that really matter to the madrases, and deluded Ayers champions, that yet again plot the massive death of the free West?

Mind you, America only feeds half the friggin globe today.

Lacking the academic press and the eco-fuelers (hell bent on global starvation, but for the sake of their future Hempmobiles yet to hit the showroom floor in less bitter Marin County), we might actually feed the other half too.

Oh well.

OBAMA HAPPENS.

Geehhh.....I hate missing tags. My post starts with 'The problem is we...'. The stuff before it is supposed to be italicized.

Nothing will ever happen to these guys.

The Bushies have laid out a clear path for all future administrations on how they can break any law they want and never ever be held accountable for it in any way.

A future President (Dem or Rep) can break any law he or she wants. You do a signing statement, get a blanket waiver from some flunky in the Justice Dept, break the law, then refuse to release any and all information regarding the practice arguing Executive Privilege and National Security.

You control the Justice Dept, so they won't investigate. The courts have clearly displayed that they don't have the balls to force any disclosure or to follow up on substantial circustantial evidence that members of the Executive Branch, including the Attorney General, are in fact, criminals.

Bingo: just like that, the Executive Branch has zero constraints. Zero. America is dead and the judicial branch just sat there watching it.

"They said that it induces an intense, uncontrolable panic reaction."

Sorry, some clarification please:

Were you referring to waterboarding, or inadvertently switching on The View while looking for The Weather Channel?

Shambly -

Thanks. Whether or not we call that torture, it's wrong.

obamish: "Were you referring to waterboarding, or inadvertently switching on The View while looking for The Weather Channel?"

Now that is clearly torture.

When do we start re-calling and impeaching the liberal leadership for foisting Abortion On Demand as an Allah-given right for the loon left?

I mean, if you have to keep a body count, Katie.

Nothing will ever happen to these guys.
Posted by BrendanB | April 24, 2008 2:52 PM

As long as they don't leave the country.

If for the sake of argument, we ignore the morality or lack therof involved in waterboarding and get back to what is known.

The CIA was directed by people in the highest reaches of the executive branch to engage in behavior which they knew might result in prosecution. In order to protect themselves from that eventually they directed John Yoo to write a series of documents providing cover for their likely illegal acts. When Jack Goldsmith, (who by the way, is rather sympathetic to the idea of the CIA taking 'risks') reviewed the legal justifications authored by Yoo, he found them to be stretch beyond defensibilty and promptly withdrew them. Since that time a lot of effort has gone into A: legalizing the behavior that took place and B: hiding the decisionmaking process that led to the behavior.

So even if you think that waterboarding is the coolest thing since sliced bread, it still doesn't change the fact that the administration engage in a conspiracy to violate existing law and obstruction of justice behind a wall of 'national security' since those violations took place.

This is equally true in the case of FISA.

You don't have to think that the underlying behavior is necessarily bad to nevertheless acknowlege that it was against the law at the time it was done.

Call me a stickler but that doesn't strike me as a minor point.

It is time for QH/Obamish to remind us again how much he enjoyed learning of the killing of the students at Kent State. His views on torture are quite mild compared to his opinion on summary execution of political protesters.

The suffering of others is a source of amusement for obamish. Not surprised.

"...From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia..."

Oh good, the commercial liberal EXPERTS have spoken.

And just yesterday, obamish/QuestionHillary advocated America's media being styled after Pravda. Keep it up, buddy. You are a neon sign for the Republican Party.

Clinton's impeachment was over his lying to congress. Nixon's impeachment was for spying on congress. Apparently you have to do something to congress for it to impeach you. Perhaps when they start waterboarding senators will we see some sort of reaction.

Robert Sullivan-- this link from the excellent Small Wars Journal blog may be of interest to you.

Thanks for posting this, AMC.

As per J.J. above, Ashcroft sure does sound nervous about this. With good reason. Here's the estimable blawger Marty Lederman on "The Underdeveloped Jurisprudence of the Forcing/Pouring Distinction".

Robert Sullivan: It's a misconception that waterboarding is "simulated" drowning. It is actually "incremental drowning", in other words it is real drowning, carried out slowly and incrementally, and not allowed to reach the point where the person dies.

The person feels the initial stages that could lead to actual drowning if allowed to continue, and this realization is what causes the intense pain and panic.

I'm not trying to be glib, because I can tell your question is genuine, but a simple test on how "torturous" this is to you is to ask yourself if you'd like to experience it. If it was applied in the same way it was applied to the detainees, what would be your impression of it?

The problem with obamish and the many, many like him (who believe exactly as he does but lack the honesty to express it so bluntly) is that they have actually added torture to the list of reasonable subjects for dialogue.

Their response to 9/11 was to lower themselves to the level of the people who killed thousands at one stroke, who behead and suicide-bomb and torture.

Look at what we have become.

In this Washington Post piece, it describes soldiers using waterboarding during Viet Nam:

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

But doesn't it a different case entirely when high officials in the US government are involved?

"As long as they don't leave the country."

All the former Clintoids have filled up Indonesia, sadly.

And it used to be such a nice beach.

The innocent American people in the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and the airplanes of 9-11 were involuntarily TORTURED.

I won't lose any sleep worrying about whether some creeping Al Quedan might get her stunted feelings or fedora hurt by our active and vital CIA, but thanks for playing Blame America First, you amazing raceless Switzerlanders.

The performance of the MSM on this issue is about equivalent to their performance in the lead up to the Iraq war. I guess they are too busy covering the anti-Americanism of Obama's former minister, to worry about the fact that the President knew about the breaking of the law, and violations of the constitution, and did nothing to stop it. He knowingly put the lives of our own soldiers at risk if they are ever taken prisoner.

I guess endangering the lives of our soldiers, on techniques that don't work, is less serious than giving a fire and brimstone sermon.

Let's review:

The eco-corps insistence that we grow Murtha and Moyers subsidized corn and soy to feed their future Hempmobiles IS literally creating MASS STARVATION in the 3rd world, skyrocketing prices everywhere, political unrest up the wazoo, and printing of more dead tree fiction by Time-Life-CNN-Jazeera.

Meanwhile, liberals hate Bush.

Have I missed anything?

I won't lose any sleep worrying about whether some creeping Al Quedan might get her stunted feelings or fedora hurt

Fine. They do it, so it's OK for us to do it. So this whole War on Terror is just like the Super Bowl: all it matters is that our side wins regardless of what happens to our sense of humanity, or (for those who believe) our mortal souls?

That really what we're fighting for, obamish?

It's completely wrong in all cases, of course (the army launched an investigation into the practice in Viet Nam). But these Bushies were in the highest levels of the government, breaking with 100's of years of legal history (although attorneys apparently did some legal/language gymnastics to give it a thin veneer of legality). It really is something.

Ha, ha ha ha, obamish, please stop it; you're killing me with your cartoonish depiction of a typical conservative know-nothing. (I think you have some people fooled here).

"In this Washington Post piece, it describes soldiers using waterboarding during Viet Nam..."

That one was all America's fault too.

Like 9-11, Pearl Harbor, the Aswan Dam, and Stalin's beard lice.

Elvis -

Thanks.

BrendanB -

The guy on NPR claimed to have voluntarily submitted to waterboarding. Of course, one doesn't know how far it was taken.

I don't understand why those who are quickest to question the patriotism of others are so quick to justify the violation of the law of the land and the constitution.

Isn't the rule of law one of the main things we should be proud about?

Robert Sullivan: "The guy on NPR claimed to have voluntarily submitted to waterboarding. Of course, one doesn't know how far it was taken."

I'm not familiar with that particular NPR story, but I'd recommend looking deeper into waterbaording. Officials have been blatantly deceptive about this for more than five years now, so it's may just be possible that they would arrange for an NPR reporter to get a light-weight demonstration.

Actually, Robert, the guy did, indeed, know that he was NOT going to be killed in a demonstration. That makes it quite different.

I don't understand why those who are quickest to question the patriotism of others are so quick to justify the violation of the law of the land and the constitution.

Isn't the rule of law one of the main things we should be proud about?

Derek, you have to realize that those who are the quickest to use patriotism as a bludgeon don't care about the nuances of the side that they support, so long as their side WINS. Like supporting a sports team out of homerism despite said team knowingly undermining the very sport they play. So long as they get 'results', it doesn't matter if they cheat.

The lib loons do a total disconnect over their eco-terrorist tripe now starving millions and killing thousands the world over (hello Archer Daniels Meatheads), where push polling corn and soy stocks for auto fuel instead of human consumption has done more damage to the world economy than $4 Texas gas in Galena, Illinois -- but never mind that, since Bush allowed the troops to slap around some Al Queda terror scum caught inside Admiral Obama's long sought Pakistan?

When the nukes are incoming from Tehran, Martin Sheen and Cindy Shiite will still be standing in line outside Fort Rucker complaining about Apache noise and the lack of a good road map from John Kerry back to their winter homes in glam Cambodia.

Some legacy.

Some change.

That one was all America's fault too.

That's the way the wingnut culture warriors always do it don't they? They invent a lefty position, in place of hearing from a real person (it's called a straw man argument). It works well if there's no one to defend what they actually think (as opposed to your straw man).

Actually, Viet Nam was partly the fault of the French. (I knew you'd like that one, you get to bash the "cheeze eating surrender monkeys," blah blah blah.) I'm not going to say any more because I'm sure you'd rather discuss things that happened when I was wearing diapers and drinking from a sippy cup, as opposed to things that are happening right now.

We should not be so hard on Obamish, because he is the real America. He speaks for the people who have enabled the war, the torture, and the coverup. Obamish is in charge; he has the support of the commercial media; and our feeble complaints are useless.

Welcome to the New Amerika of QH/Obamish. War IS peace, freedom IS slavery, ignorance IS Strength.

Kryptik-

"Homerism." I kind of like the sound of that for "QuestionHillary (Homer) obamish.

AMC: ..even though we may never see the evidence.

Meh. Executive privilege doesn't hold up well when there's a criminal investigation, as Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon could tell you.

Well, if Nixon were alive, that is.

You can argue that a criminal investigation won't happen with the current Justice Department...then again, there was a pretty big investigation regarding the outing of a covert CIA operative a while ago...

Dubya has widened the definition of privileged communications since Watergate.

By golly, HH, I think you're right. Indeed, I think we could conflate two of today's threads and conclude that the true identity of QH/obamish is none other than Mudcat Saunders!

Our handling of detained terror suspects brings into play a significant legal dilemma. The US court system has strict rules with regard to the treatment of criminal suspects. The police, for instance, are very limited as to how they can interrogate prisoners. If the court deems that a prisoner was abused while in captivity, the information gained via such abuse is considered irrelevant and inadmissible. Therefore, with respect to detained terror suspects, any confessions obtained by the FBI/CIA/military and any testimony given against other detainees can potentially be rendered worthless, should a pattern of abuse be shown. In fact, Prescott Prince, the lawyer/Army reservist assigned to defend Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (alleged 911 planner), intends to argue this very point in Mohammed's trial! This dilemma is precisely why terror suspects have been denied habeas corpus rights and their cases have not been heard: the admin has created a situation where the prosecutors can, and by law, should lose these cases. Brilliant!

grape_crush: "Executive privilege doesn't hold up well when there's a criminal investigation"

Unless the Investigator General at the DOJ is savvy enough to sit on his report until there is a new president, no one will ever be held to account for any of this.

I admire my fellow Bush critics for holding out hope for some type of punishment and closure, but it won't happen.

The President of the United States can break the law. Period. It's established. It's precedent. It will not be reversed by the DOJ or by Congress. The Judicial Branch is the only remaining firewall, and they've completely abdicated the responsibility. It's over. Torture is legal. Breaking the law is legal.

Somebody should start a collection of obamish's sayings. It'd be like the "I Ching" of crazy foaming-at-the-mouth right wing BS.

Also, that link to the Small Wars Journal is frightening in the extreme. Thanks for the link, Elvis.

BrendanB-

So the only alternative would be an org like the International Criminal Court, which, St. John of Sedona has said he thinks the US should join. Hmmmm. Wonder if he will flip-flop on that one. Ah, what was I thinking. Of course he will flip-flop on that, as it is the maverick thing to do!

The International Court is a possibility. But I think they'd have to get indictments before they can just snag one of our many war criminals off the streets of Rome. I wouldn't object if some org in Europe started putting together indictments and warrants.

Officials wouldn't travel then, but they'd at least get the message that their conduct is unacceptable.

Impeach!
Impeach!
Impeach!

Real Americans (read Democrats) like us demand justice for the freedom fighters wrongfully imprisioned and tortured at GITMO by Bush and Cheney!

If no Impeachment! then criminal war crimes tribunals once Hillary is elected.

For what, deep down in places we don't talk about.

We want them torturing people...we NEED them to torture to keep America safe.