When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
126 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron
14 years ago
And Mata:
The SERE training you are referring to is used to train our soldiers in the event that they are held by captures that don’t abide by the Geneva conventions….which by the way, we are to adhere to.
And I know you’re going to say that those apply only to soldiers in an Army….but somehow I think this Jihadis do consider themselves to be some sort of soldier for Allah and shit.
So you or Mike or Aye would have no qualms with being water-boarded or undergoing “harsh interrogation techniques” by a foreign government if you were ever swept up accidentally and accused of terrorism? Once they released you you would go on your merry ways and would never once accuse them of torture?
And I’m still waiting for a logical response to why Japanese soldiers were convicted for torture when they water-boarded US soldiers but then we turn around and do it and it’s legal.
Ron, I don’t care what the Jihad scumbags consider themselves to be. Rules of engagement for any military (under Geneva Convention) does not include deliberate targeting of civilian innocents… as they do at every opportunity. So if you want to give their self-perception as warriors of Allah credibility, you’re standing on that pinhead alone, and way off the mark of reality. You are thinking emotionally only.
Have no clue about your “no qualms being waterboarded” by a foreign government question. Like what power do we have over a foreign goverment, and what’s the point of your question? Again, with you, it’s all emotional. If I am suspected of being a terrorist operative, I’m quite sure they’ll do everything they can to get info out of me in other countries. And rightly so. And you wonder if I’m innocent, will I whine and take action with what legal means? Maybe. On the other hand if I got out of an oppressive foreign prison, I’m not likely to skirt their territory again…. legally or physically.
What you advocate is let everyone else have harsh interrogation techinques, but not us. You also think it’s okay to put our soldiers thru it, with suffering NO irreparable harm, but gasp at the thought of doing it to a suspected terrorist. Huh?
Tell you what. If you want clean hands, how about we ship ’em to places that will get results, and the nanny terrorist coddlers can sleep better at night. Me? I still say shoot ’em, or leave those they think can provide intel in Obama’s Gitmo. Funny how that’s a subject few of you “anti-Gitmo/anti-terror/give the detainees rights” types don’t want to address. That’s a tangible subject, not some silly, emotional school girl hypothetical of how I’d “feel” if I were waterboarded in a foreign country.
Ron: You and Mata are missing the point entirely. I could care less about the terrorists who were water-boarded. But when you institute polices that are defined as torture, and use them, you run the risk of innocent people getting tortured as well as wide spread abuse.
This is true of any law or practice, Ron. I didn’t like the creation of the financial czar via TARP under Bush because it concentrated too much power in one man, and an unelected one to boot. The potential for abuse is not only readily apparent, the power grab is expanding daily with under this czar heavy admin and their self-appointed powers.
So yes… abuse of any policy or law is always a potential. But it’s good know know your sympathies are *not* lying with those “victim” human scum. But with the exception of the sadistic few that will pop up in any particular circle, the majority of interrogators are not likely to use such extremes merely to find out if the neighbor has a pot farm growing…. which seems to be what you may be alluding to.
But this leads me to your next comment about how we didn’t torture Nazi officials, and (per the interrogators of that era) got more info out of them over a game of ping pong, a steak dinner or chess. Totally irrelevant. These were soldiers by career (short term or long) and not ideologues. You cannot compare a German soldier (who’d probably rather not be on the battlefield, but it’s his job), to a rabid Islamic jihad fighter, fanatical to his cause. Completely different critters.
Another difference is a German soldier was acting under state orders… not a gang, thug wacko owing allegiance only to their revered terrorist leaders and cells.
I suspect that the difference between most of us is how you view the enemy. I don’t see them as POWs, but enemy combatants. I don’t think they should have Constitutional rights, and I think we should hold them as long as intel and military officials deem. And frankly, I don’t care what they do to them in order to gain the inside skinny on who and what they know. Just don’t take pictures, fer heavens sake.
Your argument has truck sized holes in it but I will try to be gentle with you.
does it bother you that INNOCENT people could and have been tortured?
Where’s the documentation that says that INNOCENT people have been tortured?
The CIA used the technique on THREE people. THREE.
Where are the innocents in that trio?
I could care less about the terrorists who were water-boarded.
Why do your knickers seem to be all in a twist then?
when you institute polices that are defined as torture, and use them, you run the risk of innocent people getting tortured as well as wide spread abuse.
Who is defining these techniques as “torture”?
The use of EIT is strictly limited to last resort, ticking bomb type situations. Read the memos that have been released.
Does the application of EIT sound routine to you?
We didn’t torture Nazi officers during World War II and yet we were still able to gather intelligence from them.
We could go into an extended discussion here of what went on in WWII and what our techniques were but I don’t have ready access to my research materials or the time to do that now. I will tell you this much though. The techniques were not as kind, gentle, and understanding as you may like to believe they are.
And why is it illegal for the FBI and ALL other domestic law inforcement to water-board or torture?
Let’s ask Curt if it would be okay to water-board a suspect to gather a confession. I bet he says it’s illegal. This isn’t about some”lefty” position it’s about the letter of the law.
Ummm….sorry to break it to you but US law is a much different animal than the laws of warfare.
The comparison doesn’t work.
You’re bringing apples to a pear festival.
What you need to understand is that there is no law against EIT.
And even though those men are not legal citizens, it is hypocritical of us to use techniques on others that we are not allowed to use on ourselves.
Again, another hole in your argument.
Our servicemen and women(?) are waterboarded as part of their specialized (SERE) training procedures.
So, no, we don’t use techniques on others that we are not allowed to use on ourselves.
Now, let’s revisit Mike’s question. I’ve taken the liberty of rewording it a bit to see if I can elicit a yes or no answer.
“If a terror plot were imminent, and a terror suspect was in custody who had the information to save thousands of lives, including those of some of your family, would you be willing to allow the use of EIT’s to save those lives?”
I have a question for you Aye…….did we water-board Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols to gather information about who else might of been involved in the Oklahoma City Bombings? Did we use any “Enhanced interrogation techniques” on suspects in one of the worst domestic TERRORISM acts in US history?
Why didn’t we on them but we can on some foreigner? I know McVeigh and Nichols were US citizens….but how are they different from the 9/11 terrorists as far as intent?
Another apples / oranges comparison Ron.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’m guessing that you’re not being deliberately obtuse but it’s very difficult to say for sure.
The US Constitution gives protections to those like McVeigh and Nichols but, of course, you already know that. Furthermore, the US Constitution does not give protections to foreigners captured on a foreign battlefield. I expect that you know that too.
Would I have approved of some really harsh techniques for the likes of vermin like the OKC duo….perhaps…IF…and you’ll notice that is a big “if” there was evidence that these two were part of an extended plot and that more lives were going to be lost?
Yes, absolutely. I wouldn’t think twice about it and I would take my chances in front of a jury.
However, just as the Constitution protects speech that we don’t like, it also provides protections for the most vile criminal defendants.
Fortunately, there was never any evidence that other lives were in danger though, so the point is moot.
Ron
14 years ago
Thanks for going easy on me as you realize that this isn’t personal, we just disagree on the fundamental question of what is and isn’t torture.
So to answer your question, No Aye I wouldn’t allow them to be water-boarded. Because if I said yes I’d be a hypocrite now wouldn’t I?
Let me ask you a question then. A US citizen just blew up the pentagon, and there are other bombs he planted. Do you water-board him or used “enhance interrogation” techniques to get info? Even though it violates US law and his constitutional rights, it could save thousands of lives…do you torture him?
I’m trying to understand the difference if it’s just about saving lives and laws are irrelevant.
And again the SERE training is used to train our soldiers to resist captors who don’t adhere to the Geneva conventions which we do.
And my comparison does work Aye because we are both talking about a detainee. I’m not talking about what happens on the battle field Aye. Once a person is captured and are no longer a threat, why is it okay to water-board a foreigner and not a US citizen? I’m speaking morally here Aye. Why is the standard for a US citizen higher than that of a non US citizen when it comes to how thet are treated?
A US citizen just blew up the pentagon, and there are other bombs he planted. Do you water-board him or used “enhance interrogation” techniques to get info? Even though it violates US law and his constitutional rights, it could save thousands of lives…do you torture him?
As I said to you in post 55, I would do whatever was necessary to protect the thousands of innocent lives hanging in the balance.
I would opt to save those lives if possible and then take my chances with a jury if necessary.
Even if I was found guilty of some “crime” the thousands saved would still have been saved and I wouldn’t have their blood on my hands.
And my comparison does work Aye because we are both talking about a detainee. I’m not talking about what happens on the battle field Aye. Once a person is captured and are no longer a threat, why is it okay to water-board a foreigner and not a US citizen? I’m speaking morally here Aye. Why is the standard for a US citizen higher than that of a non US citizen when it comes to how thet are treated?
I highlighted the key phrase in that segment.
The EIT’s are reserved for those who ARE still considered a threat or high-value. The EIT’s are ONLY used in cases of a ticking-bomb pending plot type scenario.
These techniques are not routine.
You continue to try and mix and match US law, the Constitution, and peacetime legal practices and standards with those of the battlefield.
They don’t mesh together and were never intended to be one and the same.
Ron
14 years ago
Mata
I’m not giving them any credibility or validating how these men view themselves Mata…which is why I said “and shit” at the end. Sarcasm.
And you entirely missed to crux of my question. This isn’t about emotional thinking Mata..is about consistency. If you are water-boarded and subjected to harsh interrogation by a foreign government would you consider yourself to have been tortured? I’m honestly trying to understand the mindset that’s all.
And abuses have happened as a result. If you like I can do a bunch of cutting a pasting but i know that annoys you guys.
If you want to address “consistancy”, Ron, perhaps you should reconcile your own first. You have repeated a couple of times that the SERE training is part of our military captive training. But if you want to be consistant, “torture” (which you consider waterboarding to be) is torture. It’s either legal or it’s not… whether used on our own military, or on detainees.
You either prosecute the military trainers for inflicting the same “torture” on soldiers as they do prisoners, or you don’t.
As far as your persistent hypothetical goes, I would consider being forced into any treatment or situation I don’t want “torture”. And sometimes that includes debates here on FA…. LOL
Now that’s pretty broad. Shall we then start proscuting students for hazing? Obviously a form of “torture”. However were I in the position of being waterboarded by a foreign government, I’d likely be happy to be free with my head and limbs still intact, and able to go on my merry way in life. But who knows how people react to such situations. It is not a question that could be answered with any viability. Thus it is “emotionally” based.
Ron
14 years ago
To aye:
I don’t mean as a private citizen. You are a police officer who has a person detained who may have knowledge about another attack. Do you violate his constitutional rights and torture him? I’m assuming your answer is still yes. So my question is what’s the point of having any laws or standards for that matter if you are willing to violate them when you feel it’s warranted?
You see that’s what doesn’t make since about your argument. On the one hand you say US law and the laws of warfare are different and that US citizen’s should be treated differently because of our Constitutional rights and yet you also say that you would violate someone’s Constititional rights if it were warranted. I’d say you views are pretty much about changing the rules as you go where I believe in adhering to the Constitution and any treaties signed by the US.
That’s the basic difference seems like
Ron
Ron
14 years ago
Mata
Generally speaking torture is something done against your will. And the SERE program is used on people who volunteered. Christopher Hitchens volunteered to be Water-boarded for an article in Vanity Fair. Should we prosecute the people who did it? Obviously not. But had Mr. Hitchens been kidnapped and water-boarded by force, then yes. You can’t see the difference in that argument?
And he said that it was in fact torture…based on his experience.
And I’m still waiting for an answer as to why water-bourding was considered torture when performed on US soldiers during World War II, but now it’s not. Seriously when did the laws change?
@Ron #61: I understand you may not reappear here until a more opportune time, but I needed to address your “voluntary” vs “involuntary” argument as it relates to torture (i.e. waterboarding, but not limited solely to that act).
To use your reasoning, anything done to me that I consider “torture” then opens up a realm of possibilities for litigation and legislative interference, based strictly on whether one “volunteered” or not. And what constitutes the degree and harshness of torture? Shall we have a list? Is it based on how I am affected emotionally/mentally? Boy does that “pain and suffering” leer it’s ugly head in our judicial system at every turn.
I’d consider it torture to be locked into a room listening to loud hip hop music. (i.e. the “torture” of 24/7 loud music) Will that make “the list” of torture that I may litigate? If that loud music were being played in my workplace, commencing post my initial employment date, (say a retail clothing store), does that mean I “volunteered” for the torture? Was I properly advised I may be exposed to the “torture” of 24/7 loud hip hop music on the job? And in that vein, were soldiers in the SERE program advised prior to knowing they would be waterboarded, how often and how long?
How about an actress who takes a part, and the screenplay’s rewritten to include a nudity scene that she doesn’t want to do. Torture? Afterall, according to the report, “forced nudity” is torture. Her choices are to do the part, or get fired. She gets fired, then sues for “torture”?
Students who haze… both physically and mentally… torture? Or because the students “voluntarily” are being initiated into whatever organization does the hazing, does that mean the “torture” is now voluntary?
What’s the sentencing for torture? Does it have a direct bearing on the physical and/or mental state of the person post “torture”? Has McCain gone back to sue the Vietnamese for his physical torture, leaving him limited movement? Nope… but the Abu Ghraib scum are suing contractors for “inhumane” treatment. Last I knew, they are all in quite good physical condition for their treatment.
You’ve just entered the infinite realm of PC nanny crap here, Ron.
Cutting off one of my limbs is torture. Can it be argued that if I volunteer for such, I was in a questionable mental state and charges should be brought anyway for requesting to be – by definition – “tortured”? Certainly a justifiable argument for the Code Pink wackos… mentally instable is somewhat a kind assessment, IMHO.
This has nothing to do with volunteering. An act is either considered torture, or it’s not. To go anywhere else is a bottomless Pandora’s Box.
And frankly, when it comes to our national security and intel, I don’t want to micromanage what our interrogators do as a citizen merely to give me the sense of moral high ground. Simple as that.
Ron
14 years ago
To Mata and Aye:
I would love to continue this debate but as I have mentioned before I am at work….and well I’m not getting much work done. So if I don’t respond the rest of today..I’m not ducking any questions or anything of that nature, it’s because I’ve got to get some work done. I’ll try and respond tomorrow.
Plant me firmly in the do whatever it takes to protect thousands of lives camp Ron.
If that bothers you well, quite frankly, I have no problem with it.
My responses to your queries have been completely consistent. Whether on the battlefield, or here at home, if we have someone in custody who holds the information we need to prevent blood from flowing in the streets again then do whatever is needed to get the information.
As I said to you before, I’ll hold my head high, take my chances with a jury, and take whatever punishment that comes my way with the knowledge that thousands are alive because I was willing to take that risk.
Ultimately, I answer to a higher authority than US law. I can guarantee you that I will never stand before Him with the lame excuse that the Constitution prevented me from doing what I could to save all those people.
Speaking strictly from a moral point of view, I value the lives of thousands of innocents more highly than the life of someone who would willingly, eagerly, saw my head, or your head, off in service to his moon god.
I’d say you views are pretty much about changing the rules as you go where I believe in adhering to the Constitution and any treaties signed by the US.
The US Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact. A study of the founding fathers will teach you that. The founders never intended for the US to be so strictly bound by our laws so as to be unable to even protect ourselves.
The US is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions. Japan was too. Hence the prosecution of the Japanese soldiers you asked about earlier.
Al Queda is NOT a signatory of the GC, hence they are not covered or protected by it.
Furthermore, they are not protected because their jihadis fight out of uniform and hide among civilians.
The people we are talking about are specifically excluded from GC protections.
Ron, I’ve got to get back to work too.
I’ve got a ton of things calling my name, none of which I’ll admit, are nearly as much fun as FA.
Be back later….after dark EST since it’s gardening season.
And my comparison does work Aye because we are both talking about a detainee. I’m not talking about what happens on the battle field Aye. Once a person is captured and are no longer a threat, why is it okay to water-board a foreigner and not a US citizen?
Should all captives on the battlefield be Mirandized?
If not, why not?
Russell
14 years ago
The stated purpose of SERE training is precisely to prepare our own soldiers to the torture that various enemies might inflict on them, if they are captured. The techniques used in SERE were not invented from broadcloth, but were taken in part from what the Chinese did to prisoners during the Korean war. Techniques that the US then considered illegal torture. The fact that our own soldiers voluntarily subject themselves to a degree of that, performed by their comrades in arms, as a training exercise, doesn’t mean that those techniques therefore are not torture when performed with real intent to break a prisoner.
Ron
14 years ago
Ok…I’m done here at work but I have a question. If I’m so way off base in my arguments against torture or enhanced interrogation techniques, then why have the FBI and numerous military lawyers objected to the use of such techniques:
Also, I’m going to read the latest Senate Armed Services Committee Report…so perhaps that will shed some light on the subject.
Ron
Ron
14 years ago
Also
SERE training is performed under the strictest of conditions and the person undergoing the treatment can stop it at anytime, and students are subjected to extensive medical and Psychological pre-screenings. And the schools impose strict limits to how long such techniques can be performed. and again it’s voluntary.
Ron
Ron
14 years ago
Oh and Aye incarceration and torture are two different things….come on man!
If you took the uS prisoners and used enhanced interrogation techniques, then that would be torture.
Okay now I’m going home but I’ll check back tomorrow.
Russell and Ron, have either of you gone thru SERE training? Did either of you bother to read the link I gave from one who did?
Ron says:
SERE training is performed under the strictest of conditions and the person undergoing the treatment can stop it at anytime,
The military trainers subject them to the techniques not to kill them, but to find their breaking point. Pray tell, how will they “stop it at anytime” and still find their breaking point? Rather moot for the training exercise, don’t you think. If you both to read from those who have experienced it, very few come out of it without finding their breaking point. Guess they didn’t “stop at any time”.
What makes you think that waterboarding detainees is any different? Do you assume they waterboard them to kill them? Or to take them to the breaking point?
What physical damage is done by waterboarding? Perhaps you’d like to use the three that were waterboarded in the CIA report… one over 260 times. Guess it still didn’t physically damage him, and they must have stopped *well* before the breaking point.
And I don’t give a whit about whether it is or was legal or illegal in the past. The Japanese did far more heinous torture than waterboarding. The Vietnamese did far worse as well… did anyone sue? Is that how you guys want to make your judgment calls instead of considering both the results and the perfectly fine health of the detainees following the interrogation?
This voluntary vs involuntary is utter BS, so unbelievably effeminate and emotional an assessment, and a Pandora’s box of nanny legislation. Torture is torture. Period. If you believe these techniques are torture, you should be railing about the military using them on our guys. If US special forces soldiers can gut it out for training, the detainees… who manage to live thru it just fine with limbs and body parts intact… can tough it out too without sustaining irreparable harm. And they do give up info.
Personally I’m tired of this PC crap. Let’s make it easy… there’s a bunch of homeless Gitmo types. How about we just send ’em to your houses for adoption and/or boarding, and you can coerce them over KFC hot wings and a NFL game? I’m sure they won’t feel “tortured”… unless the spicing gives them an ulcer.
Again: Ron, Russell et al. have spent far more time hand wringing about the methods used to SAVE AMERICAN LIVES than any of them, or their Democrat representatives in Congress have reading the monster pork spending bills so recently signed by their savior Obama.
I’m looking forward to the prosecution of Obama officials and Democrats who have so clearly abdicated their duty here.
SERE training is performed under the strictest of conditions
Strict conditions apply to the administration of EIT.
I learned that from reading the newly released memos.
And the schools impose strict limits to how long such techniques can be performed.
Strict limits are applied not only to the duration of each individual session but also to the total number of sessions allowed within a specified period. The maximum number of minutes is also mandated regardless of the number of sessions.
I learned that from reading the newly released memos too.
@Aye Chihuahua: Apparently the only memos Ron is reading come from Moveon.org.
Russell
14 years ago
Sorry, guy, but budget issues just don’t compare to a sweeping change in American political tradition that sanctions torture and war crimes. If I have the regrettable choice to to leave my grandchildren with more government debt and also the American tradition of respect for law and condemnation of torture, or less debt and the turning of our law into a charade, I have to choose the latter.
a sweeping change in American political tradition that sanctions torture and war crimes.
See, Russell, there’s the rub.
The prevailing legal opinion is that waterboarding is not torture and it most certainly is not a war crime.
The leftists and the statists get their pretty pink panties all in a twist and type out the word “torture” when the definition of the word doesn’t even cover what they’re sniveling about.
Sorry things didn’t work out better but the facts are clearly not in your corner on this one.
I’ll tell you what, cite for me the laws that you contend were broken and I’ll take another look.
@Russell: “If I have the regrettable choice to to leave my grandchildren”
You won’t have to worry about it. Your grandchildren may very well die in a terrorist attack which we were unable to prevent due to your absurd moralizing over the waterboarding OF JUST THREE TERRRORISTS!
Russell
14 years ago
It wasn’t just waterboarding. And it wasn’t just three. There were hundreds who were tortured. Some of whom died.
You are the ones whose panties are in a twist. I don’t expect the world to be perfectly safe. I expect thousands of Americans will die from mayhem and intentional violence every month. I expect thousands more to die in accidents caused by recklessness. I have no doubt that there will be future acts of terrorism, if not from foreign jihadis, then from home-grown extremists. Despite that, I prefer to live in a free nation, one where people may own guns, where we have the freedom to travel and own boats and planes, where government is transparent, and where the president doesn’t have the power to torture anyone it claims is suspected of conspiring with terrorists.
You’re not going to dissuade my commitment to personal liberty by explaining there is an increment of risk in it. I know that. This issue is showing clearly the cleavage in the right between those who favor increasing state power to keep them safe, and those who really do have some commitment to American law and personal liberty.
So, who’s doing the sweeping changes? Certainly not the democrat packed Congress. They want show trials, make a lot of noise, but they aren’t creating a law to permanently ban waterboarding. What’s stopping them? Who’s going to veto legislation banning the enhanced interrogation techniques they are all raging about? Obama?
You people are all hat and no cattle in a pathetic sort of way.
Congress’s Phony War on Torture Why not ban waterboarding once and for all?
Nope, they don’t want to permanently change the law, they want to play games and BTW, let it be known that Obama is the first president of this country that is threatening to adopt policies of second rate countries. So much for changing our image abroad.
Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama’s victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.
If this analogy seems excessive, consider how Mr. Obama has framed the issue. He has absolved CIA operatives of any legal jeopardy, no doubt because his intelligence advisers told him how damaging that would be to CIA morale when Mr. Obama needs the agency to protect the country. But he has pointedly invited investigations against Republican legal advisers who offered their best advice at the request of CIA officials.
“Your intelligence indicates that there is currently a level of ‘chatter’ equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, in his August 1, 2002 memo. “In light of the information you believe [detainee Abu] Zubaydah has and the high level of threat you believe now exists, you wish to move the interrogations into what you have described as an ‘increased pressure phase.‘”
Note the intensity above when the CIA approached the assistant Attorney General requesting advice in regards to that little pussy cat, Zubaydah. Jay Bybee is now on the hook because of the politics of the current administration, democrats in Congress and you. He will be forced into preparing for an expensive defense and his career ruined, depending on what way the wind blows with Obama, Congress and you.
Now, do tell us how the interrogation methods used permantly harmed the three terrorists physically or mentally and keep in mind that enhanced interrogation thwarted 60% of the attacks that were in the works against our country, our troops and our allies.
Russell
14 years ago
I would oppose any law to ban water-boarding, for the same reason I would oppose any law that bans armed robbery with revolver pistol. Writing law at that level of specificity is stupid. It serves only to tell miscreants how to modify their practice to stay inside the law (“it’s a semi, see?”) and it falsely supposes that juries cannot decided the elements of crimes.
We have laws against torture. We have applied them in the past, for both acts abroad and acts here. There is no need for new law, but only for the application of existing law.
I know that sleep deprivation is on the list, but what else?
And it wasn’t just three.
Really?
How many then?
Where’s the reliable source for your presumptuous assumption?
There were hundreds who were tortured.
Wow!
Hundreds?
Where’s the list of names?
Some of whom died.
Who died?
What caused them to die?
Who killed them?
Where’s the list?
Another presumptuous assumption. Where’s the source?
You should know by now that you cannot come to the pages of FA and make arguments sans factual backing and not be challenged.
You’re yet to cite the laws that you allege were violated. Until you can do that, you’re just pontificating.
You keep bringing up past prosecutions, ie Japan, but you fail to note that those prosecutions were for things above and beyond waterboarding. You also fail to note that some of the defendants charged with waterboarding were found not guilty.
I spent some time reading up on those prosecutions last night. I suggest you do the same.
The facts don’t stack up in your favor.
Slinging around reckless, unfounded arguments to see what might stick to the wall is not the way to debate.
If you’ve got the facts, bring ’em.
If not, then you’re wasting your time and filling our space with useless drivel.
**************
The remainder of post 81 and all of post 83 is one of the finest examples of pretzel logic I have seen in a long time.
I do so look foward to Russell answering Aye’s questions with specifics. And I want to make sure he provides links to the sources of his information that are not attached to left wing sites.
What we have here is another example of the lefty loon mindset of swallowing the big lie so many times for them it becomes the truth.
Sort of like the one million Iraqis killed by George Bush.
I don’t have the delusional state of mind where I can manufacture facts and simply repeat them over and over. I have to have a comprehensive set of objective mainstream sources to back me up.
That level of documentation is something that the Kool Aid drinkers dispensed with long ago.
Ron
14 years ago
To Mike:
Your sensationalistic responses are really pathetic.
You said:
“Sorry Ron. But when the next attack comes and a member of your family is killed don’t come here whining about how it’s Bush’s fault”
Where to even begin.
First of all I’m not blaming Bush for anything so I think that is just you projecting. Mentioning one of my family members getting killed not only proves what a lunatic you are, it also proves that you are someone who has to resort to scaremongering to try and win an argument. I’ve never talked to someone so utterly entrenched in an atmosphere of fear and authoritarian paranoia.
You should come down to where I live Mike, we have shootings and murders every day. In fact I heard gun shots while sitting on my back porch just the other night. I’d say I have a better chance of being robbed or murdered by one of my fellow citizens than I do by a terrorist, but guess what Mike; I sleep just fine at night. And that’s not because I don’t recognize the threat outside my door, or the threat from Islamic terrorists. No Mike unlike you, I don’t live my life in a constant state of fear. I don’t allow my fears, unlike you, to run my life and formulate my opinions.
I’ve really tried to like you, to listen to you, but I’ve come to the conclusion that you are a jerk. You are narrow minded, rude and a confrontational jackass. You’re such coward that you have to resort to censorship when people don’t agree with you or confront you in a manner you find displeasing. Real tough there Mike.
I don’t like you Mike not one bit. And you can take your opinions and shove them up your ass.
Well then it’s best the democrats stop their yammering because none of the 6 methods of enhanced interrogation used constitute torture. These methods were necessary at a time when we did not know when or where our next attack would come from and as I mentioned earlier it worked, stopping 60% of planned attacks. 911 was an unprecedented attack on our own soil, leaving over 3000 dead, many more scarred mentally and physically for life.
We now have another president using unprecedented methods in this country’s economy. Many believe that he is bankrupting our children and grandchildren. If his programs fail do we then seek to ruin the lives of all those put in place to implement his policies. Or if this country is attacked do we then seek to ruin the lives of those tasked to keep this country safe as is being done now?
I have never experienced anything as mean and devisive as what this Congress and this president are doing to this country, it’s unprecedented. We all lose.
Russell
14 years ago
I guess now that the IRCC is considered “left wing,” there’s no point in telling people to read its report. The torture issue has never been just about waterboarding. As I wrote above, practices such as stress positions and enforced hypothermia are classical modes of torture, and have been a large part of the issue since news of “enhanced interrogation” first leaked out.
@Ron: I wanted to avoid the kind of petty insults that you apparently find so offensive, but since you seem to have dropped any pretense of civility let me say that while you find my views “sensationalist” or even “lunatic” I find yours to be simplistic and devoid of the advanced reasoning skills which are so essential to a full understanding of a complex problem like the issue being discussed.
If you are unable to understand the very personal nature of terrorism and the cost in human lives and the family tragedy that ensues I recommend you go visit some of the families of firefighters in New York. Kids are growing up without a Dad and wives left to raise them and keep the family together all on their own.
I too have lived in neighborhoods where gunfire and criminal activity were common. You ever lived in the heart of the nation’s capital Ron? Rather than react with fear as you seem to suggest, I went out and joined the neighborhood watch group and became a block captain for my street.
Maybe that would be a better use of your time as thus far I fail to find much in your comments of a substantive nature.
The problem we are discussing here isn’t suited to someone with a bumper sticker mentality for problem solving.
And your last remark reminds me of something a child would say. Sort of like the rest of your remarks. Simplistic, ill-informed and immature.
Under international law, anything documented by the IRCC is not admissible in court, so what they say is irrelevant.
What else ya got?
PS…. You still haven’t cited the laws that were supposedly violated.
Ron
14 years ago
Hey Mike:
You are as juvenile as they come. Your comment was that of a six year old, and you started this shit storm with that comment about my family being killed you ass. Own your words Mike and then I might at least have a little respect for you.
Ron
Ron
14 years ago
Your words again Mike:
“Sorry Ron. But when the next attack comes and a member of your family is killed don’t come here whining about how it’s Bush’s fault”
Own your words Mike…..are you assuming one of my family members will be killed or are you wishing for it Mike?
Yeah you show real maturity and complex reasoning kills with a comment like that Mike.
You are such an asshole and a coward.
Ron
Ron
14 years ago
Mike’s words again:
“The problem we are discussing here isn’t suited to someone with a bumper sticker mentality for problem solving”.
“And your last remark reminds me of something a child would say. Sort of like the rest of your remarks. Simplistic, ill-informed and immature”.
You mean comments like this Mike:
“Sorry Ron. But when the next attack comes and a member of your family is killed don’t come here whining about how it’s Bush’s fault”
Ummmm…yeah again you make childish sensational comments like this but I’m being the child?
Besides didn’t I tell you to shove your opinions up your ass?
In the first link of Holders confirmation hearings, he cited waterboarding as having been prosecuted as a war crime, and stated waterboarding is torture.
In the second link, he states in a hearing today: “If I see evidence of wrongdoing I will pursue it to the full extent of the law, and I will do that in an appropriate way.”
This is going to heat up right fast, and it’s not hard to see where Holder is going to come down in the matter, Waterboarding = Torture =Prosecute based on his already sworn testimony.
I know I posted my beliefs already in this thread, and I still stand by them, but this make even me a bit queasy to think we are about to go through this as a country….
At this point I say screw the candy assed Eric Holder and Patrick Leahy. Wonder if any one of those who took their lives rather than burn to death in that inferno would have exchanged a waterboarding session instead of what they chose that day.
You are grasping because of politics. Sad, very sad.
Mossy: This is what happens when you eat rodents. It effects your ability to reason complex issues. You haven’t been sharing any of that roadkill with Ron have you?
Go and read the DOJ/CIA memos. It’s abundantly clear that our side bent over backwards to prevent any injury or lasting emotional damage to JUST THREE OF THE WORST TERRORIST MONSTERS!
Do I need to go back through those memos and list the steps we took to prevent any injury or abuse of THESE THREE MONSTERS?
Again, I need to repeat that we are talking about THE THREE WORST TERRORIST SCUM!!!
You do understand that don’t you?
As I have said before, if Dems had taken a fraction of the time they’ve wasted wailing about the waterboarding of JUST THREE TERRORISTS and spent it on reading the bills Obama is trying to ram through Congress we wouldn’t be wasting trillions.
mooseburger
14 years ago
Mata said: So moose, if the act of waterboarding is “torture”, when do you suggest we start prosecuting the US military SERE trainers?
I suggest we don’t, and no matter where you are in this argument, most people will make the distinction between volunteers and detainees.
Missy: Every single one would have traded places in order to see their families again.
Mike: You have to at least be smarter than a Squirrel in order to get to eat them.
I read thru some of those memo pages, but not all of them. What I read was very detailed, and it looked to me to be a CYA document as much as a guideline to memorialize proceedures after the fact.
Look, there is just no way to overstate how horrible 911 was, and how badly justice and righteous vengance cries out for the victims, their families, and our country. We all get that.
We all knew the world was going to change on that day, and to a person, we looked to President Bush for leadership and wisdom, and believe me or not, I am telling you now, at that time, I was so glad we had him as our President then. He said and did all the things that we as a country needed to hear, and we were comforted by his leadership.
I was at a bar when he gave a speech to the nation, and told us it was a group called Al Qaeda who did this to America. You could have heard a pin drop during that address, and the whole bar went into a standing ovation and big grown hairy Squirrel eatin’ men had tears in their eyes and the fire of vengence in their guts. You would drive down the streets and Old Glory was everywhere, when we went into Afghanistan, we were fully supporting that war, as a country, and practically as a whole world.
All political crap aside, it is hard to fathom how we as a country lost sight of winning the war in Afghanistan, not focusing on getting Bin Laden, keeping the borders open while a threat of another attack exists, and getting sidetracked with Iraq.
It is hard to look back and understand how President Bush lost the support of most of the country. The list is too long, but many mistakes were made, downplaying the capturing Bin Laden while most people hold Osama personally responsible, the Harsh Interrogations, warrantless wiretapping, poor planning and execution of the war in Iraq, lack or armoured vehicles to protest against road side bombs, lack of bullet proof vests, a steady drip of things that gave people pause and wonder if the guy is focused on the important parts of the mission, the mission to get those bastards who are personally responsible and attacked us. I know many blame the MSM, but a narrative will not stick unless there is a bit of truth to back it all up. Bush had an obligation to effectively keep support for this righteous cause front and center in the minds and hearts of the people. Agree or disagree with the wisdom of the decision to go to war in Iraq, it certainly put more on Bush’s plate to deal with, more than he had the ability to keep focus of the people on.
Now all this stuff starts getting released, and I heard last night that more photos like the ones from Abu Garhab are coming out soon. I can’t help but think that the truth is important, and we the PEOPLE deserve the truth, but also, how do you keep the politics out of something like this???? I really wonder if this is being used as a scare tactic to get Republicans back in line and supporting some of Obama’s agenda because of the mixed signals being sent from Holder and the President.
Bush and company probably authorized some things that shouldn’t have been done, and it was stupid to do this and expose the country to whatever political, ethical, whatever you want to call it, scrutiny and payback that he surely knew would happen. But I do think it is very important to understand the circumstances surrounding some bad decisions, and dragging the country thru prosecutions is something only radical zealots would want who are less concerned about their country than themselves. I do not want our country to torture ever, but I admit I feel a bit weird taking up for the DAMN Fu**ing Terrorists and their human rights while few are stepping up and speaking for those who died on 911. That doesn’t seem right. I doubt I’m the only “Lefty” that feels this way either….sorry for the rant….
@mooseburger: That’s right… if ONLY we had not waterboarded JUST THREE TERRORISTS the world would be a better place. Other nations would love and respect us, Al Queda would stop sawing the heads off us infidels and the peaceful squirrel eaters at your bar could feel proud to be American again!
Obviously eating road kill has effected your mind.
If you think the Bush Administration memos are CYA (and everything in government is, I can tell you from experience) then read the memo in the post above prepared by Obama’s Attorney General. It lays out the step by step process by which government officials at the highest level, including members of Congress, approved these practices.
You will also note from the DOJ/CIA memos how much effort was made to protect JUST THREE MONSTERS from any real harm during the procedures. I’ve already linked a condensed version from the WSJ in a post below:
Interrogations were to be “continuously monitored” and “the interrogation team will stop the use of particular techniques or the interrogation altogether if the detainee’s medical or psychological conditions indicates that the detainee might suffer significant physical or mental harm.”
It seems to me if you want to wail and moan about the loss of American support in our fight against terrorism you should direct your ire at the people who manufactured the mass public hysteria about“torture” of JUST THREE MONSTERSwho were directly responsible for the killing of innocent Americans.
Yet, you continue to act as the willing or unwilling agent of that ill-informed hysteria all for some political benefit.
I heard last night that more photos like the ones from Abu Garhab are coming out soon. I can’t help but think that the truth is important, and we the PEOPLE deserve the truth, but also, how do you keep the politics out of something like this???? I really wonder if this is being used as a scare tactic to get Republicans back in line and supporting some of Obama’s agenda because of the mixed signals being sent from Holder and the President.
We already know the truth, those participating in prisoner abuse were punished, strict policies were adapted and are strictly enforced. Now, that “forward looking” president is shamelessly playing politics with something that should remain in the past.
Like the ones at abu Gharibe? about 20 of the photos are abu Gharibe prison scandal photos DOD did not release way back then, the other half are from DOD investigations of other Iraqi and Afghanistan prisons way back then.
So, how much of a division does Obama need to create within our society, how much more hate does he need to manufacture? and, for what?
@Missy: Missy, Obama is well on his way to becoming the most divisive President of my lifetime.
His continued campaign to criminalize and devalue the efforts the previous Administration took to keep us safe are disgusting. And what would he put in their place but his own good intentions?
As Rev. Wright said, the chickens come home to roost at some point and I just hope that doesn’t mean another attack on the U.S. because of Obama’s weakness, naivete, inexperience and deeply flawed personal outlook towards this country.
mooseburger
14 years ago
Mike: Waterboarding three terrorists was only one of a list of reasons Bush lost support for the war and for his Presidency. All us Rodent Roasters around here are still proud to be American. When a State like Indiana goes from Red to Blue, believe me, you must have done something to cause that to happen, and that’s no easy feat.
Mike said: “It seems to me if you want to wail and moan about the loss of American support in our fight against terrorism you should direct your ire at the people who manufactured the mass public hysteria about “torture” of JUST THREE MONSTERS who were directly responsible for the killing of innocent Americans.”
Appropriate amount of ire directed and duly noted. More to my point, there are and were always those who would try to undermine Bush and manufacture outrage against him. That’s a given, then as now with Obama. Bush had all our support in an unprecedented way by modern standards, Does Bush bear any blame for the loss of support Mike, or is it just most everybody else who is wrong? Bush gave them way more ammo than required to shoot down his support level.
The issue we are discussing in this thread is just one small portion of what caused Bush to lose support from his countrymen, from both the Left and the Right. I don’t think I stand alone on that one, my Rodentphobic friend.
Missy
14 years ago
Hmmm, this conversation reminds me of a recent post by one of my favorite bloggers.
Drawing the legal line is the job of our elected representatives. That’s why I consider George Bush to be a serious participant in this debate and consider most Democrats to be nonserious hysterics. From the beginning, George Bush has been clear that he supports the use of harsh interrogation techniques like this, that he does not consider these techniques to be torture, that he understands how others could disagree, and that he wants congress to clearly draw the line so that CIA interrogators would know what techniques they could use without placing themselves in legal jeopardy. Until now, however, Democrats were much more interested in pointing the accusing finger at Bush and portraying him as supporting “torture.” They wanted to apply the word “torture” to waterboarding so they could then accuse Bush of being “no better than the terrorists.” That political game works (i.e., in a time of war, the Democrats succeeded in their effort to tarnish their own president in the eyes of the nation and the world), but it is not a serious approach to the problem. Obviously, drawing the line at waterboarding is infinitely better than drawing the line at “severing limbs.”
What would a more serious approach involve? It would involve defining the harshest interrogation techniques that the CIA is permitted to use. That is, it would involve drawing a different line than the line that was drawn during the Bush administration. We already have the memos that clearly describe where the CIA drew the line during the Bush years. The line was drawn to allow harsh interrogation techniques that fell light years short of al Qaeda’s torture methods, but many think they were still too harsh (and they jump at the chance to label those techniques “torture,” as if they should be in the same category as applying a hot iron to a detainee’s skin).
Wouldn’t you love to see the new memos detailing what the CIA can and cannot do in the aftermath of a mass-casualty attack on US soil (when fear is running high that another — perhaps even worse — mass casualty attack is right around the corner)? That memo (the one that guides CIA interrogators today, I suppose) would allow us to have the debate that we should have: where do you draw the line? But Democrats will never take that step because, the moment they do, they will be accused of condoning torture by the far left elements of their own party. And accusing others — Republicans in particular — of condoning torture is an essential part of the liberal experience (which, as a said before, requires a villain).
And Mata:
The SERE training you are referring to is used to train our soldiers in the event that they are held by captures that don’t abide by the Geneva conventions….which by the way, we are to adhere to.
And I know you’re going to say that those apply only to soldiers in an Army….but somehow I think this Jihadis do consider themselves to be some sort of soldier for Allah and shit.
So you or Mike or Aye would have no qualms with being water-boarded or undergoing “harsh interrogation techniques” by a foreign government if you were ever swept up accidentally and accused of terrorism? Once they released you you would go on your merry ways and would never once accuse them of torture?
And I’m still waiting for a logical response to why Japanese soldiers were convicted for torture when they water-boarded US soldiers but then we turn around and do it and it’s legal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
Ron
Ron, I don’t care what the Jihad scumbags consider themselves to be. Rules of engagement for any military (under Geneva Convention) does not include deliberate targeting of civilian innocents… as they do at every opportunity. So if you want to give their self-perception as warriors of Allah credibility, you’re standing on that pinhead alone, and way off the mark of reality. You are thinking emotionally only.
Have no clue about your “no qualms being waterboarded” by a foreign government question. Like what power do we have over a foreign goverment, and what’s the point of your question? Again, with you, it’s all emotional. If I am suspected of being a terrorist operative, I’m quite sure they’ll do everything they can to get info out of me in other countries. And rightly so. And you wonder if I’m innocent, will I whine and take action with what legal means? Maybe. On the other hand if I got out of an oppressive foreign prison, I’m not likely to skirt their territory again…. legally or physically.
What you advocate is let everyone else have harsh interrogation techinques, but not us. You also think it’s okay to put our soldiers thru it, with suffering NO irreparable harm, but gasp at the thought of doing it to a suspected terrorist. Huh?
Tell you what. If you want clean hands, how about we ship ’em to places that will get results, and the nanny terrorist coddlers can sleep better at night. Me? I still say shoot ’em, or leave those they think can provide intel in Obama’s Gitmo. Funny how that’s a subject few of you “anti-Gitmo/anti-terror/give the detainees rights” types don’t want to address. That’s a tangible subject, not some silly, emotional school girl hypothetical of how I’d “feel” if I were waterboarded in a foreign country.
This is true of any law or practice, Ron. I didn’t like the creation of the financial czar via TARP under Bush because it concentrated too much power in one man, and an unelected one to boot. The potential for abuse is not only readily apparent, the power grab is expanding daily with under this czar heavy admin and their self-appointed powers.
So yes… abuse of any policy or law is always a potential. But it’s good know know your sympathies are *not* lying with those “victim” human scum. But with the exception of the sadistic few that will pop up in any particular circle, the majority of interrogators are not likely to use such extremes merely to find out if the neighbor has a pot farm growing…. which seems to be what you may be alluding to.
But this leads me to your next comment about how we didn’t torture Nazi officials, and (per the interrogators of that era) got more info out of them over a game of ping pong, a steak dinner or chess. Totally irrelevant. These were soldiers by career (short term or long) and not ideologues. You cannot compare a German soldier (who’d probably rather not be on the battlefield, but it’s his job), to a rabid Islamic jihad fighter, fanatical to his cause. Completely different critters.
Another difference is a German soldier was acting under state orders… not a gang, thug wacko owing allegiance only to their revered terrorist leaders and cells.
I suspect that the difference between most of us is how you view the enemy. I don’t see them as POWs, but enemy combatants. I don’t think they should have Constitutional rights, and I think we should hold them as long as intel and military officials deem. And frankly, I don’t care what they do to them in order to gain the inside skinny on who and what they know. Just don’t take pictures, fer heavens sake.
@Ron:
Your argument has truck sized holes in it but I will try to be gentle with you.
Where’s the documentation that says that INNOCENT people have been tortured?
The CIA used the technique on THREE people. THREE.
Where are the innocents in that trio?
Why do your knickers seem to be all in a twist then?
Who is defining these techniques as “torture”?
The use of EIT is strictly limited to last resort, ticking bomb type situations. Read the memos that have been released.
Does the application of EIT sound routine to you?
We could go into an extended discussion here of what went on in WWII and what our techniques were but I don’t have ready access to my research materials or the time to do that now. I will tell you this much though. The techniques were not as kind, gentle, and understanding as you may like to believe they are.
Ummm….sorry to break it to you but US law is a much different animal than the laws of warfare.
The comparison doesn’t work.
You’re bringing apples to a pear festival.
What you need to understand is that there is no law against EIT.
Again, another hole in your argument.
Our servicemen and women(?) are waterboarded as part of their specialized (SERE) training procedures.
So, no, we don’t use techniques on others that we are not allowed to use on ourselves.
Now, let’s revisit Mike’s question. I’ve taken the liberty of rewording it a bit to see if I can elicit a yes or no answer.
“If a terror plot were imminent, and a terror suspect was in custody who had the information to save thousands of lives, including those of some of your family, would you be willing to allow the use of EIT’s to save those lives?”
@Ron:
Another apples / oranges comparison Ron.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’m guessing that you’re not being deliberately obtuse but it’s very difficult to say for sure.
The US Constitution gives protections to those like McVeigh and Nichols but, of course, you already know that. Furthermore, the US Constitution does not give protections to foreigners captured on a foreign battlefield. I expect that you know that too.
Would I have approved of some really harsh techniques for the likes of vermin like the OKC duo….perhaps…IF…and you’ll notice that is a big “if” there was evidence that these two were part of an extended plot and that more lives were going to be lost?
Yes, absolutely. I wouldn’t think twice about it and I would take my chances in front of a jury.
However, just as the Constitution protects speech that we don’t like, it also provides protections for the most vile criminal defendants.
Fortunately, there was never any evidence that other lives were in danger though, so the point is moot.
Thanks for going easy on me as you realize that this isn’t personal, we just disagree on the fundamental question of what is and isn’t torture.
So to answer your question, No Aye I wouldn’t allow them to be water-boarded. Because if I said yes I’d be a hypocrite now wouldn’t I?
Let me ask you a question then. A US citizen just blew up the pentagon, and there are other bombs he planted. Do you water-board him or used “enhance interrogation” techniques to get info? Even though it violates US law and his constitutional rights, it could save thousands of lives…do you torture him?
I’m trying to understand the difference if it’s just about saving lives and laws are irrelevant.
And again the SERE training is used to train our soldiers to resist captors who don’t adhere to the Geneva conventions which we do.
And my comparison does work Aye because we are both talking about a detainee. I’m not talking about what happens on the battle field Aye. Once a person is captured and are no longer a threat, why is it okay to water-board a foreigner and not a US citizen? I’m speaking morally here Aye. Why is the standard for a US citizen higher than that of a non US citizen when it comes to how thet are treated?
Oh and innocent people?
Ron
@Ron:
As I said to you in post 55, I would do whatever was necessary to protect the thousands of innocent lives hanging in the balance.
I would opt to save those lives if possible and then take my chances with a jury if necessary.
Even if I was found guilty of some “crime” the thousands saved would still have been saved and I wouldn’t have their blood on my hands.
I highlighted the key phrase in that segment.
The EIT’s are reserved for those who ARE still considered a threat or high-value. The EIT’s are ONLY used in cases of a ticking-bomb pending plot type scenario.
These techniques are not routine.
You continue to try and mix and match US law, the Constitution, and peacetime legal practices and standards with those of the battlefield.
They don’t mesh together and were never intended to be one and the same.
Mata
I’m not giving them any credibility or validating how these men view themselves Mata…which is why I said “and shit” at the end. Sarcasm.
And you entirely missed to crux of my question. This isn’t about emotional thinking Mata..is about consistency. If you are water-boarded and subjected to harsh interrogation by a foreign government would you consider yourself to have been tortured? I’m honestly trying to understand the mindset that’s all.
And abuses have happened as a result. If you like I can do a bunch of cutting a pasting but i know that annoys you guys.
Ron
If you want to address “consistancy”, Ron, perhaps you should reconcile your own first. You have repeated a couple of times that the SERE training is part of our military captive training. But if you want to be consistant, “torture” (which you consider waterboarding to be) is torture. It’s either legal or it’s not… whether used on our own military, or on detainees.
You either prosecute the military trainers for inflicting the same “torture” on soldiers as they do prisoners, or you don’t.
As far as your persistent hypothetical goes, I would consider being forced into any treatment or situation I don’t want “torture”. And sometimes that includes debates here on FA…. LOL
Now that’s pretty broad. Shall we then start proscuting students for hazing? Obviously a form of “torture”. However were I in the position of being waterboarded by a foreign government, I’d likely be happy to be free with my head and limbs still intact, and able to go on my merry way in life. But who knows how people react to such situations. It is not a question that could be answered with any viability. Thus it is “emotionally” based.
To aye:
I don’t mean as a private citizen. You are a police officer who has a person detained who may have knowledge about another attack. Do you violate his constitutional rights and torture him? I’m assuming your answer is still yes. So my question is what’s the point of having any laws or standards for that matter if you are willing to violate them when you feel it’s warranted?
You see that’s what doesn’t make since about your argument. On the one hand you say US law and the laws of warfare are different and that US citizen’s should be treated differently because of our Constitutional rights and yet you also say that you would violate someone’s Constititional rights if it were warranted. I’d say you views are pretty much about changing the rules as you go where I believe in adhering to the Constitution and any treaties signed by the US.
That’s the basic difference seems like
Ron
Mata
Generally speaking torture is something done against your will. And the SERE program is used on people who volunteered. Christopher Hitchens volunteered to be Water-boarded for an article in Vanity Fair. Should we prosecute the people who did it? Obviously not. But had Mr. Hitchens been kidnapped and water-boarded by force, then yes. You can’t see the difference in that argument?
And he said that it was in fact torture…based on his experience.
And I’m still waiting for an answer as to why water-bourding was considered torture when performed on US soldiers during World War II, but now it’s not. Seriously when did the laws change?
Ron
@Ron #61: I understand you may not reappear here until a more opportune time, but I needed to address your “voluntary” vs “involuntary” argument as it relates to torture (i.e. waterboarding, but not limited solely to that act).
To use your reasoning, anything done to me that I consider “torture” then opens up a realm of possibilities for litigation and legislative interference, based strictly on whether one “volunteered” or not. And what constitutes the degree and harshness of torture? Shall we have a list? Is it based on how I am affected emotionally/mentally? Boy does that “pain and suffering” leer it’s ugly head in our judicial system at every turn.
I’d consider it torture to be locked into a room listening to loud hip hop music. (i.e. the “torture” of 24/7 loud music) Will that make “the list” of torture that I may litigate? If that loud music were being played in my workplace, commencing post my initial employment date, (say a retail clothing store), does that mean I “volunteered” for the torture? Was I properly advised I may be exposed to the “torture” of 24/7 loud hip hop music on the job? And in that vein, were soldiers in the SERE program advised prior to knowing they would be waterboarded, how often and how long?
How about an actress who takes a part, and the screenplay’s rewritten to include a nudity scene that she doesn’t want to do. Torture? Afterall, according to the report, “forced nudity” is torture. Her choices are to do the part, or get fired. She gets fired, then sues for “torture”?
Students who haze… both physically and mentally… torture? Or because the students “voluntarily” are being initiated into whatever organization does the hazing, does that mean the “torture” is now voluntary?
What’s the sentencing for torture? Does it have a direct bearing on the physical and/or mental state of the person post “torture”? Has McCain gone back to sue the Vietnamese for his physical torture, leaving him limited movement? Nope… but the Abu Ghraib scum are suing contractors for “inhumane” treatment. Last I knew, they are all in quite good physical condition for their treatment.
You’ve just entered the infinite realm of PC nanny crap here, Ron.
Cutting off one of my limbs is torture. Can it be argued that if I volunteer for such, I was in a questionable mental state and charges should be brought anyway for requesting to be – by definition – “tortured”? Certainly a justifiable argument for the Code Pink wackos… mentally instable is somewhat a kind assessment, IMHO.
This has nothing to do with volunteering. An act is either considered torture, or it’s not. To go anywhere else is a bottomless Pandora’s Box.
And frankly, when it comes to our national security and intel, I don’t want to micromanage what our interrogators do as a citizen merely to give me the sense of moral high ground. Simple as that.
To Mata and Aye:
I would love to continue this debate but as I have mentioned before I am at work….and well I’m not getting much work done. So if I don’t respond the rest of today..I’m not ducking any questions or anything of that nature, it’s because I’ve got to get some work done. I’ll try and respond tomorrow.
Take Care
Ron
@Ron: Even if I agreed that waterboarding is torture, and I do NOT, I would point out that ONLY THREE TERRORISTS HAVE BEEN WATERBOARDED!
Are you saying the man who sawed off Daniel Pearl’s head and planned 9/11 is innocent?
Can you point to ONE EXAMPLE of where an innocent person was waterboarded? NO!
Get some perspective Ron.
P.S. I have already explained the difference between U.S. waterboarding and the Japanese.
Did you not bother to read the DOJ-CIA memos?
Yes, go back to work. We’re obviously wasting our time trying to inform you.
@Ron:
Plant me firmly in the do whatever it takes to protect thousands of lives camp Ron.
If that bothers you well, quite frankly, I have no problem with it.
My responses to your queries have been completely consistent. Whether on the battlefield, or here at home, if we have someone in custody who holds the information we need to prevent blood from flowing in the streets again then do whatever is needed to get the information.
As I said to you before, I’ll hold my head high, take my chances with a jury, and take whatever punishment that comes my way with the knowledge that thousands are alive because I was willing to take that risk.
Ultimately, I answer to a higher authority than US law. I can guarantee you that I will never stand before Him with the lame excuse that the Constitution prevented me from doing what I could to save all those people.
Speaking strictly from a moral point of view, I value the lives of thousands of innocents more highly than the life of someone who would willingly, eagerly, saw my head, or your head, off in service to his moon god.
The US Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact. A study of the founding fathers will teach you that. The founders never intended for the US to be so strictly bound by our laws so as to be unable to even protect ourselves.
The US is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions. Japan was too. Hence the prosecution of the Japanese soldiers you asked about earlier.
Al Queda is NOT a signatory of the GC, hence they are not covered or protected by it.
Furthermore, they are not protected because their jihadis fight out of uniform and hide among civilians.
The people we are talking about are specifically excluded from GC protections.
Ron, I’ve got to get back to work too.
I’ve got a ton of things calling my name, none of which I’ll admit, are nearly as much fun as FA.
Be back later….after dark EST since it’s gardening season.
@Ron:
Great news!
Thousands of inmates within the US prison system will be happy to know that being held against their will now fits your definition of torture.
Congratulations.
@Ron:
One more and I’m done for a bit.
Should all captives on the battlefield be Mirandized?
If not, why not?
The stated purpose of SERE training is precisely to prepare our own soldiers to the torture that various enemies might inflict on them, if they are captured. The techniques used in SERE were not invented from broadcloth, but were taken in part from what the Chinese did to prisoners during the Korean war. Techniques that the US then considered illegal torture. The fact that our own soldiers voluntarily subject themselves to a degree of that, performed by their comrades in arms, as a training exercise, doesn’t mean that those techniques therefore are not torture when performed with real intent to break a prisoner.
Ok…I’m done here at work but I have a question. If I’m so way off base in my arguments against torture or enhanced interrogation techniques, then why have the FBI and numerous military lawyers objected to the use of such techniques:
See link below:
http://documents.nytimes.com/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment#p=20
Also, I’m going to read the latest Senate Armed Services Committee Report…so perhaps that will shed some light on the subject.
Ron
Also
SERE training is performed under the strictest of conditions and the person undergoing the treatment can stop it at anytime, and students are subjected to extensive medical and Psychological pre-screenings. And the schools impose strict limits to how long such techniques can be performed. and again it’s voluntary.
Ron
Oh and Aye incarceration and torture are two different things….come on man!
If you took the uS prisoners and used enhanced interrogation techniques, then that would be torture.
Okay now I’m going home but I’ll check back tomorrow.
Have a good evening.
Ron
@Ron: Ron has apparently not read anything any of us have said. He just keeps moving the goalpost.
Sorry Ron. But when the next attack comes and a member of your family is killed don”t come here whining about how it’s Bush’s fault.
Russell and Ron, have either of you gone thru SERE training? Did either of you bother to read the link I gave from one who did?
Ron says:
The military trainers subject them to the techniques not to kill them, but to find their breaking point. Pray tell, how will they “stop it at anytime” and still find their breaking point? Rather moot for the training exercise, don’t you think. If you both to read from those who have experienced it, very few come out of it without finding their breaking point. Guess they didn’t “stop at any time”.
What makes you think that waterboarding detainees is any different? Do you assume they waterboard them to kill them? Or to take them to the breaking point?
What physical damage is done by waterboarding? Perhaps you’d like to use the three that were waterboarded in the CIA report… one over 260 times. Guess it still didn’t physically damage him, and they must have stopped *well* before the breaking point.
And I don’t give a whit about whether it is or was legal or illegal in the past. The Japanese did far more heinous torture than waterboarding. The Vietnamese did far worse as well… did anyone sue? Is that how you guys want to make your judgment calls instead of considering both the results and the perfectly fine health of the detainees following the interrogation?
This voluntary vs involuntary is utter BS, so unbelievably effeminate and emotional an assessment, and a Pandora’s box of nanny legislation. Torture is torture. Period. If you believe these techniques are torture, you should be railing about the military using them on our guys. If US special forces soldiers can gut it out for training, the detainees… who manage to live thru it just fine with limbs and body parts intact… can tough it out too without sustaining irreparable harm. And they do give up info.
Personally I’m tired of this PC crap. Let’s make it easy… there’s a bunch of homeless Gitmo types. How about we just send ’em to your houses for adoption and/or boarding, and you can coerce them over KFC hot wings and a NFL game? I’m sure they won’t feel “tortured”… unless the spicing gives them an ulcer.
@Ron:
It’s called illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
You presented the “against your will” definition of torture so I ran with it.
See how that works?
Again: Ron, Russell et al. have spent far more time hand wringing about the methods used to SAVE AMERICAN LIVES than any of them, or their Democrat representatives in Congress have reading the monster pork spending bills so recently signed by their savior Obama.
I’m looking forward to the prosecution of Obama officials and Democrats who have so clearly abdicated their duty here.
@Ron:
Strict conditions apply to the administration of EIT.
I learned that from reading the newly released memos.
Strict limits are applied not only to the duration of each individual session but also to the total number of sessions allowed within a specified period. The maximum number of minutes is also mandated regardless of the number of sessions.
I learned that from reading the newly released memos too.
@Aye Chihuahua: Apparently the only memos Ron is reading come from Moveon.org.
Sorry, guy, but budget issues just don’t compare to a sweeping change in American political tradition that sanctions torture and war crimes. If I have the regrettable choice to to leave my grandchildren with more government debt and also the American tradition of respect for law and condemnation of torture, or less debt and the turning of our law into a charade, I have to choose the latter.
@Russell:
See, Russell, there’s the rub.
The prevailing legal opinion is that waterboarding is not torture and it most certainly is not a war crime.
The leftists and the statists get their pretty pink panties all in a twist and type out the word “torture” when the definition of the word doesn’t even cover what they’re sniveling about.
Sorry things didn’t work out better but the facts are clearly not in your corner on this one.
I’ll tell you what, cite for me the laws that you contend were broken and I’ll take another look.
@Russell: “If I have the regrettable choice to to leave my grandchildren”
You won’t have to worry about it. Your grandchildren may very well die in a terrorist attack which we were unable to prevent due to your absurd moralizing over the waterboarding OF JUST THREE TERRRORISTS!
It wasn’t just waterboarding. And it wasn’t just three. There were hundreds who were tortured. Some of whom died.
You are the ones whose panties are in a twist. I don’t expect the world to be perfectly safe. I expect thousands of Americans will die from mayhem and intentional violence every month. I expect thousands more to die in accidents caused by recklessness. I have no doubt that there will be future acts of terrorism, if not from foreign jihadis, then from home-grown extremists. Despite that, I prefer to live in a free nation, one where people may own guns, where we have the freedom to travel and own boats and planes, where government is transparent, and where the president doesn’t have the power to torture anyone it claims is suspected of conspiring with terrorists.
You’re not going to dissuade my commitment to personal liberty by explaining there is an increment of risk in it. I know that. This issue is showing clearly the cleavage in the right between those who favor increasing state power to keep them safe, and those who really do have some commitment to American law and personal liberty.
@Russell:
So, who’s doing the sweeping changes? Certainly not the democrat packed Congress. They want show trials, make a lot of noise, but they aren’t creating a law to permanently ban waterboarding. What’s stopping them? Who’s going to veto legislation banning the enhanced interrogation techniques they are all raging about? Obama?
You people are all hat and no cattle in a pathetic sort of way.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362332302441815.html
Nope, they don’t want to permanently change the law, they want to play games and BTW, let it be known that Obama is the first president of this country that is threatening to adopt policies of second rate countries. So much for changing our image abroad.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044375842145565.html
Note the intensity above when the CIA approached the assistant Attorney General requesting advice in regards to that little pussy cat, Zubaydah. Jay Bybee is now on the hook because of the politics of the current administration, democrats in Congress and you. He will be forced into preparing for an expensive defense and his career ruined, depending on what way the wind blows with Obama, Congress and you.
Now, do tell us how the interrogation methods used permantly harmed the three terrorists physically or mentally and keep in mind that enhanced interrogation thwarted 60% of the attacks that were in the works against our country, our troops and our allies.
I would oppose any law to ban water-boarding, for the same reason I would oppose any law that bans armed robbery with revolver pistol. Writing law at that level of specificity is stupid. It serves only to tell miscreants how to modify their practice to stay inside the law (“it’s a semi, see?”) and it falsely supposes that juries cannot decided the elements of crimes.
We have laws against torture. We have applied them in the past, for both acts abroad and acts here. There is no need for new law, but only for the application of existing law.
@Russell:
Really?
What else was it?
I know that sleep deprivation is on the list, but what else?
Really?
How many then?
Where’s the reliable source for your presumptuous assumption?
Wow!
Hundreds?
Where’s the list of names?
Who died?
What caused them to die?
Who killed them?
Where’s the list?
Another presumptuous assumption. Where’s the source?
You should know by now that you cannot come to the pages of FA and make arguments sans factual backing and not be challenged.
You’re yet to cite the laws that you allege were violated. Until you can do that, you’re just pontificating.
You keep bringing up past prosecutions, ie Japan, but you fail to note that those prosecutions were for things above and beyond waterboarding. You also fail to note that some of the defendants charged with waterboarding were found not guilty.
I spent some time reading up on those prosecutions last night. I suggest you do the same.
The facts don’t stack up in your favor.
Slinging around reckless, unfounded arguments to see what might stick to the wall is not the way to debate.
If you’ve got the facts, bring ’em.
If not, then you’re wasting your time and filling our space with useless drivel.
**************
The remainder of post 81 and all of post 83 is one of the finest examples of pretzel logic I have seen in a long time.
Congratulations!
I do so look foward to Russell answering Aye’s questions with specifics. And I want to make sure he provides links to the sources of his information that are not attached to left wing sites.
What we have here is another example of the lefty loon mindset of swallowing the big lie so many times for them it becomes the truth.
Sort of like the one million Iraqis killed by George Bush.
I don’t have the delusional state of mind where I can manufacture facts and simply repeat them over and over. I have to have a comprehensive set of objective mainstream sources to back me up.
That level of documentation is something that the Kool Aid drinkers dispensed with long ago.
To Mike:
Your sensationalistic responses are really pathetic.
You said:
“Sorry Ron. But when the next attack comes and a member of your family is killed don’t come here whining about how it’s Bush’s fault”
Where to even begin.
First of all I’m not blaming Bush for anything so I think that is just you projecting. Mentioning one of my family members getting killed not only proves what a lunatic you are, it also proves that you are someone who has to resort to scaremongering to try and win an argument. I’ve never talked to someone so utterly entrenched in an atmosphere of fear and authoritarian paranoia.
You should come down to where I live Mike, we have shootings and murders every day. In fact I heard gun shots while sitting on my back porch just the other night. I’d say I have a better chance of being robbed or murdered by one of my fellow citizens than I do by a terrorist, but guess what Mike; I sleep just fine at night. And that’s not because I don’t recognize the threat outside my door, or the threat from Islamic terrorists. No Mike unlike you, I don’t live my life in a constant state of fear. I don’t allow my fears, unlike you, to run my life and formulate my opinions.
I’ve really tried to like you, to listen to you, but I’ve come to the conclusion that you are a jerk. You are narrow minded, rude and a confrontational jackass. You’re such coward that you have to resort to censorship when people don’t agree with you or confront you in a manner you find displeasing. Real tough there Mike.
I don’t like you Mike not one bit. And you can take your opinions and shove them up your ass.
Ron
@Russell:
Well then it’s best the democrats stop their yammering because none of the 6 methods of enhanced interrogation used constitute torture. These methods were necessary at a time when we did not know when or where our next attack would come from and as I mentioned earlier it worked, stopping 60% of planned attacks. 911 was an unprecedented attack on our own soil, leaving over 3000 dead, many more scarred mentally and physically for life.
We now have another president using unprecedented methods in this country’s economy. Many believe that he is bankrupting our children and grandchildren. If his programs fail do we then seek to ruin the lives of all those put in place to implement his policies. Or if this country is attacked do we then seek to ruin the lives of those tasked to keep this country safe as is being done now?
I have never experienced anything as mean and devisive as what this Congress and this president are doing to this country, it’s unprecedented. We all lose.
I guess now that the IRCC is considered “left wing,” there’s no point in telling people to read its report. The torture issue has never been just about waterboarding. As I wrote above, practices such as stress positions and enforced hypothermia are classical modes of torture, and have been a large part of the issue since news of “enhanced interrogation” first leaked out.
@Ron: I wanted to avoid the kind of petty insults that you apparently find so offensive, but since you seem to have dropped any pretense of civility let me say that while you find my views “sensationalist” or even “lunatic” I find yours to be simplistic and devoid of the advanced reasoning skills which are so essential to a full understanding of a complex problem like the issue being discussed.
If you are unable to understand the very personal nature of terrorism and the cost in human lives and the family tragedy that ensues I recommend you go visit some of the families of firefighters in New York. Kids are growing up without a Dad and wives left to raise them and keep the family together all on their own.
I too have lived in neighborhoods where gunfire and criminal activity were common. You ever lived in the heart of the nation’s capital Ron? Rather than react with fear as you seem to suggest, I went out and joined the neighborhood watch group and became a block captain for my street.
Maybe that would be a better use of your time as thus far I fail to find much in your comments of a substantive nature.
The problem we are discussing here isn’t suited to someone with a bumper sticker mentality for problem solving.
And your last remark reminds me of something a child would say. Sort of like the rest of your remarks. Simplistic, ill-informed and immature.
@Russell:
Under international law, anything documented by the IRCC is not admissible in court, so what they say is irrelevant.
What else ya got?
PS…. You still haven’t cited the laws that were supposedly violated.
Hey Mike:
You are as juvenile as they come. Your comment was that of a six year old, and you started this shit storm with that comment about my family being killed you ass. Own your words Mike and then I might at least have a little respect for you.
Ron
Your words again Mike:
“Sorry Ron. But when the next attack comes and a member of your family is killed don’t come here whining about how it’s Bush’s fault”
Own your words Mike…..are you assuming one of my family members will be killed or are you wishing for it Mike?
Yeah you show real maturity and complex reasoning kills with a comment like that Mike.
You are such an asshole and a coward.
Ron
Mike’s words again:
“The problem we are discussing here isn’t suited to someone with a bumper sticker mentality for problem solving”.
“And your last remark reminds me of something a child would say. Sort of like the rest of your remarks. Simplistic, ill-informed and immature”.
You mean comments like this Mike:
“Sorry Ron. But when the next attack comes and a member of your family is killed don’t come here whining about how it’s Bush’s fault”
Ummmm…yeah again you make childish sensational comments like this but I’m being the child?
Besides didn’t I tell you to shove your opinions up your ass?
Ron
@Ron: Your continued diarrhea of the keyboard destroys whatever credibility you had left.
No where did I ever suggest that I wished for your family members to be killed.
You obviously have nothing substantive to contribute here and getting into a pissing contest with you is not how I choose to spend my time.
You sound more and more like this:
Any further comments from you on this thread will be deleted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEYzli8nY4U
and about 2:20 into this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEYzli8nY4U
In the first link of Holders confirmation hearings, he cited waterboarding as having been prosecuted as a war crime, and stated waterboarding is torture.
In the second link, he states in a hearing today: “If I see evidence of wrongdoing I will pursue it to the full extent of the law, and I will do that in an appropriate way.”
This is going to heat up right fast, and it’s not hard to see where Holder is going to come down in the matter, Waterboarding = Torture =Prosecute based on his already sworn testimony.
I know I posted my beliefs already in this thread, and I still stand by them, but this make even me a bit queasy to think we are about to go through this as a country….
So moose, if the act of waterboarding is “torture”, when do you suggest we start prosecuting the US military SERE trainers?
@mooseburger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdznv9Q6o9s
At this point I say screw the candy assed Eric Holder and Patrick Leahy. Wonder if any one of those who took their lives rather than burn to death in that inferno would have exchanged a waterboarding session instead of what they chose that day.
You are grasping because of politics. Sad, very sad.
Mossy: This is what happens when you eat rodents. It effects your ability to reason complex issues. You haven’t been sharing any of that roadkill with Ron have you?
Go and read the DOJ/CIA memos. It’s abundantly clear that our side bent over backwards to prevent any injury or lasting emotional damage to JUST THREE OF THE WORST TERRORIST MONSTERS!
Do I need to go back through those memos and list the steps we took to prevent any injury or abuse of THESE THREE MONSTERS?
Again, I need to repeat that we are talking about THE THREE WORST TERRORIST SCUM!!!
You do understand that don’t you?
As I have said before, if Dems had taken a fraction of the time they’ve wasted wailing about the waterboarding of JUST THREE TERRORISTS and spent it on reading the bills Obama is trying to ram through Congress we wouldn’t be wasting trillions.
Mata said: So moose, if the act of waterboarding is “torture”, when do you suggest we start prosecuting the US military SERE trainers?
I suggest we don’t, and no matter where you are in this argument, most people will make the distinction between volunteers and detainees.
Missy: Every single one would have traded places in order to see their families again.
Mike: You have to at least be smarter than a Squirrel in order to get to eat them.
I read thru some of those memo pages, but not all of them. What I read was very detailed, and it looked to me to be a CYA document as much as a guideline to memorialize proceedures after the fact.
Look, there is just no way to overstate how horrible 911 was, and how badly justice and righteous vengance cries out for the victims, their families, and our country. We all get that.
We all knew the world was going to change on that day, and to a person, we looked to President Bush for leadership and wisdom, and believe me or not, I am telling you now, at that time, I was so glad we had him as our President then. He said and did all the things that we as a country needed to hear, and we were comforted by his leadership.
I was at a bar when he gave a speech to the nation, and told us it was a group called Al Qaeda who did this to America. You could have heard a pin drop during that address, and the whole bar went into a standing ovation and big grown hairy Squirrel eatin’ men had tears in their eyes and the fire of vengence in their guts. You would drive down the streets and Old Glory was everywhere, when we went into Afghanistan, we were fully supporting that war, as a country, and practically as a whole world.
All political crap aside, it is hard to fathom how we as a country lost sight of winning the war in Afghanistan, not focusing on getting Bin Laden, keeping the borders open while a threat of another attack exists, and getting sidetracked with Iraq.
It is hard to look back and understand how President Bush lost the support of most of the country. The list is too long, but many mistakes were made, downplaying the capturing Bin Laden while most people hold Osama personally responsible, the Harsh Interrogations, warrantless wiretapping, poor planning and execution of the war in Iraq, lack or armoured vehicles to protest against road side bombs, lack of bullet proof vests, a steady drip of things that gave people pause and wonder if the guy is focused on the important parts of the mission, the mission to get those bastards who are personally responsible and attacked us. I know many blame the MSM, but a narrative will not stick unless there is a bit of truth to back it all up. Bush had an obligation to effectively keep support for this righteous cause front and center in the minds and hearts of the people. Agree or disagree with the wisdom of the decision to go to war in Iraq, it certainly put more on Bush’s plate to deal with, more than he had the ability to keep focus of the people on.
Now all this stuff starts getting released, and I heard last night that more photos like the ones from Abu Garhab are coming out soon. I can’t help but think that the truth is important, and we the PEOPLE deserve the truth, but also, how do you keep the politics out of something like this???? I really wonder if this is being used as a scare tactic to get Republicans back in line and supporting some of Obama’s agenda because of the mixed signals being sent from Holder and the President.
Bush and company probably authorized some things that shouldn’t have been done, and it was stupid to do this and expose the country to whatever political, ethical, whatever you want to call it, scrutiny and payback that he surely knew would happen. But I do think it is very important to understand the circumstances surrounding some bad decisions, and dragging the country thru prosecutions is something only radical zealots would want who are less concerned about their country than themselves. I do not want our country to torture ever, but I admit I feel a bit weird taking up for the DAMN Fu**ing Terrorists and their human rights while few are stepping up and speaking for those who died on 911. That doesn’t seem right. I doubt I’m the only “Lefty” that feels this way either….sorry for the rant….
@mooseburger: That’s right… if ONLY we had not waterboarded JUST THREE TERRORISTS the world would be a better place. Other nations would love and respect us, Al Queda would stop sawing the heads off us infidels and the peaceful squirrel eaters at your bar could feel proud to be American again!
Obviously eating road kill has effected your mind.
If you think the Bush Administration memos are CYA (and everything in government is, I can tell you from experience) then read the memo in the post above prepared by Obama’s Attorney General. It lays out the step by step process by which government officials at the highest level, including members of Congress, approved these practices.
You will also note from the DOJ/CIA memos how much effort was made to protect JUST THREE MONSTERS from any real harm during the procedures. I’ve already linked a condensed version from the WSJ in a post below:
It seems to me if you want to wail and moan about the loss of American support in our fight against terrorism you should direct your ire at the people who manufactured the mass public hysteria about “torture” of JUST THREE MONSTERS who were directly responsible for the killing of innocent Americans.
Yet, you continue to act as the willing or unwilling agent of that ill-informed hysteria all for some political benefit.
It’s a shameful sight to see.
@mooseburger:
We already know the truth, those participating in prisoner abuse were punished, strict policies were adapted and are strictly enforced. Now, that “forward looking” president is shamelessly playing politics with something that should remain in the past.
Like the ones at abu Gharibe? about 20 of the photos are abu Gharibe prison scandal photos DOD did not release way back then, the other half are from DOD investigations of other Iraqi and Afghanistan prisons way back then.
So, how much of a division does Obama need to create within our society, how much more hate does he need to manufacture? and, for what?
@Missy: Missy, Obama is well on his way to becoming the most divisive President of my lifetime.
His continued campaign to criminalize and devalue the efforts the previous Administration took to keep us safe are disgusting. And what would he put in their place but his own good intentions?
As Rev. Wright said, the chickens come home to roost at some point and I just hope that doesn’t mean another attack on the U.S. because of Obama’s weakness, naivete, inexperience and deeply flawed personal outlook towards this country.
Mike: Waterboarding three terrorists was only one of a list of reasons Bush lost support for the war and for his Presidency. All us Rodent Roasters around here are still proud to be American. When a State like Indiana goes from Red to Blue, believe me, you must have done something to cause that to happen, and that’s no easy feat.
Mike said: “It seems to me if you want to wail and moan about the loss of American support in our fight against terrorism you should direct your ire at the people who manufactured the mass public hysteria about “torture” of JUST THREE MONSTERS who were directly responsible for the killing of innocent Americans.”
Appropriate amount of ire directed and duly noted. More to my point, there are and were always those who would try to undermine Bush and manufacture outrage against him. That’s a given, then as now with Obama. Bush had all our support in an unprecedented way by modern standards, Does Bush bear any blame for the loss of support Mike, or is it just most everybody else who is wrong? Bush gave them way more ammo than required to shoot down his support level.
The issue we are discussing in this thread is just one small portion of what caused Bush to lose support from his countrymen, from both the Left and the Right. I don’t think I stand alone on that one, my Rodentphobic friend.
Hmmm, this conversation reminds me of a recent post by one of my favorite bloggers.
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2009/04/defining-torture.html