It's not simply tying someone to a chair and pouring water on their face. According to available accounts, waterboarding consists of strapping the prisoner to an inclined board (hence the name), flat on their back, with their head at the low end of the board. Because of the position of their head, when the water is poured, it floods the prisoner's sinuses, and the prisoner can do nothing to prevent this; holding your breath doesn't even delay it. Flooding the sinuses with water doesn't just simulate drowning, it is extremely painful, and triggers an instinctive panic reflex. The body and brain are both hardwired to react as if they are drowning, even if the prisoner intellectually believes that the procedure is just an interrogation technique. Many reports suggest that interrogators have "refined" the technique by putting cellophane or wet cloth over the prisoner's mouth, making it more difficult or impossible to breathe, and heightening the instinctive response.

But he left out one thing... it's much more painful with Club Soda, or even Coca-Cola and that's nothing new. It's quite common in Mexican police and Federale interrogations. Wambaugh's Lines and Shadows, (1984)

Great book, btw, if you want to compare our attitude to immigration and immigration policy today to just 20 years ago, to see how extreme we've become.

He is a self-described Straussian, and some of his most notable students include Andrew Sullivan, Alan Keyes, Bill Kristol...

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/07/letter_16.html

The Letter

Scott Horton

Was Leo Strauss democracy’s best friend? In a letter written at the time of his emigration, Strauss describes his political principles - Fascist, Authoritarian, Imperialist

“We believe that failing to call a spade a spade is not scientific.”

— Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli (1958)

Mansfield on The Colbert Report

http://tinyurl.com/zw489

Lisa S isn't a troll. It's more cognitive dissonance from Rove. You can't make war on "terrorism" and I don't fault Kerry for not being able to speak to people who can't grasp complex concepts. Bumper Sticker logic has it's place, but not in presidential debates. In point of fact, Kerry wrote the book on the law enforcement model of taking down terrorists.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/

up until this point, kdwmson.

Jhillr64:

We're friends? That's awesome.

I don't know about red herring. Does pickled herring count? (Does pickled herring make me a neocon?)

Then you reverted back to type, tucked tail and ran.

Good job, Jhillr64.

I should hope not. You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting elected. You smell like a FedSoc monkey.

Pooter... Sure you do, in fact it is a time-honored badge of pride for the left. It's called Civil Disobedience.

Perhaps we should start shooting people who shoot Abortion doctors and bomb abortion clinics.

That's conservatism.

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing Pooter has ever said, and it's a long list to choose from. "The law is set up to say stop, not go." Bwahahaha! What a tool.

We are the conservatives here. You and your girlfriend are the radicals and villains. Thoreau would be glad if we shot you and bombed your homes, with you in them.

WT...Kdwmson, you're sounding a bit like a gasp Marxist in that last bit. :-)

I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Consequently no powers are exercised by the Federal government except where such exercise is approved by the Supreme Court (lawyers) of the land.

I admit that the Supreme Court has in the past made certain decisions in this general field that have been astonishing to me. A recent case in point was the decision in the Phillips case. Others, and older ones, involved "interstate commerce." But until some future Supreme Court decision denies the right and responsibility of the Federal government to do certain things, you cannot possibly remove them from the political activities of the Federal government...

Incidentally, I notice that everybody seems to be a great Constitutionalist until his idea of what the Constitution ought to do is violated--then he suddenly becomes very strong for amendments or some peculiar and individualistic interpretation of his own.

He will argue any legal fiction, that a person is property, or that property is a person (incorporation) to advance his FedSoc monkey agenda.

A fucking Libertarian. You might get elected as a dog catcher. If you want to attain a higher local office, try the Green party.

I get your point and I think you're right so far as it goes, but it still comes down to: We sometimes have to break (or ignore or intentionally misconstrue) the law to do what's right. I think that's a totally fine point of view, but it's not exactly "rule of law" is it?

It's in the Constitution. It's called an oath of office. Why even have it if it's there to be broken?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

So you espouse a collectivist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. No individual right to own firearms?

(Wait. There's a guy outside my house with a copy of "Civil Disobedience" and a torch. Love that civil discourse.)

You are a fucking Republican, so you are a stupid son of a bitch.

The first title of Thoreau's essay was "Resistance to Civil Government" and that was in accord with Douglass' "resistance to injury" or "resistance of injury with injury." Thoreau was not a pacifist like Gandhi but he wasn't advocating open rebellion... yet. He would have, given a different set of circumstances. He was not strictly non-violent. Like I said, you are a stupid sonofabitch. You want civil discourse? Move to Switzerland. It's your kind of place. Women finally got the right to vote in one canton in the 70s.