"Death is worse than torture, but everyone except pacifists thinks there are circumstances in which war is justified. War means killing people. If we are entitled to kill people, we must be entitled to injure them. I don't see how it can be reasonable to have an absolute prohibition on torture when you don't have an absolute prohibition on killing. Reasonable people will disagree about when torture is justified. But that, in some circumstances, it is justified seems to me to be just moral common sense. How could it be better that 10,000 or 50,000 or a million people die than that one person be injured?"
AL Qiada operatives do not respond to questions asked politely in this case yes it is OK Boxman55
Quote"Death is worse than torture, but everyone except pacifists thinks there are circumstances in which war is justified. War means killing people. If we are entitled to kill people, we must be entitled to injure them. I don't see how it can be reasonable to have an absolute prohibition on torture when you don't have an absolute prohibition on killing. Reasonable people will disagree about when torture is justified. But that, in some circumstances, it is justified seems to me to be just moral common sense. How could it be better that 10,000 or 50,000 or a million people die than that one person be injured?"
John Yoo, defending the torture he helped legalize under Bush. Here is the whole article:
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=5c3b3463-bc14-4c00-879b-2b7b432d1e79
Is it acceptable for the US government to torture people? My answer is "NO!". Once people are detained and completely under our control it is unacceptable for us to torture them. It is shocking to me that this point is even under discussion and I believe that the acceptance of torture by the current administration will result in damage to the interest of the United States for generations.
Today's children and tomorrow's grandchildren will be paying the price for decisions made in our name today. I think future generations will curse us.
Have we become so low we have to resort to torture? We're supposed to be above that type of treatment. We're supposed to be the good guys. What the F happened to us???? :'( :'(
I found this comment from Bigsky in a earlier post
The US has not tortured anyone as it is not our policy. Even the commander at Gitmo stated to the affect that the things done in Gitmo are not torture as because if they were done to our captured troops we would not consider it torture. But you might notice we have yet to cut civilians heads off and broadcast it on the web and tv like terrorists do.
Boxman55
It's hard to tell what the Pentagon's objective really is in releasing the transcript of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession. It certainly suggests the Administration is trying to blame KSM for al-Qaeda terrorism, leading us to believe we've caught the master terrorist and that al-Qaeda, and especially the ever-elusive bin Laden, is no longer a threat to the U.S.
But there is a major flaw in that marketing strategy. On the face of it, KSM, as he is known inside the government, comes across as boasting, at times mentally unstable. It's also clear he is making things up. I'm told by people involved in the investigation that KSM was present during Wall Street Journal correspondent Danny Pearl's execution but was in fact not the person who killed him. There exists videotape footage of the execution that minimizes KSM's role. And if KSM did indeed exaggerate his role in the Pearl murder, it raises the question of just what else he has exaggerated, or outright fabricated.
ON NEW YEAR'S EVE in 2003, I was seized at the border of Serbia and Macedonia by Macedonian police who mistakenly believed that I was traveling on a false German passport. I was detained incommunicado for more than three weeks. Then I was handed over to the American Central Intelligence Agency and was stripped, severely beaten, shackled, dressed in a diaper, injected with drugs, chained to the floor of a plane and flown to Afghanistan, where I was imprisoned in a foul dungeon for more than four months.
Long after the American government realized that I was an entirely innocent man, I was blindfolded, put back on a plane, flown to Europe and left on a hilltop in Albania — without any explanation or apology for the nightmare that I had endured.
American authorities continue to insist that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident in an otherwise well-run detention system. That insistence, however, stands in sharp contrast to my own experiences as an interrogator in Iraq. I watched as detainees were forced to stand naked all night, shivering in their cold cells and pleading with their captors for help. Others were subjected to long periods of isolation in pitch-black rooms. Food and sleep deprivation were common, along with a variety of physical abuse, including punching and kicking. Aggressive, and in many ways abusive, techniques were used daily in Iraq, all in the name of acquiring the intelligence necessary to bring an end to the insurgency. The violence raging there today is evidence that those tactics never worked. My memories are evidence that those tactics were terribly wrong.
Although reports of abuses by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have angered much of the world, the response of Americans has been more tepid. Finnegan attributes the fact that "we are generally more comfortable and more accepting of this," in part, to the popularity of "24," which has a weekly audience of fifteen million viewers, and has reached millions more through DVD sales. The third expert at the meeting was Tony Lagouranis, a former Army interrogator in the war in Iraq. He told the show's staff that DVDs of shows such as "24" circulate widely among soldiers stationed in Iraq. Lagouranis said to me, "People watch the shows, and then walk into the interrogation booths and do the same things they've just seen." He recalled that some men he had worked with in Iraq watched a television program in which a suspect was forced to hear tortured screams from a neighboring cell; the men later tried to persuade their Iraqi translator to act the part of a torture "victim," in a similar intimidation ploy. Lagouranis intervened: such scenarios constitute psychological torture.
"In Iraq, I never saw pain produce intelligence," Lagouranis told me. "I worked with someone who used waterboarding" -- an interrogation method involving the repeated near-drowning of a suspect. "I used severe hypothermia, dogs, and sleep deprivation. I saw suspects after soldiers had gone into their homes and broken their bones, or made them sit on a Humvee's hot exhaust pipes until they got third-degree burns. Nothing happened." Some people, he said, "gave confessions. But they just told us what we already knew. It never opened up a stream of new information." If anything, he said, "physical pain can strengthen the resolve to clam up."
Balls? You know what I think takes balls? Standing by your principals even when there could be a short term price takes balls. It takes balls to set an example and it takes balls to do what's right when doing right is the hard thing to do.
It does not take balls to torture. It use to take balls to be an American.
Hmm.............Have a set of balls and do what needs to be done to ensure the safety and survival of this country and lose a little morality or
Sit back and watch the nuke show over a US city one day because we were "too moral" to do what needed to be done to keep it from possibly happening.
However btw it is NEVER immoral to do what needs done to protect oneself from an enemy that has committed numerous attacks on us and killed thousands of civilians.
Will innocent people get caught up? Certainly, it has always occurred in every war. Better for a few innocent people to possibly get caught up I say than to watch a million innocent people die because we were to "moral". :banghead;
You do what must be done when you are fighting a war.This war must be fought,And by the way the US is not, I Repeat ,The US is NOT getting there ass kicked . This is what one reply had stated to my, Iraq war comment. This will be a long war and yes it is much different than WW2.There for if you have to use torture to protect your country,and other troops in the battle field thats how you justify it. Do you think for one second if we pull out that this country will be safe,no way,they hate America because we are free. They started it,,We will finish it...
That's how our choice is always presented isn't it? Torture or accept sharia law. Either or.
bleh
When it comes down to life, death and freedom it is always either or.
It seems to escape you that when fighting a group of people that have no regard for human life at all that certain things must be done.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NCW251UYFPSWHQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2004/05/09/wpearl09.xml
Daniel Pearl had Balls.
A couple points. First torture doesn't work. These first person accounts are pretty clear that US soldiers do not know how to torture so what we end up with is pointless cruelty. It seems manifest that pointless cruelty harms our interests and makes us less safe. And as the first person account of Mr. Fair made clear the impact on the torturer is profound and long lived.
The second point is that in World War II we did not torture. While our guys were being subjected to the Bataan Death March we were observing the Geneva Conventions. After WWII, while the USSR had literallyhundredsthousands of nuclear warheads targeted on hundreds of American cities, we did not torture. We lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation at the hands of the godless Soviets for fifty years without torturing. The fact that the US did not torture is one of the things that protected us.
Actually torture does work.Your example proves the point - torture did not work. The information was not acted on because information gleaned through torture is suspect. When you torture people you can't act on what the person says because they are being tortured. That is why torture is not (http://is not)a tactic in the war on terror, torture is pointless cruelty. How about in all of human history an example of a successful society that condoned torture as a tool of State?
Case in point. In the Philippines a Al-Qaeda operative was picked up. He refused to answer questions. He was turned over to another Philippine officer who tortured him.
What information was gleaned from that you might ask? He fessed up that Al-Qaeda had operatives in the US at flight schools learning how to fly planes, of which he named some names, he said the plan was to fly planes into buildings and named several. This information was turned over to the Clinton Administration who not only refused to act on it up they in fact buried this information. So in fact the most important piece of information that could have possibly been used to stop 9/11 was gleaned by torture.
It must also escape you that the allies deliberately bombed civilians during WWII."War is not legally about killing. It is about compelling an enemy to submit. To achieve this it is lawful to incapacitate the enemy's military forces and damage or destroy valid military objectives. But you can never kill or further injure an enemy who offers to surrender or who is already incapacitated by illness, wounds, or previous capture." That nice summary is from Professor Dave Glazier http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/03/john-yoo-appears-to-confirm-cia.html who actually knows quite a bit about the laws of war -- he served twenty-one years as a Navy surface warfare officer before going to law school. It hurts your case to even bring up WWII. In WWII we fire bombed Dresden but we still weren't willing to torture, that should tell you something about what that generation thought about torture.
To this day it is not official government policy to commit torture.I posted first person accounts, it's pretty clear we have abandoned previous rules of conduct in the military and the use of
Geneva Conventions, Actually by the GC terrorists are not covered by them.
However the SC did give them GC protections because the terrorists wanted them and they were a bit ignorant about how they work. So be it. As such by GC we do not have to give trials to any suspected terrorist until the war with them is over. So until Al-Qaeda surrenders all we catch can sit int Gitmo. :) Also we may execute all those we catch in the field of battle that are fighting without uniform as we may deem them spies as per the GC's.
Mention torture to those who lost love ones on 9/11, they have suffered more torture than can be imagined. This world anymore comes down to fighting fire with fire, I say do whats needed. "Kill them all, let GOD sort em out".
Your example proves the point - torture did not work. The information was not acted on because information gleaned through torture is suspect. When you torture people you can't act on what the person says because they are being tortured. That is why torture is not (http://is not)a tactic in the war on terror, torture is pointless cruelty. How about in all of human history an example of a successful society that condoned torture as a tool of State?
"War is not legally about killing. It is about compelling an enemy to submit. To achieve this it is lawful to incapacitate the enemy's military forces and damage or destroy valid military objectives. But you can never kill or further injure an enemy who offers to surrender or who is already incapacitated by illness, wounds, or previous capture." That nice summary is from Professor Dave Glazier http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/03/john-yoo-appears-to-confirm-cia.html who actually knows quite a bit about the laws of war -- he served twenty-one years as a Navy surface warfare officer before going to law school. It hurts your case to even bring up WWII. In WWII we fire bombed Dresden but we still weren't willing to torture, that should tell you something about what that generation thought about torture.
I posted first person accounts, it's pretty clear we have abandoned previous rules of conduct in the military and the use ofmercenariescontractors creates a black hole that now allows us to disappear people.
The US is now breaching treaties and international conventions on human rights so it doesn't matter what label you give people, the label does not justify torture, secret rendition and acts of thuggery. Your construct allows a who? A company commander, a contractor ... some low level individual to decide some poor schlub is a terrorist for who knows what reason and it's see ya, wouldn't want to be ya.
Your example proves the point - torture did not work. The information was not acted on because information gleaned through torture is suspect. When you torture people you can't act on what the person says because they are being tortured. That is why torture is not (http://is not)a tactic in the war on terror, torture is pointless cruelty. How about in all of human history an example of a successful society that condoned torture as a tool of State?
Actually you are wrong because it did prove the point, so far beyond a doubt that a blind man could see it.
What the torture gleaned was the plan of 9/11 DUH!!! :banghead; :banghead; :banghead; :banghead; :banghead; :banghead;
"War is not legally about killing. It is about compelling an enemy to submit. To achieve this it is lawful to incapacitate the enemy's military forces and damage or destroy valid military objectives. But you can never kill or further injure an enemy who offers to surrender or who is already incapacitated by illness, wounds, or previous capture." That nice summary is from Professor Dave Glazier http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/03/john-yoo-appears-to-confirm-cia.html who actually knows quite a bit about the laws of war -- he served twenty-one years as a Navy surface warfare officer before going to law school. It hurts your case to even bring up WWII. In WWII we fire bombed Dresden but we still weren't willing to torture, that should tell you something about what that generation thought about torture.Actually WWII shows how little you know. Only you would think torture was worse than the killing of civilians on purpose as was done in WWII. :o
I posted first person accounts, it's pretty clear we have abandoned previous rules of conduct in the military and the use ofmercenariescontractors create a black hole that now allows us to disappear people.
The US is now breaching treaties and international conventions on human rights so it doesn't matter what label you give people, the label does not justify torture, secret rendition and acts of thuggery. Your construct allows a who? A company commander, a contractor ... some low level individual to decide some poor schlub is a terrorist for who knows what reason and it's see ya, wouldn't want to be ya.
Sorry but your first person account is worthless. Far too many have stepped forward claiming the same thing, thus giving the US a black eye, yet only later turning out to be false.
Till a US court confirms it beyond a reasonable doubt, its worthless.
Conduct changes with the times and the enemy, the military knows far more than you on what they need to do to get the job done fighting terrorists. Considering it is the military putting their life on the line, and not you, I will go with what they want and what they want to do to protect this country.
Maybe you should ease up on banging your head. The information was not acted on, 9/11 happened. By what definition did the torture work? I thought the whole point of the ticking time bomb justification for torture was that through torture you could prevent the terrorist act. If your example is a success what would constitute failure?
I’ll make my unrebutted point again. Torture is pointless because you cannot act on the information gleaned. You cannot act on the information because you cannot trust the information. You cannot trust the information because its source was a person who was being tortured. The act of torture makes the product of torture worthless. There is no way around this.
You claimed Jefferson said to the affect that it was better to break principals than to stick to them and lose the country because of them. I can’t imagine he said anything of the sort when speaking of the Founding Principles of the country. Jefferson may have said such a thing in relation to personal views – slavery, temperance – but torture goes to the Founding Principles of the Republic.
If Jefferson were alive he would maintain that torture is an affront to and incompatible with freedom.
Yes Jefferson is saying it is alright to steel a horse or even level Hackensack New Jersey to save the Republic but the idea that we would torture would have never crossed his mind. It is pretty humerous that you would suggest that Jefferson, of all the Founders, would support resorting to torture. Maybe Hamilton, but Jefferson? That's preposterous.
I asked you in reply #23 "Do you really believe that the threats facing us today are categorically different than threats faced by this nation in the past?" you never did answer.
Just a comment, for which I fully expect to get pounded:
Let's keep to the subject, which is interesting in and of itself, and limit the snarky ad hominem comments. Slights and digs aimed at the person being addressed serve only to make the author of those comments sound unreasonable, and detract from the arguments being put forth.
Are you seriously saying that you think Jefferson would condone torture?Yes Jefferson is saying it is alright to steel a horse or even level Hackensack New Jersey to save the Republic but the idea that we would torture would have never crossed his mind. It is pretty humerous that you would suggest that Jefferson, of all the Founders, would support resorting to torture. Maybe Hamilton, but Jefferson? That's preposterous.
You fail to grasp that not every little specific thing needed to cross his mind.
It is more than evident that this was his thinking. One only needs to look at how the Constitution was written to see this. He knew better than to pigeonhole future generations.
Hmm funny you say that about Hamiltion because its clear you take the Hamiliton view on government and the Constitution.
I asked you in reply #23 "Do you really believe that the threats facing us today are categorically different than threats faced by this nation in the past?" you never did answer.
Far more than at any other time in history. But as always you dont quite understand do you. :( Not only do we have to deal with the outside threat but that from within from trying to hogtie our troops and government from taking the very drastic actions to deal with these very drastic times. :-X
U.S. SOLDIER BURNED IN EFFIGY AT PORTLAND ANTI-WAR PROTEST
http://linfield.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2012088&l=c6305&id=65201211
Just a comment, for which I fully expect to get pounded:
Let's keep to the subject, which is interesting in and of itself, and limit the snarky ad hominem comments. Slights and digs aimed at the person being addressed serve only to make the author of those comments sound unreasonable, and detract from the arguments being put forth.
And now, I'm going out to Sunny's Surplus to find a World War II helmet for myself! And let the good times roll!
Are you seriously saying that you think Jefferson would condone torture?
Hamilton was a Federalist. I would have guessed that you were a state rights guy. oh wait that's right you have that whole Federal Reserve is evil POV.
After 75 months of Republican hegemony it's a bit incredible to fret that 75 days of Congressional oversight threatens the Republic. This isn't even a top five most threatening situation. Stalin had nukes pointed at us. Mao had nukes pointed at us. We didn't torture our enemies then.
Do you answer for the group that protests at military funerals?
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Anti-gay_church_protests_U.S._military_funerals
First of all what the US is doing is hardly torture.
First of all what the US is doing is hardly torture.
Considering we put our own CIA through waterboarding before terrorists one can hardly consider it torture.
You want true torture, look to what saddam did.
By the lefts idea of torture,next they will claim that keeping terrorists in jail at all without trial will be torture.
Hate to tell you this but that was then, this is now!
Military war strategy CHANGES with the times, the threat, and the enemy.
When the terrorists sign onto the GC, then I will worry about what our Government may or may not do.
They are lucky as it is that we dont execute them at our whim for being spies.
What's the strategy behind abandoning 200+ years of military doctrine? Do you understand the inconsistencies of your argument? On the one hand you tout the Filipino example as how to interrogate a suspect, yet you maintain we don't use those tactics. Why not?
You maintain that the water boarding/standing naked doused in cold water/solitary/sensory deprivation/use of dogs is allowed because the Geneva Conventions do not apply to people labeled as a terrorists, yet you acknowledge that the Geneva Conventions are merely the latest legal codification of 1500 years of military and political traditions. You must know that these political and legal traditions have served us well, after all they got us here to our unipower, world hegemony. You'd have to acknowledge that these political and legal traditions have served as the underpinnings of America's exceptionalism. Clearly these political and legal traditions have allowed America to lead the world into a brighter, healthier international order.
It has always been in America's self interest to be the World's standard setter. We set the standard by example. And we continue to set this example today. Today are we the model that we want to see in other countries? Where does this road lead? Should we fund a research effort into how to inflict pain without causing major organ failure? Those devices in the photos George posted are so crude. I'm sure a few billion dollars in research could develop devices more intimidating and painful.
Imagine being deprived of sleep for the better part of a month (or nearly two months) - in solitary confinement, and often in shackles and stress positions, as the Bush administration has done to prisoners at Gitmo. And think of the quality of intelligence we're getting at the end of it. The point of torture is now and always has been only torture. It is a simple, indisputable fact that this administration has legalized, authorized and enforced torture. American doctors now use their skills to keep people alive in order that they can be further tortured. As Slavoj Zizek wrote "We are in the middle of a process of moral corruption: those in power are literally trying to break a part of our ethical backbone, to dampen and undo what is arguably our civilization's greatest achievement, the growth of our spontaneous moral sensitivity."
Again, the fundamental point is what is the point? What sort of information are you suppose to get from someone after they've gone weeks without sleep? Sleep deprivation is just cruelty. People are people, don't you think we'd know if sleep deprivation worked? It's easy to do. Ha ha we played Ice T's Body Count tonight. Wow is that dude ever tired.
Here is a first hand report from 5 days without sleep: http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/fringe_science/effectsofsleep173704.html Imagine 5 weeks. What would this tactic accomplish exactly?
No cruelty is coming at someone with a knife and letting them kick and scream while their throat is slit. . Cruelty is doing the same and cutting ones head off and then showing the person their headless body the last few moments they are alive.
Now after all Bill, do you think those terrorists really think that being deprived of sleep is torture to them? Come on now. They cut heads off and slit throats of the innocent. If they freely and openly do this and they do not consider it torture, there is no way they think being deprived of sleep, water boarding, listening to rap music, is torture to them.
I don't care a wit what the terrorists think. Our actions should be guided by our interests, our moral and national interests. It is in neither our moral or national interests to treat people differently based on a label. That's the bright line, that's the slippery slope - when you differentiate among humans under your control based on an arbitrary label. Right now the US has one set of standards for group A and another secrete set of standards for those they (who exactly is they - amercenarycontractor? Someone unchecked by the rule of law?) say are beneath our contempt, beneath how we would treat the most hideous child murderer.
It's a story that has been repeated throughout history, remember the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
If we do not think those methods when applied to our troops is torture then that gives us every moral authority to say its not torture when we use them.
Ya and I suppose next you are going to claim that it is immoral and we are violating terrorists free speech when the US military starts their program to hack and shut down terrorist websites.
No matter how hard you try what we are doing is not torture. If we do not think those methods when applied to our troops is torture then that gives us every moral authority to say its not torture when we use them.
Whoop there it is.
"From the time I was arrested five years ago, they have been torturing me. It happened during interviews. One time they tortured me one way, and another time they tortured me in a different way. I just said those things to make the people happy. They were very happy when I told them those things," - Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, speaking of his time at Gitmo. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GUANTANAMO_TERROR_HEARING?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-03-30-11-04-22
The transcripts have been censored to remove any details of the actual torture methods alleged. And here is the official response:
CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield wouldn't respond to al-Nashiri's allegations, but said Friday that the agency's interrogation program is conducted lawfully - "with great care and close review, producing vital information that has helped disrupt plots and save lives."
Notice that he does not deny torture. In fact, his words could be construed as justifying it. We have gone from "we do not torture" to no comment. One would like to disbelieve everything Nashiri says. But on what rational basis can we now do so? (h/t http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/ )
Bigsky haven't you gotten the Administration's new talking points? We don't deny torture any more we simply say its worth it.
Oh yeah, another crank ... the Dean of Yale law school. What does he know?
The thing that supporters of this administration have done again and again is they fail to reckon or even acknowledge the costs of their policies. The imagined upside is touted as debate ending evidence that their choices are the right choices. Anybody who disagrees is Nevil Chamberlain incarnate. Never is there a sober reckoning of the costs of the imagined success, let alone the costs of the downside risk.
These aren't people. They're fanantic terrorists. They're not even soldiers, don't where uniforms, don't represent any country, and follow no rules of engagement. Do they fight fair? They slaughter inoccent civilians, women and children.[/b]
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it Not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11,
2001 ?
Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not Brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac From our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ? Did nearly Three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or Crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it Wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and Repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East Start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a Crime in Saudi Arabia .
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for Hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling Slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come Out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by Hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in Search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their Suicide bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law Instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine Roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who Have been Humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest
Assured: I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is Told not to Move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the
Bank: I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer Mat, and Fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is Complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely Believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran"
and Other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and -you guessed it -I don't care ! ! ! ! !
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a Difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem."
-- Ronald Reagan
I have another quote that I would like to add AND.......I hope You forward all this.
"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will Be a nation gone under."
Also by.. Ronald Reagan
One last thought for the day:
In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked By one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he Said:"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how Many want in... And how many want out."
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
These aren't people. They're fanantic terrorists. They're not even soldiers, don't where uniforms, don't represent any country, and follow no rules of engagement. Do they fight fair? They slaughter inoccent civilians, women and children. Unfortunately, they ARE people. Sick/demented, mislead, among other things but human none the less. Do they fight fair? As in?
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it Not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11,
2001 ? We are. Do we have the necessary support from the world community? Can we do it alone?
Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not Brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac From our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ? Did nearly Three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or Crushing death that day, or didn't they? It was the most tragic event in my lifetime (opinionated).
And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it Wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all. Do you care that Senator Obama used the Koran to swear into his position?
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and Repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11. Will you really? Would it mean that much to you?
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East Start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a Crime in Saudi Arabia . America at it's greatest....freedom of religion.
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for Hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling Slashed throat. There is no way to make anyone feel better about this horrible crime.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come Out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by Hiding in mosques. Thought you didn't care about their religion?
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in Search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their Suicide bombs. Hopefully this will all end but how exactly would you care?
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law Instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. International law should supersede all law in my opinion. Having to do with international events obviously.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine Roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care. As long as it's done necessarily
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who Have been Humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest
Assured: I don't care. College-hazing? Give our government more credit than that.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is Told not to Move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the
Bank: I don't care. In order to save the innocent you have to do what is necessary in such situations.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer Mat, and Fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is Complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely Believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care. I'm with you there.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran"
and Other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and -you guessed it -I don't care ! ! ! ! ! And here. Big deal, everyone knows what it is that is being referenced.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a Difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem."
-- Ronald Reagan They sure don't, and none of the brave Americans that make a commitment to protect our country do either.
I have another quote that I would like to add AND.......I hope You forward all this.
"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will Be a nation gone under."
Also by.. Ronald Reagan This will never happen, I am confident of that.
One last thought for the day:
In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked By one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he Said:"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how Many want in... And how many want out."
Good point! Let's keep it that way.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
Glitter, Triker - What's you take on the Hicks case? I'd love to hear from our Aussie friends: How does the US look from down under?
http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-menuext&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=david+Hicks
Glitter, Triker - What's you take on the Hicks case? I'd love to hear from our Aussie friends: How does the US look from down under?
http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-menuext&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=david+Hicks
Where's the icon for the sound of crickets chirping in an otherwise silent forum?
I find it a bit shocking - the complete lack of commentary about the Hicks case on the Bushie blogs.
The terrorists threaten our very existence.
I don't know who wrote the passage, but it seems odd that a known terrorist would write it. Still, whoever wrote it seemed to be right, in any case.
I think you've made it clear that you don't give a hoot, I'd also note that you've made it clear that when you say "no one" you mean the thirty percent of US voters that think Bushie's doin' a heck of a job.
The point of the Hicks case is that is shows the administration and its supporters don't believe their own rhetoric. If you or Rush or The Corner believe your rhetoric, where is your outrage at this administration releasing a terrorist for transparent (yet likely fruitless) political reasons?
In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. Almost nine in 10 in South Korea and just over half in France and Britain felt that way. ----MSNBC 2005
That's just it. If our very existence is at stake why are were we not talking about a draft and war bonds in the 2004 and 2006 elections?
Are tax cuts and gay marriage amendments our highest priority when our very existence is on the line? If David Hicks is a terrorist and a threat to the existence of the US how could the administration allow him to be released after a couple more months in an Aussie prison? Is shoring up Howard's electoral chances enough of a reason to risk the existence of the US??
There is no need for a draft or war bonds today because the military is far better prepared to defend than it was in the past when that stuff was needed.
Hicks was given 7 years with all suspended but 9 months. He screws up back to prison he will go. He is lucky we are lenient against him. He was captured in Afghanistan and could have paid with his life for his crimes.
Hicks---->>> GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Suspended sentence? What happened to killing ALL of those bastards? You don't sound bothered by the fact that we are going to let this guy walk. Where is this compassion(?) coming from?
How are you assessing our military function? I was under the impression that the troops were being rushed into battle with inadequate training and those serving 2 or 3 successive tours need a break and are not getting it.
Suspended sentence? What happened to killing ALL of those bastards? You don't sound bothered by the fact that we are going to let this guy walk. Where is this compassion(?) coming from?
May I suggest you read what I asked again!
"How are you assessing our military function?" ??? ??? ???
Today's military fights in a manner in which people are given time off during war.
Can you show me where you have read that are troops are receiving ample time off. I've been reading how they are pulling more time then recommended. Many, many of them will suffer some kind of psychological effects, and on top of that there are stop-loss laws preventing them to leave even if their time is up. If not for stop-loss, I believe a draft would be imminent. You keep mentioning the draft and war bonds but how are our troops really doing. Please, educate me because it sounds like you don't want to face the facts.
What is done at Gitmo doesn't even compare to what terrorists have done.
Yea, that the way to measure ourselves......by what terrorist do. I think that is totally ridiculous. Well terrorist do it. That sounds like a six year old. But Mommy I'm not as bad as "Bradley the bully". Well you don't look to "Bradley the bully", who was not brought up right, to gage oneself, but rather "Sam the scholar". What in the hell kind of logic is that, "compared to terrorist"? Oh man.......
"on rare occasions" it's always how you ask the question.
How about is torture alright as established government policy down to the platoon level?
Bigsky edited out the two year old poll results that he initally posted"on rare occasions" it's always how you ask the question.
How about is torture alright as established government policy down to the platoon level?
"The fact that a you think someone should have to die because you find it unacceptable to make a terrorist listen to rap music among other things is utterly disgusting."
This is the weakest strawman yet. How about beating people to death? Or breaking their bones?
We are a country of 300 million people yet the "fight" in what the administration and its supports describe as a "fight for America's very existence" has been delegated to the 500,000 men and women who volunteered to serve these last four years, them and the burden has been shared by the millions in their circle of support. Does that action logically flow that premise? Is it logical that we would only ask less than 1% of the population to sacrifice to prevent the destruction of the United States.
Either the threat is not what this administration has described or we are risking everything by asking nothing from 99% of the country's population.
It is clear the threat is not as described by Bush/Cheney; it is less than threats faced successfully by more able presidents.
Can you show me where you have read that are troops are receiving ample time off. I've been reading how they are pulling more time then recommended. Many, many of them will suffer some kind of psychological effects, and on top of that there are stop-loss laws preventing them to leave even if their time is up. If not for stop-loss, I believe a draft would be imminent. You keep mentioning the draft and war bonds but how are our troops really doing. Please, educate me because it sounds like you don't want to face the facts.
Todays military is set up so people rotate in and out of combat.
A question as having "ample time off" is illogical. There is no such standard that is used when one is at war because there is no "time outs" when a war is going on. We are able to rotate troops in and out of battle because we have enough to do so. Prior wars troops fought until the war was over. Not so today.
You are a grown man are you not? It is up to you to take some responsibility and educate yourself, not to be lazy and try to have others explain it in detail to you like you were a child.
No, to think a terrorist is just going to give up information by being nice and asking him for information is ignorant.
Besides that if you truly want to measure ourselves then compare what is done at Gitmo to the prior history of this country and you will see what is actually going on at Gitmo isn't even close to some of the stuff that has occurred in this country before.
The fact that a you think someone should have to die because you find it unacceptable to make a terrorist listen to rap music among other things is utterly disgusting.
Para. 1: And just how smart is it to think that the information a terrorist gives up as a result of torture is reliable?Here is some thoughts right along those lines nextnoel. There are any number of logic disconnects when these "toture-like" policies are thought through but this seems to be a particularly telling disconnect that is all over the current news. (via http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/ )
Hmmmmmmmmm.........? No such standard? Question of having ample time off is "illogical"?
I have a real problem with you telling me to "take responsibility" to........ educate myself? Even more of a problem with..."not to be lazy" and have others explain it in detail to me like I'm a CHILD.
I take the time to back up my position and points. Can you say that?
The next time you call me "lazy" or you disrespect me like you have in that post, I'm going to rip you a new ass hole.
Para. 1: And just how smart is it to think that the information a terrorist gives up as a result of torture is reliable?
Para. 2: So because we were wrong before, it's OK to be wrong again? Don't we learn anything on reflection?
Para. 3: oh, Hell, never mind.
Para. 1: And just how smart is it to think that the information a terrorist gives up as a result of torture is reliable?
Para. 2: So because we were wrong before, it's OK to be wrong again? Don't we learn anything on reflection?
Para. 3: oh, Hell, never mind.
1. First you need to understand how it works. Do not confuse what is being done with that of the inquisition of past when true torture was used. It is not taken to a point where people start making wild claims, they may bolster a bit and claim to have done more than they actually did but that is something that is normal in any type of interrogation. When used correctly one doesn't take information at fact value but checks with others to see is the information is actually true or not. Similar to what cops do when they two or more suspects that are together on a crime. They split them up and see if information collaborates.
2. It better to error on the side of caution than not abandon it and watch thousands die in another 9/11 style attack.
3. Never mind? Really, come against the wall on that one did you, you do know such a thing is done and can be considered torture.
BTW Bill, seems you forgot to answer the question:
By all means tell us just what exactly (specifics) they should do to get information out of these terrorists down in Gitmo.
2. My, oh my, so you really think our current actions are preventing another 9/11 type attack?
2. My, oh my, so you really think our current actions are preventing another 9/11 type attack?
Tell you what, if after all these years that the military has been operating Gitmo and doing this and if it was not working at all are some suggest do you really think they would continue to do this?
Our military does what it thinks needs done and its not as bad as anti-US groups claim.
"I had a good time at Guantanamo"--Mohammed Agha
You might note he was a Afghan boy who was picked up with anti coalition forces. He was conscripted into service and picked up by Afghan forces and eventually sent to Gitmo. He was held for 14-months by US authorities as a terrorist suspect in Gitmo and that prompted an outcry from human rights groups. The funny thing is he said he enjoyed his time in the camp, this was no doubt much to the chagrin of human rights groups.
He said he was treated very well and particularly enjoyed learning to speak English. Boy you can bet that burns those human rights groups who try to portray Gitmo as some ungodly place.
It was said he was taught English, Pashto, and basic math by Afghan-American teachers. All dietary and religious preferences were said to be followed.
"For two or three days I was confused," but later the Americans were so nice with me. They were giving me good food with fruit and water for ablutions before prayer." Added the boy's father: "My son got an education in America."
Doesn't your story prove my point? In the same way the way that we treated captures during previous wars, whether in Korea or Vietnam, made subsequent diplomacy easier and in general enhanced America's reputation. You are not suggesting that the boy's treatment was typical are you?
You asked what I would do were I in charge of US policy
You asked about the folks at GitMo. I'd close GitMo for the purpose of holding prisoners. I would subject captures to the rule of law and I would hold them to answer before US courts and the families impacted on 9/11. The unfortunate truth is that any hope of calling these people to answer for their crimes has been forsaken by the Bush/Cheney policies but my goal would be to have them answer for their crimes.
In general I would treat the crime of terrorism - which is a actual crime under US criminal code - just as we treat all crimes. As far as "getting" information from an uncooperative captive there is a well documented system for this that sometimes works, there are books about it and the FBI is somewhat proficient at the techniques. In my view al qaeda has far more in common with the costa nostra than the viet cong and we should treat them as such.
I thought the Bob Wright made a very good point in his NYT oped Saturday - terrorism is like a virus. You have to keep it from spreading, the people already infected may well be lost but the number one priority should be to keep the virus from spreading. Our current operations at GitMo help spread the virus and for that reason GitMo is hurting us. I doubt there is information to be had of great significance - our enemy is highly compartmentalized.
pioneered by a member of the French Gestapo by the pseudonym Masuy about 1943. The Belgian resistance referred to it as the Paris method, and the Gestapo authorized its extension from France to at least two places late in the war, Norway and Czechoslovakia. That is where people report experiencing it.In Norway, we actually have a 1948 court case that weighs whether "enhanced interrogation" using the methods approved by president Bush amounted to torture. The proceedings are fascinating, with specific reference to the hypothermia used in Gitmo, and throughout interrogation centers across the field of conflict. The Nazi defense of the techniques is almost verbatim that of the Bush administration...
Between 1942 and 1945, Bruns used the method of "verschärfte Vernehmung" on 11 Norwegian citizens. This method involved the use of various implements of torture, cold baths and blows and kicks in the face and all over the body. Most of the prisoners suffered for a considerable time from the injuries received during those interrogations.Freezing prisoners to near-death, repeated beatings, long forced-standing, waterboarding, cold showers in air-conditioned rooms, stress positions [Arrest mit Verschaerfung], withholding of medicine and leaving wounded or sick prisoners alone in cells for days on end - all these have occurred at US detention camps under the command of president George W. Bush. Over a hundred documented deaths have occurred in these interrogation sessions. The Pentagon itself has conceded homocide by torture in multiple cases. Notice the classic, universal and simple criterion used to define torture in 1948 (Sullivan's italics):
Between 1942 and 1945, Schubert gave 14 Norwegian prisoners "verschärfte Vernehmung," using various instruments of torture and hitting them in the face and over the body. Many of the prisoners suffered for a considerable time from the effects of injuries they received.
On 1st February, 1945, Clemens shot a second Norwegian prisoner from a distance of 1.5 metres while he was trying to escape. Between 1943 and 1945, Clemens employed the method of " verschäfte Vernehmung " on 23 Norwegian prisoners. He used various instruments of torture and cold baths. Some of the prisoners continued for a considerable time to suffer from injuries received at his hands.
In deciding the degree of punishment, the Court found it decisive that the defendants had inflicted serious physical and mental suffering on their victims, and did not find sufficient reason for a mitigation of the punishment in accordance with the provisions laid down in Art. 5 of the Provisional Decree of 4th May, 1945. The Court came to the conclusion that such acts, even though they were committed with the connivance of superiors in rank or even on their orders, must be regarded and punished as serious war crimes.The victims, by the way, were not in uniform. And the Nazis tried to argue, just as John Yoo did, that this made torturing them legit. The victims were paramilitary Norwegians, operating as an insurgency, against an occupying force. And the torturers had also interrogated some prisoners humanely. But the argument, deployed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Nazis before them, didn't wash with the court. Money quote:
As extenuating circumstances, Bruns had pleaded various incidents in which he had helped Norwegians, Schubert had pleaded difficulties at home, and Clemens had pointed to several hundred interrogations during which he had treated prisoners humanely.So using "enhanced interrogation techniques" against insurgent prisoners out of uniform was punishable by death. Here's the Nazi defense argument:
The Court did not regard any of the above-mentioned circumstances as a sufficient reason for mitigating the punishment and found it necessary to act with the utmost severity. Each of the defendants was responsible for a series of incidents of torture, every one of which could, according to Art. 3 (a), (c) and (d) of the Provisional Decree of 4th May, 1945, be punished by the death sentence.
(c) That the acts of torture in no case resulted in death. Most of the injuries inflicted were slight and did not result in permanent disablement.This is the Yoo position. It's what Glenn Reynolds calls the "sensible" position on torture. It was the camp slogan at Camp Nama in Iraq: "No Blood, No Foul." Now take the issue of "stress positions", photographed at Abu Ghraib and used at Bagram to murder an innocent detainee. Here's a good description of how stress positions operate:
The hands were tied together closely with a cord on the back of the prisoner, raised then the body and hung the cord to a hook, which was attached into two meters height in a tree, so that the feet in air hung. The whole body weight rested thus at the joints bent to the rear. The minimum period of hanging up was a half hour. To remain there three hours hung up, was pretty often. This punishment was carried out at least twice weekly.This is how one detainee at Abu Ghraib died (combined with beating) as in the photograph above. The experience of enduring these stress positions has been described by Rush Limbaugh as no worse than frat-house hazings. Those who have gone through them disagree. They describe:
Dreadful pain in the shoulders and wrists were the results of this treatment. Only laboriously the lung could be supplied with the necessary oxygen. The heart worked in a racing speed. From all pores the sweat penetrated.Yes, this is an account of someone who went through the "enhanced interrogation techniques" at Dachau < http://mywebpage.netscape.com/corpungermany/jur5.htm >. (Google translation here , http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/corpungermany/jur5.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522verschaerfte%2BVernehmung%2522%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3Drqi >)
Is it acceptable for the US government to torture people? My answer is "NO!". Once people are detained and completely under our control it is unacceptable for us to torture them. It is shocking to me that this point is even under discussion and I believe that the acceptance of torture by the current administration will result in damage to the interest of the United States for generations.
Today's children and tomorrow's grandchildren will be paying the price for decisions made in our name today. I think future generations will curse us.
That's not true. I would give my life in defense of the Constitution.
This administration and its supporters have lost all perspective.
I'm saying if this administration has to wiretap US citizens, open first class mail, use rendition and torture to keep me 100% safe I don't want to be 100% safe. I would rather live by constitutional law. I fully accept the dangers that implies.
I'm voting the vote. Writing the checks. I did what I could to keep these people out of power, I'll never support security at the expense of the constitution.
The thing about democracy is that you get what you vote for - I think the consequences of these people's policies will keep them out of power for a generation. I would say that 2008 is looking to be another 1932. I trust the American voters to do the right thing next November.
In Zubaydah's case, Kiriakou said the waterboarding had immediate effect.
"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," Kiriakou said in an interview first broadcast Monday evening on ABC News' World News. "From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."
The Supreme Court has decided otherwise::rofl;
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers."
Contries that practice torture also torture their own citizens be it men, women or children.
Would you still condone torture in the USA.
If you do be assured it will eventually come to that.
Contries that practice torture also torture their own citizens be it men, women or children.
Would you still condone torture in the USA.
If you do be assured it will eventually come to that.
There is no historical evidence to back up such a claim in a Constituted Republic like the US.
Quote from: mcjane on December 21, 2007, 11:37:28 PMHistorical evidence maybe not yet, but legalize torture as punishment & history will change.
Contries that practice torture also torture their own citizens be it men, women or children.
Would you still condone torture in the USA.
If you do be assured it will eventually come to that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no historical evidence to back up such a claim in a Constituted Republic like the US.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical evidence maybe not yet, but legalize torture as punishment & history will change.
One can only believe that if history is ignored. People are people. People with unchecked power are the same everywhere. That's the whole point of the constitution - power must be checked because unchecked power leads to evil every time.
Historical evidence maybe not yet, but legalize torture as punishment & history will change.
There is no evidence of that happening in a Constituted Republic like the US now is there. So if fact your claim is absurd on its face.
As to history and torture of its own citizens. Those that have done that did it long before and it was not something brought about because of terrorist attacks that killed thousands of their citizens. Those that do, is because it is generally done for political means. Such as Russia, Hitlers Germany, Current day Iran.
The very fact is anyone can claim torture since torture has such a vague definition. All it takes is the person subject to it to claim pain or suffering was beyond what they could bear.
No torture-- Yankees win World Series four times between 1996 and 2000
Torture- Yankees have not won a World Series
But seriously there is no evidence that torture resulted in actionable information that could not have been obtained through legal interrogation methods. The only people claiming the efficacy of torture are the ones doing the torturing. The purpose of torture is torture. It really is that simple.
Your argument implies that torture could also have the effect of scaring off potential mass murderers but there is far more evidence that torture and the accounts of torture actually fuel and motivate mass murderers. Ultimately the reason the United States should stand 100% against the use of torture is because torture is dumb and self-defeating; it harms us far more than any benefit it could possibly provide.
The price of a barrel of oil is a historic fact - going to be hard to pin this on anyone other than the current administration (see graph ... remember oil below $20 a barrel? sigh)
Not sure I understand your point about the US's treatment of Indians - is this to say that people fingered by a corrupt Iraqi secret service should be treated as sub-humans in the same way non-anglos were treated as sub-humans back in the day? Are you saying Andrew Johnson's injun policy worked so well we should use it as a guide to the Middle East?
The most serious difference between today and the numerous examples of torture in US history is that today torture is being condoned by political leaders and systematically used as a tactic of first resort. The constitutional issue is that this is being done without regard to existing US law and treaty obligations. If the law is to mean anything then it must apply to everyone.
The current president had carte blanc for 5 years after 9/11. He could have chosen to conduct his war within our constitutional framework, instead he chose to act as an unitary executive daring the legislative and judicial branch to stop him. Administration officials have resorted to complete memory failure and contempt of Congress in an all encompassing effort to run out the clock on their term in office. Maybe if his policies were successful their legality would have been overlooked but that is not what happened. His policies have been amateurish and not well thought out. The blow back from our post 9/11 policies will haunt us for generations. Our blind blundering bluster has been a disaster. An example of defeating ones self. I don't see everyone forgetting the sequence of events anytime soon. At least I am hoping that the 40% of Americans who believe in a Saddam-9/11 tie are also mostly people who will stay home on election day, dissatisfied that Rudy lost in the primary.
Not sure I understand your point about the US's treatment of Indians - is this to say that people fingered by a corrupt Iraqi secret service should be treated as sub-humans in the same way non-anglos were treated as sub-humans back in the day? Are you saying Andrew Johnson's injun policy worked so well we should use it as a guide to the Middle East?
I'm sure you dont know. Pretty clear on that.
You claim 200 years of tradition and honor going down the drain by our actions today, yet you fail to even comprehend our history and therefor your claim of tradition and honor being lost is false because it doesnt even compare to what past generations did, which was far worse in this country.The most serious difference between today and the numerous examples of torture in US history is that today torture is being condoned by political leaders and systematically used as a tactic of first resort. The constitutional issue is that this is being done without regard to existing US law and treaty obligations. If the law is to mean anything then it must apply to everyone.
Hmm so was the trail of tears, infecting tribes with smallpox by giving them infected blankets etc. etc.
Let me make sure I understand you. You are saying we can't loose our honor because we never had any honor to begin with? You are saying that we can justify torture today because we've done far worse to better people in our history?
The illegality of torture does not depend on America having a saintly past. We signed international treaties constraining our actions freely, of our own free will. And it is true that even after agreeing to abide by the Geneva Conventions we used torture. What is unprecedented is not the torture, but the openness. In the past our government kept secrets; the crimes were sanctioned but they were committed in the shadows, officially denied and condemned. The Bush administration has demanded the right to torture without shame, they've worked to make torture legal through new definitions and new laws like the cynically named Patriot Act.
Maybe you're right and it was always only a myth that "we're better than them" but it is what we use to tell ourselves.
Here is all that torture is good for: inspiring fear in a population. If you want it widely known that your ruling regime is utterly ruthless and doesn’t care about individuals, all you have to do is scoop up random people suspected of anti-government activities, hold them for a few weeks, and return them as shattered wrecks with mangled limbs, while treating the monsters who would do such a thing as respected members of the ruling clique, who are immune from legal prosecution. The message gets out fast that one does not cross the government.
So, yeah, if you’re a tyrant in Uzbekistan who is holding control through force of arms, fear is a useful part of the apparatus of control, and torture is a great idea, as are barbaric executions, heads on pikes, and bullets to the back of the head.
When the US government announces it’s support for torture, they aren’t talking about intelligence gathering: they are simply saying “Fear us.” They are taking the first step on the road to tyranny.
The real problem is that fear isn’t a good tool to use in a democratic society. We are supposed to be shareholders in our government; when a process of oppression is endorsed by our legislators and president, we should recognize that they are trying to set themselves apart from the ordinary citizenry, and it’s time to rebel…before the goon squads come to your neighborhood. Anyone who supports torture is a traitor to the democratic form of government, and should be voted out of office, if not impeached.
Hmmm all take your no answer as a NO that the US court has not found what is going on at Gitmo as torture and illegal.
Hmmm all take your no answer as a NO that the US court has not found what is going on at Gitmo as torture and illegal.
In 1947 the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
still no US court has found what we are doing at Gitmo as illegal or torture now has it!
still no US court has found what we are doing at Gitmo as illegal or torture now has it!
Oh please....that doesn't mean it isn't so. It is what it is, we all know that. Do "we" really want to tell on ourselves and be looked down upon on the worldly stage. Get real dude. Counting on the U.S. court to rule our actions at Gitmo as illegal is like conting on the C.I.A. to voluntarily tell on itself every time they misbehave.
Hmmm all take your no answer as a NO that the US court has not found what is going on at Gitmo as torture and illegal.
In 1947 the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
Hmm still no US court has found what we are doing at Gitmo as illegal or torture now has it!
Hmm yet no US court has said the method of waterboarding they are using in Gitmo right now is torture or illegal now have they!
In fact it doesn't look like it harmed old Khalid Sheik Mohammed now did it?
Considering the method that was used in Gitmo of covering the terrorists face with cellophane, and having water poured over it hardly seems to be torture.
Fake executions, triggering the deeply ingrained human terror of drowning - not to mention the secrete renditions and off the books gulag,
That's it right there isn't it. It isn't about any individual and what they do or do not have in there hearts. It's about continuing to seek random vengeance (as compared to targeted justice against the actual perpetrators who remain at large) for 9/11 six years after the fact, this sounds like a pathology rather than a tactic in the long War ON Terror.
Freedom is torture; up is down; right is left; black is white. I'm starting to understand the torture party's tactics. I'm sure next we'll hear that Bush is doubleplusgood.
Black Sites At Sea?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/black-sites-at.html
I have learned to trust nothing about detention and interrogation from this administration, so I am perfectly prepared to believe this story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/usa.humanrights) on prison ships in the Guardian. It makes the non-partisan Reject Torture campaign (http://rejecttorture.org/) all the more salient.
The practices that have come to light are barbaric and at odds with the historical values of the United States.Yes, exactly. It's a terrible shame.
It is a very big deal and we'll be paying the price for years to come. Again and again, person after person, the people directly involved in carrying out this administration's policies have said that the policies have created a greater threat then they have prevented. Again and again, to a person. The policies amount to no more than sadism. With no point beyond feeding a visceral sense of power. We're already seeing the damage the policies have had on those carrying them out - we'll have to deal with the shattered minions for years and years.
I believe that supporters of this administration will wake up one day ashamed. Ashamed that they mortgaged the safety of their children and grandchildren for some marginal improvement in their own safety. Ashamed they chose themselves over future generations.
At least one thing seems certain, no matter who wins the Presidential election the torture regime will end.
The practices that have come to light are barbaric and at odds with the historical values of the United States.
I will say that I do not enjoy the tone of your posts which I experience as verbal bullying. Things are often not as black and white as you may wish them to be and verbally clubbing people does not a good discussion make.
Black Sites At Sea?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/black-sites-at.html
I have learned to trust nothing about detention and interrogation from this administration, so I am perfectly prepared to believe this story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/usa.humanrights) on prison ships in the Guardian. It makes the non-partisan Reject Torture campaign (http://rejecttorture.org/) all the more salient.
In her telling, a major incentive for Mr. Cheney’s descent into the dark side was to cover up for the Bush White House’s failure to heed the Qaeda threat in 2001. Jack Cloonan, a special agent for the F.B.I.’s Osama bin Laden unit until 2002, told Ms. Mayer that Sept. 11 was “all preventable.” By March 2000, according to the C.I.A.’s inspector general, “50 or 60 individuals” in the agency knew that two Al Qaeda suspects — soon to be hijackers — were in America. But there was no urgency at the top. Thomas Pickard, the acting F.B.I. director that summer, told Ms. Mayer that when he expressed his fears about the Qaeda threat to Mr. Ashcroft, the attorney general snapped, “I don’t want to hear about that anymore!”
After 9/11, our government emphasized “interrogation over due process,” Ms. Mayer writes, “to pre-empt future attacks before they materialized.” But in reality torture may well be enabling future attacks. This is not just because Abu Ghraib snapshots have been used as recruitment tools by jihadists. No less destructive are the false confessions inevitably elicited from tortured detainees. The avalanche of misinformation since 9/11 has compromised prosecutions, allowed other culprits to escape and sent the American military on wild-goose chases. The coerced “confession” to the murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to take one horrific example, may have been invented to protect the real murderer.
The biggest torture-fueled wild-goose chase, of course, is the war in Iraq. Exhibit A, revisited in “The Dark Side,” is Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an accused Qaeda commander whose torture was outsourced by the C.I.A. to Egypt. His fabricated tales of Saddam’s biological and chemical W.M.D. — and of nonexistent links between Iraq and Al Qaeda — were cited by President Bush in his fateful Oct. 7, 2002, Cincinnati speech ginning up the war and by Mr. Powell in his subsequent United Nations presentation on Iraqi weaponry. Two F.B.I. officials told Ms. Mayer that Mr. al-Libi later explained his lies by saying: “They were killing me. I had to tell them something.
“Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient
methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that
such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.”
-David H. Petraeus, General, United States Army, Commanding
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/petraeus_values_051007.pdf
Do we know what plots may have been avoided due to manipulation of people agains there wills?
Torture is so unPC.
And so many here seem to be PC.
Maybe we should just be nice to them, give them candy and soda, cable TV, Nintendo games ,personal laptops, steak and lobster everyday so then all terrorists will want to be caught. Heck lets paint and manicure their nails while were at it. Seems like the the most liberal treatment to me, and all the while we have homeless shelters overflowing, bankruptcy filings at an increased level and shortage of jobs. That's OK Our people can be treated inhumane, but don't dare treat a terrorist prisoner disrespectfully. I'm sorry if anyone comes into my house with murder and torture on their minds, I will defend my family, and either the intruder or I will be leaving in a hearse, that is a promise. I feel the same about my Country.
Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Abu+Ghraib?tid=informline) and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.
The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.
One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate.""
.
Torture and abuse cost American lives. That's really all I need to know.
.
Torture and abuse cost American lives. That's really all I need to know.
And the fact is not doing a damn thing cost nearly 3000 American lives on 9/11.
That's called a non sequetor.
Maybe we should just be nice to them, give them candy and soda, cable TV, Nintendo games ,personal laptops, steak and lobster everyday so then all terrorists will want to be caught. Heck lets paint and manicure their nails while were at it. Seems like the the most liberal treatment to me, and all the while we have homeless shelters overflowing, bankruptcy filings at an increased level and shortage of jobs. That's OK Our people can be treated inhumane, but don't dare treat a terrorist prisoner disrespectfully. I'm sorry if anyone comes into my house with murder and torture on their minds, I will defend my family, and either the intruder or I will be leaving in a hearse, that is a promise. I feel the same about my Country.
I love the fact that the leading military interrogators in the Armed forces are ignored or called PC by dilletantes who don't have any experience outside of the 24 marathon.
That is a truly amazing point of view BigSky. A leading person in the field of interrogation makes a definitive statement, but is discounted, just because someone else somewhere else ignored his findings? You could have appeal to to other authority, but you are appealing to your own opinion. You have no authority ont he issue whatsoever.
When we break the law, we have no ground to stand on when our soldiers are tortured. Is that acceptable? No, it will lead to anarchy.
All I can say is that I am looking forward to an administration populated by folks who have mastered critical thinking and complex reasoning skills.
QuoteAll I can say is that I am looking forward to an administration populated by folks who have mastered critical thinking and complex reasoning skills.
What about our enemies? don't they have to be this smart and ethical too- or we just keep getting killed....and they get compassion?
I actually don't believe in torture either.
Just shoot the bastards in the head and get it over with.
maybe you would rather have someone more in tune with condemning the US like- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad determine your fate. If you were a US prisoner- you would not be killed or maimed, and if you were by chance to get your head wet, lol....
anyway - your entitled to your opinion,
and I am entitled to mine.
maybe you would rather have someone more in tune with condemning the US like- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad determine your fate. If you were a US prisoner- you would not be killed or maimed, and if you were by chance to get your head wet, lol....
anyway - your entitled to your opinion,
and I am entitled to mine.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion Glitter, but I don't believe that anyone here is suggesting that they'd rather have Ahmadinejad as their leader because they say that they don't believe that torture is is an acceptable or "effective" interrogation tool. And because someone says that they don't think the US should do it (or Canada or anywhere else that considers itself civilized) that doesn't mean that they are anti-USA or condemning the USA. It means they don't believe in torture, not they support the terrorists. These are not the choices before us. Not believing in torture also does not mean being lenient or treating suspects or prisoners with luxury. It means refusing to participate in practices of torture on a number of grounds. Of course this isn't a perfect world and not of us are perfect people but I'm saying that collectively we must never stop trying to be better than our basest selves.
maybe you would rather have someone more in tune with condeming the US like- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad determine your fate.
P.S. Don't you have your own site? ???
Im sickened to see so many people want the TERRORISTS to have SO MANY RIGHTS>
While they kill innocent children men and woman. :puke; :puke; :puke; :puke; :puke;
. Yes maybe i am wrong and we truly are the bad guys.
Dont be a hater because others have a different viewpoint.
Maybe if you lived close to the WTC and saw MUSLIMS dancing in the streets in Patterson NJ. You would have a different mind set. Then again maybe not?
You missed what Judge Crawford said, and also the issue relating to record keeping at Guantanamo.
The terrorists we have given trials int he US are in prison. The Ones held in Gitmo without trial, records or evidence, are going t o be less free. These men who were released, if they were Al Qaeda should have had trials and been jailed in the US. They were set free because of the way they were held.
In short the conclusion of those documents show it was not considered torture because it does not constitute severe pain or severe suffering as required under international law.
All this Administration can do is claim its torture now. They have absolutely zero power to do anything to anyone before they issued the claim it is now considered torture.
The UN doesn't even have a list of acts it considers torture under the convention.
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.
So from what im reading a some people would rather AGAIN another 3000 or maybe 300,000 Americans should die from a terrorist attack.
Plain and simple. Even if they knew they beyond a doubt they could avoid this terrorist attack with waterboarding. Or putting a man in a box with a Caterpillar.
I mean come on its not like we are killing them? and even if we did? They arnt under arrest for jaywalking.
Manda i agree with you 100%. We do it out of necessity not for fun.
From what im hearing any terrorist that runs out of ammunition should wave a white flag be arrested then claim he has rights to be brought to America and put on trail. Where the ACLU and many on the left would actually try to get them off. This is my viewpoint in a nutshell.
Interrogatees who are withholding but who feel qualms of guilt and a secret desire to yield are likely to become intractable if made to endure pain. The reason is that they can then interpret the pain as punishment and hence as expiation. There are also persons who enjoy pain and its anticipation and who will keep back information that they might otherwise divulge if they are given reason to expect that withholding will result in the punishment that they want. Persons of considerable moral or intellectual stature often find in pain inflicted by others a confirmation of the belief that they are in the hands of inferiors, and their resolve not to submit is strengthened.
Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time-consuming delay results, while investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up new, more complex "admissions" that take still longer to disprove. KUBARK is especially vulnerable to such tactics because the interrogation is conducted for the sake of information and not for police purposes.
If an interrogatee is caused to suffer pain rather late in the interrogation process and after other tactics have failed, he is almost certain to conclude that the interrogator is becoming desperate. He may then decide that if he can just hold out against this final assault, he will win the struggle and his freedom. And he is likely to be right. Interrogatees who have withstood pain are more difficult to handle by other methods. The effect has been not to repress the subject but to restore his confidence and maturity.
I have been engaged in the hunt for al-Qaeda for almost two decades. And, as I once wrote in the Daily News, I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people - as we trained our own fighting men and women to endure and resist the interrogation tactics they might be subjected to by our enemies. I know waterboarding is torture because I have been on the giving and receiving end of the practice.
This was during the last four years of my military career, when I served at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school. Working there, and helping protect our servicemen and women, was my greatest pride. We especially emphasized escape, because captivity by al-Qaeda's Jihadis would be severe, if not, final. Our methods of instruction were intense, but realistic and safe.
Now, at long last, six years of denials can now be swept aside, and we can say definitively: America engaged in torture and legalized it through paperwork.
Worst of all was that an agency advising the Justice Department, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, knew that these coercive techniques would not work if captives devoutly trusted in their God and kept faith with each other. Yet those two characteristics are pre-qualifications for being allowed into al-Qaeda. Other non-coercive methods - the central focus of which is humanely deprogramming them of their religious ideological brainwashing - are now turning al-Qaeda members in Indonesia, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But they were never considered. Perhaps they were not macho enough.
Nance is the Founding Director of the International Counterterrorism Center for Excellence at Hudson N.Y. and author of "The Terrorist Recognition Handbook - A Practitioner's Manual for Predicting and Identifying Terrorist Activity."
Here's someone who knows more than anyone here:
I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people - as we trained our own fighting men and women to endure and resist the interrogation tactics they might be subjected to by our enemies. I know waterboarding is torture because I have been on the giving and receiving end of the practice.
As forr the numbers of terrorists you give- can you give us any cites or cases? I've tried hard to give you solid material to work with, and would appreciate an effort at reciprocation.
The stuff from emptywheel.
Sorry but what they have done is pull something not only out of context, but they pulled it out and applied it out of sequence of the report.
Such as their claim about "but never more than 40 seconds". That is not what was said.
It says "at periods of at most 40 seconds.
This sentence is not in the context of them telling the CIA it is limited to only that amount of time as emptywheel is trying to evidently claim.
The context it what was said is one relaying what was told to them in how the technique is done.
The next sentences actually do go into detail by the writer in how the technique can be applied and for how long.
The waterboard may be authorized for, at most, one 30 day period, during which the technique can actually be applied on no more than five days. Further, there can be no more than two sessions in any 24 hour period. Each session--the time during which the detainee is strapped to the waterboard - last no more than two hours. There may be at most six applications of water lasting 10 second or longer during any session, and water may be applied for a total of no more than 12 minutes during any 24 hours period.
As you can see nowhere in how they tell them it can be done does it say its limited to only 40 seconds at a time.
Alsoof note in all of this KSM had said the US population was weak and lack resilience and would be unable to do what was necessary to prevent terrorists from succeeding in their goals.
He dared us and we proved him wrong.
Leave aside for a moment the policy debate over torture in the abstract. From the very beginning, that has been largely moot. Why? Because even if you believe that the president has the duty to torture terror suspects, under the constitution, he has no legal right to do so without Congress' passage of legislation repealing the laws and treaties governing such torture. The use of torture is part of the laws of war and only Congress has the constitutional authority (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html")
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water
It can't really be clearer than that. And the reason, of course, is the colonists' memory of the power of the monarch, especially with respect to torturing and mistreating prisoners of war. Now no legal authority in human history would judge the waterboarding of a prisoner 83 or 183 times in one month as anything but torture. If it were done to a US soldier, would Dick Cheney refuse to call it torture? Of course not, although it is telling that no reporter has ever asked him this obvious question directly.
And so it is simply an empirical fact that president Bush broke the law and violated his oath of office by ordering the torture of prisoners.
Note that this wasn't an emergency moment, or a ticking time-bomb scenario. It was a decision to torture made months after the 9/11 attacks and re-asserted years after the 9/11 attack, and set up as a program, with elaborate rules, staffing and bureaucracy, to torture prisoners for the indefinite future.
Now fast-forward to February 2007 when the International Committee of the Red Cross notifies the president of the United States that it believes that his administration has engaged in what was unequivocally torture of prisoners. At that point, the president is required, by law and by treaty (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/19/obama-violated-int-law/), to open an investigation and prosecution of the guilty parties. The president failed to do that, another breach of the law. Moreover, any president privy to that information is required to initiate an investigation and prosecution - or violate the law and the Geneva Conventions.
And so Obama's refusal to investigate war crimes is itself against the law. And so torture's cancerous route through the legal and constitutional system continues, contaminating the future as well as the past, rendering the US incapable of upholding Geneva against other nations, because it has violated Geneva itself, and giving to every tyrant on the planet a justification for the torture of prisoners.
In this scenario, America becomes a city on a hill, where the rule of law is optional and torture acceptable if parsed into legal memos that do not pass the most basic professional sniff-test.
America becomes a banana republic.
Emptywheel is trying to find a way to get to 183 sessions in a month under the Bush/Cheney approved guidelines. He could only get to 90 by making assumptions that I agree aren't warranted. When I read it I am left thinking that at the most someone would be waterboarded 10 times: twice in a day/5 times a month. Yet KSM gets it 183 times in a month. You can't follow these guidelines and get to 183. I don't think you can get past 10 (I don't know why you'd need to do it more than once).
By Philip Zelikow
I first gained access to the OLC memos and learned details about CIA's program for high-value detainees shortly after the set of opinions were issued in May 2005. I did so as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's policy representative to the NSC Deputies Committee on these and other intelligence/terrorism issues.
...
The underlying absurdity of the administration's position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail.
In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest -- if the alleged national security justification was compelling. I did not believe our federal courts could reasonably be expected to agree with such a reading of the Constitution.
Cuba is certainly not a county jail in the US.
What you seem to forget is the memos cite a vast array of legal rulings, conventions etc etc etc which support that what was done was legal and it was still within the scope of those rules, laws and treaties set forth by Congress.
It would be up to those opposed to cite legal rulings disputing each and everyone of those that are within those memos. That isnt being done.
I might add:
Whole story at:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949
CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.
What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949) Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060209-4.html), Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" (italics mine). A subsequent fact sheet (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070523.html) released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up (italics mine) a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell (http://articles.latimes.com/p/2005/oct/08/nation/na-terror8) the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003 (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/timeline/timeline_2.html).
The house of cards is crumbling and the hearings haven't even begun.
Right, but the justification was that there was a ticking bomb and we got information about future attacks. Now, we got '"Important background information about how Al Qaeda worked". Do you see the slide? The lies and the cover up are at least as problematic as the torture itself.
Right, but the justification was that there was a ticking bomb and we got information about future attacks. Now, we got '"Important background information about how Al Qaeda worked". Do you see the slide? The lies and the cover up are at least as problematic as the torture itself.
There has been no sliding.
It was under this current Administration that the CIA said these harsh interrogation techniques worked and stopped a terrorist attack.
Not only that, but the top National Intelligence director under this current Administration also said that these interrogation techniques also "produced significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists."
Like Paul says we can go back and forth.
You say what we did doesnt work and its torture.
I said what we did work did and didnt rise to the level of torture.
The evidence is on my side.
The evidence shows what we did do did work as admitted by this Administration.
Also the evidence that it wasnt torture is supported by a vast array of legal rulings, etc etc and and to that point all of that vast array of information has not been disproved by those who are against what was done.
You seem very happy that men trying to save American lives may be heading to prison.
You seem happy that the terrorists cant be harmed but rather coddled like good ol boys.
Enjoy your big smile and happy times.
Cause these TERRORISTS still want to kill us. Even people like you who stick up for them.
And dont even say anything about the constitution that obama walks on daily.
Sad to see your inspirational leader Mr. Obama can flip on and off like a lightswitch. He just follows the polls from day to day to see what to do. And when he misspeaks Pelozi makes him take it back.
How loud will you cheer if these men and woman protecting your rights and LIFE end up in prison??
And you say i have issues. :urcrazy;
I want america to be safe. That is my issue.
I dont even want you to be harmed by terrorists.....
I don't know how you can think this narrative makes sense after that anonymous CIA source was completely debunked by the Bush administration's own timeline. The Obama administration has not admitted torture worked - and it is clearly torture, that debate ended when the internal memos confirmed the International Red Cross report.
One of the things I was voting for in November was for the President to depoliticize the Department of Justice. That seems to have happened, or repairing the damage has begun and I think this case will be where the Department reasserts its historic role. There is going to have to be a special prosecutor and I'm await the verdict of justice. Separate from that I think there should be a full accounting as Congress fulfills its Constitutional oversight role.
If you're going to quote Dennis Blair why not provide his whole quote?
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”
It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.
We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.
There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.
Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.
Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).
My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue. (It’s worth noting that when reading between the lines of the newly released memos, it seems clear that it was contractors, not C.I.A. officers, who requested the use of these techniques.)
You haven't given a citation.The Al Jazeera website has nothing about any report.
It fits your narrative too closely to be accepted prima facie, and there is nothing about that on Al Jazeera or any other international or domestic news service.
Abuses began to pick up in December after Obama was elected, human rights lawyer Ahmed Ghappour told Reuters. He cited beatings, the dislocation of limbs, spraying of pepper spray into closed cells, applying pepper spray to toilet paper and over-forcefeeding detainees who are on hunger strike.
According to two sources—one who has read a draft of the paper and one who was briefed on it—the report describes how one detainee, suspected USS Cole bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was threatened with a gun and a power drill during the course of CIA interrogation. According to the sources, who like others quoted in this article asked not to be named while discussing sensitive information, Nashiri's interrogators brandished the gun in an effort to convince him that he was going to be shot. Interrogators also turned on a power drill and held it near him. "The purpose was to scare him into giving [information] up," said one of the sources. A federal law banning the use of torture expressly forbids threatening a detainee with "imminent death."
The report also says, according to the sources, that a mock execution was staged in a room next to a detainee, during which a gunshot was fired in an effort to make the suspect believe that another prisoner had been killed. The inspector general's report alludes to more than one mock execution.