Here is how far the Justice Department sank during the tenure of Alberto Gonzales: Soon after Gonzales became attorney general, the department issued a secret opinion endorsing the harshest interrogation techniques used by the CIA, including simulated drowning and frigid temperatures, the New York Times reported. And then after Congress responded to the abuses and outlawed "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion declaring that none of the CIA’s interrogation methods violated that standard, the Times reported.
Gonzales reportedly approved the first legal memorandum over the objections of former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who warned that the department would be "ashamed" when the world eventually learned about the secret opinion.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
107 Comments
He needn’t have worried about the Republicans, they have no shame, only fear and paranoia.
“simulated drowning and frigid temperatures”
The sissification continues.
Right on. Real men would’ve drowned the bastards, and asked questions later, you dunce!
Evidently no one here has been through military survivor training. :)
You might feel differently about this if the terrorist were holding your son or daughter hostage, or if the terrorist was planning to blow up a building you worked in.
These “animals” have vowed before their Allah that they will die killing Americans. Do you think they give a rat’s ass about how they treat American’s?
Off with their heads!
I know you’d feel differently if the govt. was interrogating one of your children on a tip!
At least they will be insured.
Well, this is the world… some people kill cause it is the only way to solve a problem… in their minds.
torturing people is terrorist activity. we should go after the terrorists.
You can just hear the arousal at the thought of getting to torture someone dripping from fleettwood’s words.
Republicans are worthless pricks. Worse than worthless, actually. Out of their bed-wetting fear, they’ve willingly thrown American values under the bus.
Maybe my memory is a tad fuzzy, but. . .didn’t we already know this? I know I was posting about the “torture memos” here, nearly 2 years ago.
Or this the “smoking gun” that was somehow lacking before?
Help me out, folks. It’s tough to keep this administration’s outrages straight, there being so many of them.
As much as I am loath to cut the terrorists any slack, there has to be a difference between us and them. This blurs that difference, and is just wrong. Period.
Equating military survival training with prisoner torture is a ridiculous comparison at best, and a major copout at worst.
I have been through military survival training, and, while rough on both the psych and the body, it is not torture, unless you’re a wimp.
America has lost its moral and economic leadership under bush. Our National and International decline will have at its historical watershed, GWB. Unless the Dems. can put us on the right track again.
I have been through military survival training, and, while rough on both the psych and the body, it is not torture, unless you’re a wimp.
Posted by: stumper | October 04, 2007 at 03:06 PM
You must not have gone through the POW interrogation tactics part of the school then.
“As much as I am loath to cut the terrorists any slack, there has to be a difference between us and them. This blurs that difference, and is just wrong. Period.”
Posted by: GMC70
GMC nails it here. Proof: it can happen.
This little project certainly smacks of Cheney!
Sanity is slowly reemerging, as events unfold about the Cabal.
I agree with GMC. How can we say we are any better or justify our own position if we resort to the same tactics that terrorists employ? Torture has no place in civilized society.
Kansas, the difference is in military training, you are under the supervision of people with a vested interest in keeping you alive. Prisoners have no such assurance. And “simulated drowning” is more accurately described as “near drowning.”
If we’re going to torture and kill prisoners, then we need to stop criticizing terrorists for doing the same. It’s our choice as a nation which way we go.
Now argue your position on the matter.
“Republicans are worthless pricks. Worse than worthless, actually. Out of their bed-wetting fear, they’ve willingly thrown American values under the bus.”
Chuckle…. You can tell CF is an intellectual because he reasons things through. He never issues stupid and inflammatory blanket statements.
CF, what did you just call my Momma?
outlander,
When things are wrong, morally wrong, intellectual integrity is to be obtained by NOT dignifying them with seriousness.
It’s real simple, outlander: one either believes in civilization–to say nothing of Christian values–or one doesn’t. Period.
Republicans, for the most part, continue to stand behind an Adminstration that doesn’t value these things. That GMC70 doesn’t, for example, testifies to his adherence to put principles before party.
Let’s see what kind of “American” you are, outlander, much less what kind of a “Christian.” Do you think America should practice torture, or don’t you?
Note: GMC70 “doesn’t” continue to stand behind Bush and Cheney. This means that he DOES exhibit our shared, American values.
CF
Thanks for the kind words, but – Outlander kinda has you pegged, sure enough. “Worthless pricks” is hardly reasoned persuasion. It’s just the kind of crap the left here routinely engages in, and then accuses the right of doing.
You’re better than that. Or you can be.
GMC70,
Actually, I think ‘worthless pricks’ really gets the point across.
People who advocate torture do so for reasons that aren’t accessible to ‘reasoned persuasion.’ It has little or nothing to do with extracting information, and everything to do with proving dominance.
In this particular case, they want to use torture as an offensive weapon, to demonstrate that if you f*ck with the United States, you’ll get tortured.
This has everything to do with their feelings, and nothing to do with sound policy or what is in the best interests of those who we send into harm’s way.
Torture is bestial, as are its practitioners and endorsers. They have proven themselves to be worthless to the United States, and pricks because of the pleasure they derive from inflicting suffering on others, either directly or having it done in their names.
Yeah, outlander, I’m waiting to hear too.
Who would Jesus torture?
Answer the question.
*****
And I thought CF was restraining himself magnificently.
When McCain came back from ‘Nam, he couldn’t stop talking about the despicable commie torture.
But, when we do it, it’s justified because we’re us?
Yeah, outlander, I’m waiting to hear too.
Who would Jesus torture?
Answer the question.
*****
And I thought CF was restraining himself magnificently.
When McCain came back from ‘Nam, he couldn’t stop talking about the despicable commie torture.
But, when we do it, it’s justified because we’re us?
“You’re better than that. Or you can be.
Or, maybe not.
“Actually, I think ‘worthless pricks’ really gets the point across”
CF -
You missed the point. You didn’t accuse the administration of being “worthless pricks,” you accused all Republicans.
And your remarkably cogent response to me belies the point it attempts to make. You rise to how you should be writing, despite yourself. Remember that.
Please define torture vs agressive interrogoration tecniques. Is there any difference? If someone has vital information, about a potential large casualty incident, and decides to not cooperate, what methods would you consider torture? What would you consider acceptable integorration tecniques. I agree with GMC70 in the principle, I am just trying to figure out where to draw the line. No integorration tecniques? Appeal to their better nature?
I don’t think all Republicans should be trashed. Our country needs productive collaboration, not the politics of destruction.
For example, consider Bush’s 2004 campaign. Suppose he had said in his ads , “We have to defeat terrorists,” and then he said, “Here is what we are doing to this end,” and the ads showed clips of Abu Ghraib, and “psy ops” at Guantonamo, AND the “enhanced interrogation methods” conducted on “extraordinarily renditioned” prisoners captured and sent to Egypt, Syria (an identified state sponsor of terrorism) and other places.
And then suppose other Bush-Cheney ads showed 12, 13, 14 year old Middle Eastern kids (ages shown in type on the screen) “enemy non-combatants” being imprisoned.
How many registered Republican soccer moms would have voted for Bush, not to mention their husbands?
If Bush-Cheney had told the truth, and nothing but the truth, how many of these Republicans would have voted for reelecting Bush-Cheney? I have a hunch the numbers would have been really small. But these decent Republicans were hoodwinked.
Outie,”CF, what did you just call my Momma?”
Any woman that would put up with you for 18yrs has my deepest sympathy.
There is no doubt – no doubt at all – that these tactics are torture and subject to prosecution as war crimes. We know this because the law is very clear when you don’t have war criminals like AEI’s John Yoo rewriting it to give one man unchecked power. We know this because the very same techniques – hypothermia, long-time standing, beating – and even the very same term “enhanced interrogation techniques” – “verschaerfte Vernehmung” in the original German – were once prosecuted by American forces as war crimes. The perpetrators were the Gestapo. The penalty was death. You can verify the history here.
We have war criminals in the White House. What are we going to do about it?
*****
Everyone who voted for Bush, everyone who shouted down the Florida re-count, everyone who turned a blind eye as the evidence mounted and mounted bears some culpability, GMC.
That means you and your Republican ilk.
As for me, I voted for the guy who won in 2000.
Here’s the link from Andrew Sullivan’s post above:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/war-criminal.html
“Yeah, outlander, I’m waiting to hear too.
Who would Jesus torture?
Answer the question.”I d ————I’m not going to answer anything for you Capn America, because of your bullying attitude. Doesn’t work on me. Ass.
And CF is changing the subject. Don’t blame him. He called my Momma …a, well you saw it.
I refuse to talk issues with someone who begins with severe insults and then wants to get reasoned discussion.
So, what are acceptable interrogation tecniques? I wasn;t interested in and editorial claiming George Bush was a war criminal. I can find an editorial everyday that says that, and the reverse.
Again, what do you consider acceptable interrogation tecniques?
Capn:
I’m shocked!! You voted for Bush in 2000? I’m surprised to learn that.
As for the rest – save your self-rightous crap for someone who thinks you matter.
Next Capn will be admitting that he is a member of the Senator Craig fan club.
There has been a “24 Hours” fraud of one terrorist having knowledge of a big nuclear/ other WMD attack, and so torture is acceptable to get a conffession.
Who wouldn’t agree to this? Well, thinking people who realize that reality is, A. that this doesn’t justify the torture of thousands of innocent detainees, B. this is a totally fantasy scenario, and C. get your GD hands out of their pockets (stealing their natural energy resources), and they’re not going to counter-respond to your control-freak ideology and your state terrorism.
This entire administration is about to end up standing in front of the World Court and trying to explain itself. They’re gonna have a tough time!
Again, what do you consider acceptable interrogation tecniques?
Posted by: littlejohn | October 04, 2007 at 04:52
Regarding the hypothetical scenario of what if a prisoner has knowledge of an impending attack, if this made torture justifiable, then we would have started torturing common criminals a long time ago. How many lives could we have saved by torturing murder for hire conspirators, gang members, robbery suspects, serial killers, etc? We could even torture illegal immigrants until they give up the names of they coyotes, all in the name of saving lives.
And yet we as a society choose not to do it. Think about that before you apply hypothetical scenarios to a dehumanized enemy.
No one is answering littlejohn’s question. It is in fact a very good question. Where is the line between aggressive interrogation and torture?
I know libs don’t like to think, they like to feel and react. But clearly LJ honed in on the key issue. Where is the line drawn?
Maybe it is a really tough question to answer.
If Bush-Cheney had told the truth, and nothing but the truth
decent Republicans were hoodwinked.
Hey folks, your all hoodwinked as long as you blindly follow the RNC (daddy) and the DNC (mommy). Neither believe you children are adult enough to handle the truth. Truth is a matter for grown-ups. Its okay to do your chores and contribute. They placate, pacify, and/or order you to do what your told. At the end of the day your rushed off to bed so they can have adult time which culminates in them sleeping together anyway.
Vote how you like but register Independent.
outlander,
“And CF is changing the subject. Don’t blame him. He called my Momma …a, well you saw it.”
What the hell are you talking about?
Ok so now it’s pretty clear that Abu Gharib’s orders probably came from the top. Now, lets release the soldiers who were convicted of that, and put on trial the real criminals….
All of the Bush administration.
After World War II, what separated the moral countries and Hitler were the Nuremberg trials.
The US is a land of law and order. We believe, or should believe, that no one is above the law. But we also believe in giving the accused a chance to present their case in a court of law.
This is what makes America great. To now go ahead and torture prisoners without so much as a court hearing, that smells of acting just like the terrorists and that is what blurs the line between civilized and uncivilized countries.
I’ve always found the Republican pre occupation with torture tellingly consistent. Republicans by and large are mean and abusive people. They derive pleasure or satisfaction or felf elevation through inflicting pain on others.
She’s a Republican, CF.
You called all Republicans….
Did you not mean that?
self elevation that is
As for the rest – save your self-rightous crap for someone who thinks you matter.
Posted by: GMC70
Content free, ad homenim.
At least the Republics are consistent.
And since they do it so often, let’s just shorten it to “WACKED”
WithoutAnyContent–Kooky,Execrable,Demeaning
Demeaning
outlander,
Oh, grow up. I may be juvenile, but you’re infantile.
When somebody calls out your Momma, they call out your Momma directly.
Cry to your Momma much, outlander?
Outlander writes, I’m not going to answer anything for you Capn America, because of your bullying attitude. Doesn’t work on me. Ass.
WHACKED.
Wow, this sure speeds things up . . .
Well Outie as far as I’m concerned, a woman who votes Republican is one of three things.
Greedy, self abusive, or stupid
Actually that goes pretty much for anyone that votes Republican.
LJ
Physical pain, or threat of same, is unacceptable. Use every psychological trick you can muster. Wanna lie to them, go for it. Lie away, in order to get information.
But no physical violence, nor threat of same.
Put it this way. Sooner or later, most of these folks will be released. They’re not kingpins, they’re pawns. They’ve been told that we are the “great Satan,” waiting to destroy them, their religion, their way of life.
Why would we want to reinforce that and become exactly what their manipulative controllers, the Bin Ladens of the world, say we are? What if they went home and informed their own countries that the Americans treated them well? Pumped them for information, yes, but fed them, respected their religion, treated them well.
What difference might that make?
There were hundreds of thousands of German soldiers housed in this country during WWII. I have little doubt that part of the reason Germany so quickly turned around to a US ally is that those men went home and told their neighbors that the Americans treated them with respect. It paid off.
We do it because 1) it’s in our interest, and 2) it’s the right thing to do.
If the method of torture was so patriotic, then why the secrecy?
Bush promised honesty and integrity in his White House. Is this another example of his so-called morals?
Hehehe, good one, MM.
Remember when Bush pledged to bring “honor and integrity to the White House”?
WACKED.
Physical discomfort is not torture.
Comfort is subjective and often psychologically or sociologically driven.
Drinking cow’s blood and milk would be torture to most American. In some tribes in Africa, it’s considered nutritional and customary.
Holding your head under water might be considered torture, unless your training for escape in an iron tank to be a submariner and you have to swim thirty feet to the surface.
Dipping your feet in ice water might be considered torture unless your a member of the “Polar Bear” Club.
Therefore, torture may be considered to do something that is forced upon you or some method of coercion to do something against your will.
Being in prison is against one’s will, is that torture?
Being handcuffed is against one’s will, is that torture?
Being “tased” is against one’s will is that torture?Pain can be a factor in torture, but not always.
Are psychological methods that inflict no pain torture?
Is the illusion of drowning torture? There is no pain, just panic on the part of those induced to the fake drowning.
So then, do we have to include panic as an element of torture?
This is one method that the military does in its mock POW camps to train for the psychology of torture.
They blindfold you.The lead you to a pit and convince you it is twenty feet deep and that is wear you are going to stay for days if not weeks. (the hole is only six feet deep)
They try and get you to confess to anything and if you don’t, your buddy who is blindfolded and bound gets shoved into a hole and you hear his scream and the thud as he falls.
After you are pushed in and helped out, they remove the blindfolds and show you that the holes were only six feet deep.
Is that torture?
I was good humored to start this CF, but I’m slipping.
I thought you’d see what you had written with the blanket statement and correct it. But it is apparently what your really meant.
Just forget it.
What do you call it, outlander, when some one dishes it out but refuses to take it?
Okay, I remember now: a Republican.
Outlander,
Don’t hide behind your mother and your crocodile tears. Do you support the interrogation techniques practiced by the Adminstration, in secret, or don’t you?
Here are some ideas of interrogation standards:
Do not use any interrogation techniques that we would be unable/unwilling to broadcast on primetime network television.
Do not use any techniques of interrogation that would be regrettable if the interrogee turned out to have no involvement with the subject they were being interrogated about.
Pay no attention to the Muppet poster CF/CF2K, outlander.
He refers to him self in the third person and confuses deity with personality.
Do not use interrogation techniques that we would retrospectively be ashamaed to have used on an innocent person.
Outlander,
Seriously. When someone makes a blanket statement that “liberals are ____,” who ever takes umbrage on behalf of their liberal mothers?!?
If this is how the game is now to be played here, fine. If you really want phony outrage on behalf of third parties to the be the order of the day, just say so.
Here are some ideas of interrogation standards:Do not use any interrogation techniques that we would be unable/unwilling to broadcast on primetime network television.
Do not use any techniques of interrogation that would be regrettable if the interrogee turned out to have no involvement with the subject they were being interrogated about.
Posted by: brian | October 04, 2007 at 05:37 PM
How would you determine that?
This torture is rated “R” and should not be used under any circumstances?
Who approves the rating? If the U.N. voted on it, would you want Syria, Iran, Russia and North Korea to sit on the council to decide the rating system for torture?
Seriously. When someone makes a blanket statement that “liberals are ____,” who ever takes umbrage on behalf of their liberal mothers?!?Posted by: CF2K | October 04, 2007 at 05:40 PM
Seriously, this is what Libs do all day here on the Blog. They compare anything they consider wrong as a Republican value.
If someone gets robbed and killed, it must be Bush’s fault and the Republicans that voted for him.
That pretty much sums up the way Libs think on this Blog.
During the American Revolution when British soldiers would terrorize and butcher Americans it sounded acceptable to treat the captured British soldiers equally as harsh. However Gen. George Washington ordered the American forces to treat the captured soldiers with dignity and not resort to the level of the British.
Now we have AWOL Bush who rounds civilians off the streets and sends them to torture dungeons in the name of liberating the people of Iraq. We are a shameful society.
CF: Mentioning “my Momma” was my way of pointing out to you what you had said.
That was before I knew that you meant it when you called all Republicans “Worthless Pricks”. Sorry you feel that way.
So given that is your belief, this “worthless prick” is through talking with you.
Oh, if the New York Times reported it it just has be true. Lord knows how what upstanding and truth finding journalist they are. I feel so much safer with them around.
Instead of continually parsing what torture is, is it not factual that torture seldom reveals needed information — people will tell you what they think you want to hear. Criminals will confess to crimes they did not commit to terminate long and grueling interrogations.
As McCain said about his legislation, “this is not about who the terrorists are, this is about who WE are” (a paraphrase).
And you can give me that old tired story about a known bomb is ticking, do we torture to find out where it is? A very unlikely scenario, and I think we don’t have to have phoney justifications for doing what needs to be done in that very unlikely case.
Torture is a loser bully’s resort. “I can hurt you, and I will, to make you do what I want.”
America is better than this.
Torture does not work. Hence, it is not needed.
And you can give me that old tired story about a known bomb is ticking, do we torture to find out where it is? A very unlikely scenario, and I think we don’t have to have phoney justifications for doing what needs to be done in that very unlikely case.
Posted by: Steven Davis | October 04, 2007 at 06:18 PM
Okay.I will give yo a real one. AN individual is captured in Iraq. He has definitive knowledge about where a stash of explosives is, those explosives being used to make suicide bombs used in marketplace, killing women and children. That’s a real case. Now you decide how much force to be used for interrogation.
At least GMC70 provided an answer. See, it’s easy to decide to be against torture, not so easy to decide what torture is.
I think my defition night be a little broader. Nothing that causes permananet damage, or that if done correctly, causes permanent damage. I really am not sure. But, I think it is a question that needs to be discussed and discusses rationally. THe devil is ALWAYS in the details
Pathetic Kansas. Yes, you are pathetic.
We used to be the leaders because people looked up to us in the world. Now, not so much.
Russia and China have some of the most awful torture. Do you really want to be on the same plane? This is where your policy beliefs will lead us to. And look at where they’ve led for them. Afterall, once it’s ok to do that to our enemies, then it’ll be political enemies, and the neighbor who doesn’t like you too much.
GMC70 might be right. Maybe no pain,or even the threat of it. At least he had an answer.
Maybe Brian is right?Here are some ideas of interrogation standards:
Do not use any interrogation techniques that we would be unable/unwilling to broadcast on primetime network television.
Do not use any techniques of interrogation that would be regrettable if the interrogee turned out to have no involvement with the subject they were being interrogated about.
Posted by: brian | October 04, 2007 at 05:37 PM
What are you willing to see on tv to save women and children from a suicide bomber? or are the bodyparts of the mothers and children more palatable to see on tv? Perhaps you should show those, if you are unwilling to witness any “ugly” interrogation tecniques?Brings home the reality of your decision.
LJ, would it be ok for the police to use it on you if you were a suspect in a murder?
Tactics that might kill you or hurt you really bad? Drive you crazy?
Is that really where you want to go?
Okay.I will give yo a real one. AN individual is captured in Iraq. He has definitive knowledge about where a stash of explosives is, those explosives being used to make suicide bombs used in marketplace, killing women and children. That’s a real case. Now you decide how much force to be used for interrogation.
Well, that would not be a proper example. That would be a domestic matter for the Iraqi authorities. Probably THEY wouldn’t have a problem with torturing your suspect, Their society is used to it.
Ours isn’t. Once you do a bad thing, it gets easy to do the next bad thing. We should try to avoid that.
Give Gonzales to the world court.
War is not a time when good things happen. So realism is in order I think.
I have a friend whose husband told her that when he was in Viet Nam they would sometimes interrogate people whom they were sure had information they needed. They would take two Viet Cong up in a helicopter about 500 feet or so above the ground, push one out, and tell the other that was what was going to happen to him unless he told them what they needed to know.
The above kind of things happen when we say we are signed on to the Geneva Conventions. It is a scary thought to me as to what happens when we say the Geneva Conventions are quaint and we don’t need to worry about them.
It is bad policy to do what this administration has done. We are better than terrorists. I hope we still can say that and mean it.
If you are bleeding out your bunghole, it was probably torture.
All he “Jack Bauer” scenarios are contrived bulls#it.
“If” we had a guy and “if” we knew he knew, and “if” a suitcase bomb was somewhere, and “if” we knew it was set to go off in 20 minutes, and “if” it exploded it would kill 30,000 people, and “if” the guy could be tortured to tell us, and “if” he told us in time to respond, and “if” we could evacuate 30,000 people in less than 20 minutes, and “if”….
*If* all the “ifs” might fall into place…okay maybe.
But under no circumstances should torture be standard policy. It should be absolutely and positively against the law. Like, say, murder.
But there’s a concept in American justice that’s summed up for us laymen that says, “There’s not a jury in the world that would convict you.”
When Bill Clinton was asked about the Jack Bauer scenario, he said he might consider authorizing torture. And if it was successful, he’d throw himself to the mercy of the jury.
Murder is always illegal. But there are things such as due process and extenuating circumstances that make some murders “justifiabl homicides.”
Just because someone might do something to you that makes it necessary for you to kill him doesn’t mean the Attorney General of the United States has any business for the fact issuing a license to kill.
You know I really hate coming across these topics so late in the day, in fact many time I refrain from commenting on them solely because by the time I hit on them there is almost 200 hundred posts or more.It becomes like the guy who sleeps through the fire alarm and it the last one in the building to run through the hall screaming “FIRE!”. What’s the point? No one is likely to read it and at time I question even if I do hit it in time that anyone really does.
The topic has been beaten to death and falls into a pissing contest between mindless name calling. No one pointing out the real obvious. But then I see that reason has been spoken here and finally someone is addressing the real problem. Thank you GMC70! The real subject is not how the terrorists are being treated it is how WE are treating them! In this battle it is not the defense of this country, the reality of it all is that try as they might Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and even Saddam or Iran can destroy us, ONLY we can, WE are the heart and soul of America! It has never been our military, our economy, or our size that has made America strong! It has always been our guiding principals, our concepts that have made us the best and strongest nation on the face of the planet. It has ALWAYS been those that have been worth the fight!
That is something I have been saying all along, in the beginning all Al-Qaeda was is a bunch of two bit criminals. They had no real backing within the Moslem world, in fact in general the Moslems had been happy to just stay for the most part in their country as long as we stayed in our! Allowed us to believe what ever we wanted to believe. What Bin Laden and the like say is not even in the Koran, all they point to was written after the Koran was written and were nothing but opinions expressed by a few religious scholars afterwards.
It is what we do that matters, not what they do! I am a Republican, am counted in that blanket indictment too? This is not about Republican or Democrat and to lower it to that level is the real “Aiding and giving comfort to the enemy”. Much I say sounds like one of those kooky conspiracy theories, I know that! I would not be saying it if not for the fact that the more I tried to find something that could be believed that discounted it. The more I was finding that only assured it, People the Neo-Con threat is real and for wanting someone to stop them from behind the scenes. It appear they are not, Bush now or I said say his handlers now have the authority to start the next world war. I can not express it enough, to attack Iran will start a war that will be dragging in the entire World! For many in the Middle East the only thing stopping them from join in was the truth that to stay our would ensure they would be left alone. But for them the score is The Untied States has attack one country without Provocation. Iraq did not and would not have attacked us, in arguing that Saddam was supportive of Al-Qaeda. They all knew he thought of Bin Laden as more a threat to his reign then he did of the U.S.!
NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE is saying that Iran has or is even actually building nuclear weapons.
Like with the “proof” of Saddam’s weapons, it is all second guessing and conjecture. But for us to attack them it will take away the very thing that is stopping the other from joining in, now seeing that simply by not attacking us they would be safe from our wrath!
Bush is delusional thinking he is on a mission from God to go on another holly crusade, his words BTW to Prince Bandar of S.A. The Neo-Cons, Cheney, Hadley, Pearle and the others whom are still controlling the Administration are just as delusional. Still hell bend on taking over the Middle East and installing THEIR brand of Democracy that is in fact based on the old Socialist ideas of Russia. Please do not take my word, do the research as they have not even did a real attempt to hide it. These people are confused with the GOP and Conservatism. They have gain a control much like the one they are succeeding in do over the GOP over the Government.
Well if not already I now figure I am joining the ranks of Ed and if anyone is reading this that are dismissing what I say. That or the fact is that everyone is already a convert to the Neo-Con movement and I had not gotten the notice.
This goes to show that Bush is the WORST President in the history of our country. He snorted coke instead of going to Viet Nam but loves to dress up and play soldier and pretend he is Jack Bauer.
“Pathetic Kansas. Yes, you are pathetic.
We used to be the leaders because people looked up to us in the world. Now, not so much.”
Yes PMom, that would explain why the U.S. has the most viable investment market in the world, the biggest GDP and the only game in town when it comes to military support.
Yes, we have sunk to a new low level. :)
writerdog, no argument here.
Steven Davis, I was in a helicopter crew, never saw it done, but I heard that what they would do is take one up, disappear for a while, Stuff some clothing, return to visual sight, and push out the dummy.
Torture is very, very effective if it is done right. Many of the Germans were tortured for those vile show trials after WW2.
LJ, would it be ok for the police to use it on you if you were a suspect in a murder?
Tactics that might kill you or hurt you really bad? Drive you crazy?
Is that really where you want to go?
Posted by: political_mom | October 04, 2007 at 07:19 PM
I sais no tactics that cause permanennt damage or death. Driving you crazy would be permanent damage. No, I would not expect to be treated as such if I were a suspect in amurder. YOU still did not answer my question. All i see is song and dance around the issue. If enhanced interrogation will save lives,1) what is acceptable?
2) Define torture3) If terrorists are to be treated like domestic murder suspects, and a group of civilians gets killed
because we did not obtain the information that person had, are you willing to go to the victims family and say “sorry, we were protecting our integrity. He would n’t tell us where the bombs where, so we sent him to his cell to think about it.” It has been said by others, you are for this war, then sign up and go there. I am saying, you are for this type of treatment, then sign up to tell the families.I think the discussion of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable interrogation tecniques is a valid one. In detail, and a willingness to accept, and tell the family members, the result of our decision. Those of you who won’t speculate on hypothetical, bs. you do it all the time.
It is true, to some degree, we are defined how we treat our enemies.
When the guidelines are 1) Can’t cause organ failure. 2) Can’t cause deathThe possibilities are mind boggling, a little electrical jolt here and there; dental work without anesthetics, some finger nail and toe nail work etc., etc.Just give them broad guide lines and let the interrogators use their imaginations.
Phantom–I agree. Much too broad. But, what is allowable? Certainly not waterboarding. Not application of electricity? How about forced standing? What are your suggestions?
“Vile show trials” of Nazis?
Hmmm . . . Sgt. Steve, you’re not defending Nazis, are you?
Uh oh, he IS defending Nazis:
Hillary wanted to give away other people\’s cake to nasty anchor wetlets. The treasury is broke, no more freebies for parasites and useless breeders.
Posted by: Sgt. Steven Barry, Green Berets (retired)
Ah, Steve, so much hate, so few hooches left to burn . . .
LJ, NO it is not acceptable no matter what the circumstances.
Part of what got lost in the discussion was maidmarion’s point above: that if the Bush Administration thinks these practices are OK, why hide them? Beyond torture, the larger issue (if there CAN be a larger issue than torture) is the permissibility of deliberate deceptions perpetrated by the White House.
My question to Republicans on this board: do you approve of Bush publicly denouncing such tactics while covertly authorizing them?
Do you, Republicans, think it is acceptable for Presidents to lie, to Congress and to the electorate, about what policies they have authorized?
My question to Republicans on this board: do you approve of Bush publicly denouncing such tactics while covertly authorizing them?
Do you, Republicans, think it is acceptable for Presidents to lie, to Congress and to the electorate, about what policies they have authorized?
Posted by: CF2K | October 05, 2007 at 08:58
I am a Republican. My answer to both is NO. Now, please answer the question as to what comprises torture, and what comprises acceptable interrogation tecnquies, and are you personally willing to tell the family members that their family got blown into pieces because we believe in only asking nicely, about locaitons of weapons and exposives caches?
littlejohn,
Fair enough. But next time, ask a HARD question:
“Part IArticle 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.”
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
And what makes me “personally willing” to tell such families is that even though their relative was stripped of his or her humanity, that we won’t strip ourselves of our own or anyone else’s by using torture.
People who use torture have no right to protest when others use torture on them or on anyone else. Period. You surrender your moral legitimacy when you torture.
CF2K-
Thank you for an answer. Apparently, it was a difficult one, as so few were willing to answer. So, a little pain is okay, but not severe pain. Now, that’s a tightrope to walk.You may be willing to tell the families. I suspect many would not. I also suspect the families wouldn’t give a damn that you maintained your integrity at the cost of their loved ones life. But I agree, You cannot become your enemy.
I do appreciate that you answered. It is always easy to say
“I am against…….” or “I am for ……” Nice cliches, nice soundbites. Doesn;t mean a damn thing unless you define the terms.That was my intent.
littlejohn,
Capiche. The UN declaration actually allows lots of wiggle room, and the devil is, indeed, in the details. There are forms of psychological pressure that are horrendously coercive, and kinds of physical pain that it is relatively easy to slough off.
As for the families, it isn’t just ‘my’ integrity that’s at stake–it’s OUR integrity.
The other point is that the way the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario is set up seems intended to force us into affirming that we have a duty TO torture, else the innocents will be killed. I regard this as a grotesque sort of argument, frankly. And I think you’d have a hard time getting any of the big three approaches to normative ethics (virtue ethics, duty-based ethics, consequentialism) to sign on.
The other point is that the way the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario is set up seems intended to force us into affirming that we have a duty TO torture, else the innocents will be killed. I regard this as a grotesque sort of argument, frankly.Posted by: CF2K | October 05, 2007 at 09:45 AM
No, my intent in displaying it is to allow that all actions, including no action, has a consequence. And those whom we are currently dealing with set up just such scenarios. In particular, the one I raised about a cache of exposives being using to build suicide bombs to blow up marketplaces. I find the “honor” of strapping a bomb to yourself, or planting one in a car outside a market, grotesque. You want to use assymetrical warfare, fine. Assymetrical warfare may include snipers, ieds, and other such guerrilla tactics. It does not include walking onto a busload of citizens and blowing yourself, and them, up. The problem with normative ethics is that the people who will do such things are not normal. Warfare is not normal.
And this is not really classical warfare, one country aligned against another.
I do understand your point. And I am not sure I really disagree. As a society, you must not only protect the physical, but the character of the nation as well. THe balance between doing both is always tenous, and must always be adjusted.—–
That Jack Bauer situation is purposefully phrased to lead to a predetermined conclusion. If I say no torture under any circumstances, then I invite accusations of allowing innocent families (not just people, but families) to die horribly. And in large number.
The only true answer is the interrogation techniques allowed should be the same as what we allow our police to do interrogating murder suspects. If this scares you, too bad. The only adequate reason I can give you is in the form of a question:
Do you agree with this sentence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”
Do you believe enemy combatants should be afforded the same rights as U.S. citizens?
If your answer to those two questions is different, then you believe our rights are endowed by the state, not by our Creator.
I’m sorry if that answer is unsatisfactory, or scares you into thinking a dirty bomb is going to explode in your shopping mall, but that’s the absolute moral truth of it.
“That Jack Bauer situation is purposefully phrased to lead to a predetermined conclusion. If I say no torture under any circumstances, then I invite accusations of allowing innocent families (not just people, but families) to die horribly. And in large number. ”
(((So stand up for your convictions, regardless of what it invites. That is the true measure of courage and conviction)))
The only true answer is the interrogation techniques allowed should be the same as what we allow our police to do interrogating murder suspects.
(((thanks for the answer)))I would probably disagree, but only in smaller measures than you would imagine)))
If this scares you, too bad.
(((who says it scares me? NOt I. I invited open debate about what is allowable, and what is not.))))
Do you agree with this sentence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”
(((yes I do)))
Do you believe enemy combatants should be afforded the same rights as U.S. citizens?
((( I do not.)))
If your answer to those two questions is different, then you believe our rights are endowed by the state, not by our Creator.
(((I disagree. Some people, by their actions, lose the right to be treated as citizens. Of the country, or the human race.
I’m sorry if that answer is unsatisfactory, or scares you into thinking a dirty bomb is going to explode in your shopping mall, but that’s the absolute moral truth of it.
(it doesn;t scare me into anything). I will tell you what I told a friend of mine who is much more conservative. The radical islams hate us. Wish to remove us from the face of the earth, or convert us. As long as they are winning the propoganda war, and the Bush administration has not helped alleviate that condition, then there will small chance of large scale destruction attack on US SOil? WHy? Should such attach every occur, and the islamofascists take credit, they know it would be open season. The radicals in this country would have been proven “right” and there would be no stopping them.)))
So you see, your poins have none. They miss the mark. All of them.
It never dawned on this jerk that the answer is to stop pissing people off.
A good start would be to stop murdering them, their women and kids.
Too much to ask….goon-boy?
snipHe (Bush) also said that the techniques used by the United States “have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress” — an indirect slap at the torrent of criticism that has flowed from the Democratic-controlled Congress since the memos’ disclosure.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said those briefed on Capitol Hill “are satisfied that the policy of the United States and the practices do not constitute torture.”
snip
But House and Senate Democrats disagree that there is sufficient clarity on the matter, and are demanding to see the memos.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-WVa., said in a statement Friday he is “tired of these games.”
“They can’t say that Congress has been fully briefed while refusing to turn over key documents used to justify the legality of the program,” Rockefeller said.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., promised a congressional inquiry. ”
end snip
So, the Democrats know the methods being used, but are trying to escape responsibility because
“they haven;t seem the memos justifying” those tecniques. That’s what I understand from the above.
Is this a friggin game or what?Either you have bought off on them, or not. Just tell us straight, or shut the hell up. I am speaking to both sides.
Sorry. Left off the link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_terrorism
Good post littlejohn.
Libs are expert at creating lies.
They’ve had a lot of practice.
I believe that what interrogation tecniques we are going to allow as a country is a worthy discussion.
We must decide what practices we are willing to accept, and still remain the nation we are. We need to discuss what limitations we will accept, and what risks or consequences will are willing to accept. We can only do so when those on both sides are open and forthright. Political gamesmanship does nothing to resolve the issue.
Hang them by their thumbs. I think with bush’s guide lines many of the techniques used by Saddam would be fair game, except for the most extreme ones.
Well, we’ve certainly blown the moral outrage we used to invoke when our citizens were tortured.