Senate report: Rice, Cheney OK'd CIA use of waterboarding

[freeny]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/23/cheney.rice.waterboarding/index.html

I am shocked, yet not surprised.

more-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/22/us.torture.karpinski/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

[jav6454]

I hate torture. Those who deny it and practice it should really be subject to the same kind of treatment.

How about a lie detector to get the truth out? Easy, and is mentally challenging to trick or fake.

[freeny]

More-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23thu1.html?_r=1

This whole thing really pisses me off.

[jav6454]

More-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23thu1.html?_r=1

This whole thing really pisses me off.

Like I said, waterboardering supporters should be taught first how it feels.

[Shivetya]

Give them medals.

convenient how certain parts of the press are totally ignoring the information obtained (and that documents on that were released to some extent as well)


Look at it this way, these people should have been alive to bring to Gitmo. They certainly were ready to kill thousands more. The CIA and Bush people would have been eviscerated if they didn't do this and something bad happened.

Obama is going to handcuff himself by allowing any chasing of previous administration people. You simply cannot prosecute on the basis of a difference in policy.

If you read the documents you see the extreme steps they went to to preclude physical harm. You also get to see how much of the claims by RedCross were just bogus or exaggerated.

I have no pity for terrorists. They are murderers and I see no reason why a civilized society should suffer their existence. Allowing them to live is an affront to the victims and future victims. Dead terrorists can never kill again. They have show no qualm in killing woman or children; and most come from the most discriminatory societies on earth; so why do so many rush to their defense? Oh thats right, BDS.

[mactastic]

How about a lei detector to get the truth out?
Not a problem. Every airport in Hawaii has lei detectors. ;)

Although I still doubt any of these people will spend one minute in a resort-prison (let alone in a cold room or a small box or having their head slammed into a plywood-covered concrete block wall); Rice, Cheney, Yoo, Addington, and Bybee have to be a little uncomfortable at the direction the conversation has taken lately.

The most disgusting part of all of this is that it now appears that torture was authorized in order to produce evidence that al Qaeda was in cahoots with Iraq, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. IOW, these people appear to have been using torture to try to extract false confessions for political gain.

There's also the allegation that the authors of this authorization knew they were on thin legal ice. Opposing views were circulated, and at least one senior aid is alleging that the administration attempted to gather up and destroy all copies of his memorandum opposing the legal reasoning Yoo and Bybee ginned up to justify torturing people.

This story ain't goin' away anytime soon...

[jav6454]

Not a problem. Every airport in Hawaii has lei detectors. ;)

...



I HATE my grammar:eek:

[heehee]

I have no pity for terrorists. They are murderers and I see no reason why a civilized society should suffer their existence. Allowing them to live is an affront to the victims and future victims. Dead terrorists can never kill again. They have show no qualm in killing woman or children; and most come from the most discriminatory societies on earth; so why do so many rush to their defense? Oh thats right, BDS.

What if you torture an innocent guy?

[freeny]

They have show no qualm in killing woman or children; and most come from the most discriminatory societies on earth; so why do so many rush to their defense? Oh thats right, BDS.
Whoa there buddy,
no one is "defending" the terrorists here.
We are questioning the practices used in interrogation.

Also, any "effectiveness" from the torture is up for debate-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?hp

What information was obtained specifically from the torture methods?... link?

[Zombie Acorn]

Torture: ripping your finger nails off, cutting fingers/limbs off, stabbing an eye out, chopping head off, gassing someone, radiating them, electrocution. All of these the terrorists would happily do to our troops.

Most of the techniques we used were administered on OUR OWN PEOPLE before they were used in the field. I will take thousands of American lives over a couple terrorist being given a fake drowning any day. In fact if waterboarding saved 1 American life then I say it was justified, after all there was no long term damage done to these *******s, they are trying to mount a legal defense for themselves for god sake. Not to mention that no one had a problem with the tactics right after 9/11.

I fear for the future of America, our enemies know we are weak, and I don't see why they would give up any information when the worst we are willing to do to them is bring them out to lunch and try to get some info. :rolleyes:

[Peace]

snip

Give them medals.


Obama is going to handcuff himself by allowing any chasing of previous administration people. You simply cannot prosecute on the basis of a difference in policy.



You do realize "Torture" is not a policy stance in the United States don't you?

It's against US laws and international laws. It is something that this country and hundreds of other civilized countries have agreed not to do.
It's part of the Geneva Convention.

Yes some nut jobs blew up the twin towers and killed a lot of people. They should be subjected to the United States laws.

Torturing them 30 times a day to get them to tell you a lie about Iraq is NOT justice and as long as you have the opinion that it's ok to torture in certain circumstances you become no better that the terrorist.


I recommend you stop taking the television show 24 too seriously.

[Zombie Acorn]

Whoa there buddy,
no one is "defending" the terrorists here.
We are questioning the practices used in interrogation.

Also, any "effectiveness" from the torture is up for debate-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?hp

What information was obtained specifically from the torture methods?... link?

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

"The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

KSM was the mastermind of the first “hijacked-airliner” attacks on the United States, which struck the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia on Sept. 11, 2001."

[freeny]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

"The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

KSM was the mastermind of the first “hijacked-airliner” attacks on the United States, which struck the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia on Sept. 11, 2001."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?hp

"But which information came from which methods, and whether the same result might have been achieved without the political, legal and moral cost of the torture controversy, is hotly disputed, even inside the intelligence agency.

The Justice Department memorandums released last week illustrate how difficult it can be to assess claims of effectiveness. One 2005 memorandum, for example, asserts that “enhanced techniques” used on Abu Zubaydah and Mr. Mohammed “yielded critical information.”

But the memorandum then lists among Abu Zubaydah’s revelations the identification of Mr. Mohammed and of an alleged radiological bomb plot by Jose Padilla, the American Qaeda associate. Both those disclosures were made long before Abu Zubaydah was subjected to harsh treatment, according to multiple accounts.

On Mr. Mohammed, the record is murkier. The memorandum says that “before the C.I.A. used enhanced techniques,” Mr. Mohammed “resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, ‘Simply noting, ‘Soon, you will know.’ ”

But the same memorandum reveals in a footnote that Mr. Mohammed, captured on March 1, 2003, was waterboarded 183 times that month. That striking number, which would average out to six waterboardings a day, suggests that interrogators did not try a traditional, rapport-building approach for long before escalating to their most extreme tool."
---------------------

Where was the "Before he was waterboarded" part?

You do understand that laws were broken here dont you?
Or do laws only apply when Democrats are in office?

[Zombie Acorn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?hp

"But which information came from which methods, and whether the same result might have been achieved without the political, legal and moral cost of the torture controversy, is hotly disputed, even inside the intelligence agency.

The Justice Department memorandums released last week illustrate how difficult it can be to assess claims of effectiveness. One 2005 memorandum, for example, asserts that “enhanced techniques” used on Abu Zubaydah and Mr. Mohammed “yielded critical information.”

But the memorandum then lists among Abu Zubaydah’s revelations the identification of Mr. Mohammed and of an alleged radiological bomb plot by Jose Padilla, the American Qaeda associate. Both those disclosures were made long before Abu Zubaydah was subjected to harsh treatment, according to multiple accounts.

On Mr. Mohammed, the record is murkier. The memorandum says that “before the C.I.A. used enhanced techniques,” Mr. Mohammed “resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, ‘Simply noting, ‘Soon, you will know.’ ”

But the same memorandum reveals in a footnote that Mr. Mohammed, captured on March 1, 2003, was waterboarded 183 times that month. That striking number, which would average out to six waterboardings a day, suggests that interrogators did not try a traditional, rapport-building approach for long before escalating to their most extreme tool."

Pure speculation with nothing backing it. Just because you get waterboarded 6 times a day doesn't mean they didn't try a traditional interrogation beforehand, these officials were better people than I am, if I knew there was an upcoming terror plot and he said "soon you will know" I would beat his face into a bloody pulp.

[Peace]

Pure speculation with nothing backing it. Just because you get waterboarded 6 times a day doesn't mean they didn't try a traditional interrogation beforehand, these officials were better people than I am, if I knew there was an upcoming terror plot and he said "soon you will know" I would beat his face into a bloody pulp.


You can stop using the term "enhanced technique". The Bush administration already admitted it was "torture". Please get with reality and stop using denial.

Oh and with your attitude you should join the military. Maybe get rid of some of that hatred you have inside you.

Any way you twist this it's still VERY illegal.

Using your logic we should torture Bush and Cheney to get info from them about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens they killed.

[mactastic]

If you read the documents you see the extreme steps they went to to preclude physical harm. You also get to see how much of the claims by RedCross were just bogus or exaggerated.

Torture: ripping your finger nails off, cutting fingers/limbs off, stabbing an eye out, chopping head off, gassing someone, radiating them, electrocution. All of these the terrorists would happily do to our troops.

Most of the techniques we used were administered on OUR OWN PEOPLE before they were used in the field. I will take thousands of American lives over a couple terrorist being given a fake drowning any day. In fact if waterboarding saved 1 American life then I say it was justified, after all there was no long term damage done to these *******s, they are trying to mount a legal defense for themselves for god sake. Not to mention that no one had a problem with the tactics right after 9/11.

I fear for the future of America, our enemies know we are weak, and I don't see why they would give up any information when the worst we are willing to do to them is bring them out to lunch and try to get some info. :rolleyes:
So both of you contend that what we do to these alleged terrorists really isn't all that bad?

Zombie, if you could save 1 American life by banning handguns in the US, would you do it?

[remmy]

So the past administration lied about if Iraq had WMDs. They also lied on if they used torture techniques such as simulated drowning. Wonder how much more lies the US yet to discover.

[Peace]

So both of you contend that what we do to these alleged terrorists really isn't all that bad?

Zombie, if you could save 1 American life by banning handguns in the US, would you do it?

Sorry but that's just downright brilliant. Kudos!!

I eagerly await the answer.

[Zombie Acorn]

So both of you contend that what we do to these alleged terrorists really isn't all that bad?

Zombie, if you could save 1 American life by banning handguns in the US, would you do it?

Banning handguns would endanger more Americans than save, so no.

No it wasn't that bad, if we did it to our own people beforehand it couldn't have been. I would volunteer to get waterboarded just to shut the left up.

[Zombie Acorn]

You can stop using the term "enhanced technique". The Bush administration already admitted it was "torture". Please get with reality and stop using denial.

Oh and with your attitude you should join the military. Maybe get rid of some of that hatred you have inside you.

Any way you twist this it's still VERY illegal.

Using your logic we should torture Bush and Cheney to get info from them about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens they killed.

Did it permanently hurt the terrorists? No.

Under your reasoning we might as well get rid of police issued weapons including guns, tazers, and then tie their hands behind their back and have them go fight crime. Surely shocking or shooting someone is more torturous than waterboarding.

You can live in powder puff land or actually join the reality that is this world. I will choose the later, we saved Americans, democrats as well as republicans knew what was going on and did nothing because they were getting information.

Imagine what would happen if Democrats blocked this "torture" and then 9/11 (2) happened, guess what? No Obama.

[Gelfin]

Banning handguns would endanger more Americans than save, so no.

Stoking international anti-American sentiment and putting the rest of the world on notice that torture is no longer considered beyond the pale within the civilized world endangers more Americans than are saved by the crumbs of unreliable information torture produces.

[Zombie Acorn]

Stoking international anti-American sentiment and putting the rest of the world on notice that torture is no longer considered beyond the pale within the civilized world endangers more Americans than are saved by the crumbs of unreliable information torture produces.

Waterboarding = fake drowning, we aren't chopping off limbs here and gassing people. Like I said before I will volunteer to be waterboarded.

[Peace]

Did it permanently hurt the terrorists? No.

Under your reasoning we might as well get rid of police issued weapons including guns, tazers, and then tie their hands behind their back and have them go fight crime. Surely shocking or shooting someone is more torturous than waterboarding.

You can live in powder puff land or actually join the reality that is this world. I will choose the later, we saved Americans, democrats as well as republicans knew what was going on and did nothing because they were getting information.

Imagine what would happen if Democrats blocked this "torture" and then 9/11 (2) happened, guess what? No Obama.

Your reply had absolutely nothing to do with my statement.

Have you ever been in the military ?

[mactastic]

Banning handguns would endanger more Americans than save, so no.
Ok, well torturing foreigners endangers more Americans than it saves, so your argument for torture falls apart.

No it wasn't that bad, if we did it to our own people beforehand it couldn't have been. I would volunteer to get waterboarded just to shut the left up.So if it's not that bad, how can it be effective? Are these guys just pu**ies compared to Americans?

[freeny]

Waterboarding = fake drowning, we aren't chopping off limbs here and gassing people. Like I said before I will volunteer to be waterboarded.

Made to feel like im drowning 6 times a day for a month sounds pretty torturous to me.
Sure you want to volunteer for that?

[leekohler]

Waterboarding = fake drowning, we aren't chopping off limbs here and gassing people. Like I said before I will volunteer to be waterboarded.

Can I be the administrator? :mad:

[Zombie Acorn]

Ok, well torturing foreigners endangers more Americans than it saves, so your argument for torture falls apart.

So if it's not that bad, how can it be effective? Are these guys just pu**ies compared to Americans?

On your first remark I don't see how it endangers American lives, terrorists are probably laughing now that they have access to the extent of our "torture" techniques. Probably like expecting someone to be scared by an episode of care bears after just watching jason goes to hell.

Its not that bad in the way that it isn't permanent and its a controlled temporary situation.

[Peace]

I want Zombie to answer my question.

Have you ever been in the military ? And if so what branch and when ?

[heehee]

Made to feel like im drowning 6 times a day for a month sounds pretty torturous to me.
Sure you want to volunteer for that?

I guess it would be okay to punch him 6 times a day in the face for a month. He'll still live. :p

[Wild-Bill]

Dead terrorists can never kill again.

Quote of the day right there. ;)

The only good terrorist is a dead one.

[diamond.g]

I want Zombie to answer my question.

Have you ever been in the military ? And if so what branch and when ?

Even if they were it isn't a completely vaild question. We don't call them prisoners. We call them detainees. Just so we don't have to treat them like POW's.... :(

[Zombie Acorn]

Made to feel like im drowning 6 times a day for a month sounds pretty torturous to me.
Sure you want to volunteer for that?

Most of the people administering these tests went through it, I don't see why I couldn't.

[Peace]

Quote of the day right there. ;)

The only good terrorist is a dead one.

Are you advocating the death penalty for the bush administration ?

[Zombie Acorn]

I want Zombie to answer my question.

Have you ever been in the military ? And if so what branch and when ?

No, I plan to join shortly after attaining my second bachelors though, I have wanted to join the air force since I was a kid.

[Macaddicttt]

Waterboarding = fake drowning, we aren't chopping off limbs here and gassing people. Like I said before I will volunteer to be waterboarded.

And I'm sure you'll be able to stand it. :rolleyes: Judging from accounts from people who've experienced it voluntarily, you'll be calling them off in less than 30 seconds.

In May 2008 the journalist Christopher Hitchens voluntarily experienced waterboarding. He managed to resist for twelve seconds the first time, and, embarrassed at his poor performance, he asked to try again. He then managed to resist for 19 seconds.[42] He later told the BBC: "There is a common misconception that waterboarding simulates the sensation of drowning, but you are to all intents and purposes actually drowning".[42] He said that although he was somewhat prepared for his ordeal, he had not been prepared for what came later: "I have been waking up with sensations of being smothered".[42] Hitchens concluded, "if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture. Believe me. It's torture".

[leekohler]

Most of the people administering these tests went through it, I don't see why I couldn't.

And I volunteer to administer it.

[freeny]

Its not that bad in the way that it isn't permanent and its a controlled temporary situation.

If its not that bad why do it?
How could it possibly make the detainee spill the beans if its not so bad?

[diamond.g]

Quote of the day right there. ;)

The only good terrorist is a dead one.

By the definiation of terrorist we may have to kill most of our own government and almost all of the financial sector.... hmm.... Last I checked they used fear to get what they want (patriot act, bank bailout, warrantless wiretaps looking at you...)

[Peace]

No, I plan to join shortly after attaining my second bachelors though, I have wanted to join the air force since I was a kid.

I see.

But you know. This country really needs "a few good men" NOW. Not in 4 years. Why not go join up now and get over to the middle east so you can kill some of them bad guys? Every day YOU are not serving YOUR country another innocent american dies.

[freeny]

Most of the people administering these tests went through it, I don't see why I couldn't.

6 times a day for a month?

Really, if its not so bad how do they expect to get results?

[Gelfin]

Waterboarding = fake drowning, we aren't chopping off limbs here and gassing people. Like I said before I will volunteer to be waterboarded.

That's totally non-responsive in terms of the balance of lives saved versus lives endangered by embracing torture techniques.

I assume, however, that in the interests of making the strongest possible point about how inconsequential waterboarding is, you are volunteering to be subjected to it every four hours for a month by people that you know would just as soon actually let you die, with no promise that they will ever stop doing it, with no information to give them, a requirement to give them something, knowledge that you will be held to account for whatever you do say to temporarily satisfy them, and an understanding that if you did somehow manage to convince them you had told them everything you knew, they would have no further reason to keep you alive.

[Zombie Acorn]

If its not that bad why do it?
How could it possibly make the detainee spill the beans if its not so bad?

Like I stated its not permanent, its a controlled situation. These people aren't going to be allowed to die because they hold valuable information, the terrorists should already know this. I don't imagine it makes the temporary situation anymore comfortable.

[Zombie Acorn]

I see.

But you know. This country really needs "a few good men" NOW. Not in 4 years. Why not go join up now and get over to the middle east so you can kill some of them bad guys? Every day YOU are not serving YOUR country another innocent american dies.

Im only a year off from graduation now and I doubt we will be in any less conflicts by that time. :p

[Zombie Acorn]

And I'm sure you'll be able to stand it. :rolleyes: Judging from accounts from people who've experienced it voluntarily, you'll be calling them off in less than 30 seconds.

Obviously I wouldn't be able to call it off, that would defeat the purpose.

I really shouldn't even voice my opinion, its evident that I am the only one who is on my side. :p

[leekohler]

Like I stated its not permanent, its a controlled situation. These people aren't going to be allowed to die because they hold valuable information, the terrorists should already know this. I don't imagine it makes the temporary situation anymore comfortable.

What if they aren't terrorists and they don't hold valuable information? Should they have been tortured anyway?


I really shouldn't even voice my opinion, its evident that I am the only one who is on my side. :p

No- it's something else that's evident.

[Raid]

<snip>On your first remark I don't see how it endangers American lives,</snip> <- Myopic view of the broader issue; the torture methods employed and sanctioned by the American government may have stopped one attack, but only serves to bolster the mindset of these militant people who will use any excuse they can come up with to attack again. It seems your solution would be to exterminate the lot, but that's like trying to get rid of a cockroach infestation with a sledgehammer.

[Peace]

Like I stated its not permanent, its a controlled situation. These people aren't going to be allowed to die because they hold valuable information, the terrorists should already know this. I don't imagine it makes the temporary situation anymore comfortable.

You do know the origins of this method of torture don't you? The CIA trained people in this method. They taught them how to resist.

They got it from the Chinese army that used it in Vietnam.

The same method that was used to obtain false statements from American prisoners of war.

And to be honest.When you make a statement like "Im only a year off from graduation now and I doubt we will be in any less conflicts by that time:p." You have absolutely no credence with me.

We had names for this kind of person when I was in but I can't use it. I must abide by the "RULES" of PRSI.

[Zombie Acorn]

What if they aren't terrorists and they don't hold valuable information? Should they have been tortured anyway?



No- it's something else that's evident.

Obviously if they aren't terrorists they shouldn't be interrogated. That kind of goes without saying.

If we can't obtain information from them then we might as well shoot them. Many of our missions go in believing that these people are better off alive than dead because they have valuable information. So in the end are they better off dead or being roughly interrogated?

[Zombie Acorn]

You do know the origins of this method of torture don't you? The CIA trained people in this method. They taught them how to resist.

They got it from the Chinese army that used in Vietnam.

The same method that was used to obtain false statements from American prisoners of war.

I will take false statements with the true, its better to have 50 false statements and 1 true one and save 1000 American lives in my view.

[Gelfin]

I will take false statements with the true, its better to have 50 false statements and 1 true one and save 1000 American lives in my view.

Promise me you will never seek a job in the security sector.

[leekohler]

Obviously if they aren't terrorists they shouldn't be interrogated. That kind of goes without saying.

If we can't obtain information from them then we might as well shoot them. Many of our missions go in believing that these people are better off alive than dead because they have valuable information. So in the end are they better off dead or being roughly interrogated?

Umm...do you really think everyone in Guantanamo is a terrorist? Honestly?

[mactastic]

On your first remark I don't see how it endangers American lives, terrorists are probably laughing now that they have access to the extent of our "torture" techniques. Probably like expecting someone to be scared by an episode of care bears after just watching jason goes to hell.
But see, that's not what you initially said. Remember, you initially said "In fact if waterboarding saved 1 American life then I say it was justified". One American life. Not one NET American life, as you say for handgun banning. You're using a completely different basis for judgement.

So, does torture have to save a single American life to be justified, or does it have to save one more life than it takes for it to be justified? Hmmm?

Its not that bad in the way that it isn't permanent and its a controlled temporary situation.
So if it's not so bad, how can it possibly be effective? If someone like you could easily withstand such treatment without giving up information, false or otherwise, why would a hardened terrorist give up any information?

[Zombie Acorn]

Umm...do you really think everyone in Guantanamo is a terrorist? Honestly?

Give me an example of one being held before the closing who wasn't involved in terrorist activities or picked up off a battlefield.

[Peace]

Give me an example of one who wasn't involved in terrorist activities or picked up off a battlefield.

that statement is the same as this :

Put 100 people in a room. Don't tell anybody anything specific about them then ask someone which ones are 5 ft. 5".

Tell me where this comes from :

We came here only to ********. **** said. He added that his **** were carrying weapons only because they were an important symbol for ******.

[Zombie Acorn]

But see, that's not what you initially said. Remember, you initially said "In fact if waterboarding saved 1 American life then I say it was justified". One American life. Not one NET American life, as you say for handgun banning. You're using a completely different basis for judgement.

So, does torture have to save a single American life to be justified, or does it have to save one more life than it takes for it to be justified? Hmmm?


So if it's not so bad, how can it possibly be effective? If someone like you could easily withstand such treatment without giving up information, false or otherwise, why would a hardened terrorist give up any information?

Not really using a different basis because I don't believe that terrorists will kill just on the basis of waterboarding (they are going to try killing us no matter what). I have seen waterboarding administered and I have seen them cut off a person's head, full sound and all. I don't see how they would be phased by it (I am talking about terrorists hearing about waterboarding/watching it).

Its effective because most people are afraid of drowning, in a different sense its only simulated and it is controlled/temporary though and that is why I don't see it as "bad".

[Zombie Acorn]

that statement is the same as this :

Put 100 people in a room. Don't tell anybody anything specific about them then ask someone which ones are 5 ft. 5".

Tell me where this comes from :

We came here only to ********. **** said. He added that his **** were carrying weapons only because they were an important symbol for ******.

Well when the government gets to the bottom of this and grants all of them amnesty you can let me know that you were right and that they were all really nice people after all.

[Peace]

Well when the government gets to the bottom of this and grants all of them amnesty you can let me know that you were right and that they were all really nice people after all.

What are you talking about ?

[Zombie Acorn]

What are you talking about ?

Its clear that you don't believe they are all terrorists, so we will wait to see which ones are cleared of their terrorist status.

Also I can't tell what your second statement said because the cuss words are bleeped out. :(

[JLatte]

Its clear that you don't believe they are all terrorists, so we will wait to see which ones are cleared of their terrorist status.

Also I can't tell what your second statement said because the cuss words are bleeped out. :(

We came here only to preach Islam. I forgot the rest, but they carried weapons because it was of importance to the region? Or to Muslims, I forgot the exact wording, but I remember that quote.

*edit*
Google is my friend:
"We came here only to preach Islam," Khalil said. He added that his fighters were carrying weapons only because they were an important symbol for Muslims.

[remmy]

You do know the a large number of prisoners have been released, without trial or charge ever made against them in the whole time they were held captive. A number are here in Britain now, and are free.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8010176.stm

[Zombie Acorn]

We came here only to preach Islam. I forgot the rest, but they carried weapons because it was of importance to the region? Or to Muslims, I forgot the exact wording, but I remember that quote.

*edit*
Google is my friend:
"We came here only to preach Islam," Khalil said. He added that his fighters were carrying weapons only because they were an important symbol for Muslims.

Not particularly familiar with the instance in that quote, but since when has carrying weapons been an important symbol for muslims? I have seen plenty of muslims not toting around AK-47s in the US.

[Peace]

Its clear that you don't believe they are all terrorists, so we will wait to see which ones are cleared of their terrorist status.

Also I can't tell what your second statement said because the cuss words are bleeped out. :(

Let me make this clear.

I am a disabled/retired Navy man. I had 3 brothers in the Army. Two in the 82nd Airborne and one in Special Forces spanning from WW1 all the way through Vietnam. My Father was in the military as was my Grandfather. Terrorism is bad.Terrorist are bad. It kills people. Guns kill people. Hatred kills people.
PEOPLE kill people. It's all bad.

MY country should NEVER lower itself to the same level as terrorist. MY country is good. It is supposed to be a beacon of freedom throughout the world.

When MY country starts behaving in the same manner as the people that hate us MY country has become as bad as those people.

I purposely left out words thinking you would correlate the statement with the NRA.

[Zombie Acorn]

You do know the a large number of prisoners have been released, without trial or charge ever made against them in the whole time they were held captive. A number are here in Britain now, and are free.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8010176.stm

I do realize we have released quite a few of the captures without charging them, they probably had no information and were peons in small operations that we picked up off the battle fields. I do not believe we currently hold anyone that is anything but a top tier terrorist and we have obtained much valuable information with our techniques.

[Zombie Acorn]

Let me make this clear.

I am a disabled/retired Navy man. I had 3 brothers in the Army. Two in the 82nd Airborne and one in Special Forces spanning from WW1 all the way through Vietnam. My Father was in the military as was my Grandfather. Terrorism is bad.Terrorist are bad. It kills people. Guns kill people. Hatred kills people.
PEOPLE kill people. It's all bad.

MY country should NEVER lower itself to the same level as terrorist. MY country is good. It is supposed to be a beacon of freedom throughout the world.

When MY country starts behaving in the same manner as the people that hate us MY country has become as bad as those people.

I purposely left out words thinking you would correlate the statement with the NRA.

And we haven't, terrorist chop people's head off, stab their eyes out, pull finger nails.

We simulate a drowning. Thats the very worst of our interrogation.

[Peace]

And we haven't, terrorist chop people's head off, stab their eyes out, pull finger nails.

We simulate a drowning. Thats the very worst of our interrogation.

You're funny..hehehe..

And so naive..

I certainly hope you don't believe waterboarding is the worse thing this country has done.

[leekohler]

You do know the a large number of prisoners have been released, without trial or charge ever made against them in the whole time they were held captive. A number are here in Britain now, and are free.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8010176.stm

Oh stop with that fact stuff. It gets in the way of the torture. :rolleyes:

You're funny..hehehe..

And so naive..

Yep. This one is in for a rude awakening.

[Peace]

Oh and the quote ?

"We came here only to preach Islam," Khalil said. He added that his fighters were carrying weapons only because they were an important symbol for Muslims."

Replace Islam with "Christianity", fighters with "patriots" and Muslims with "Americans" and you get the NRA and other people patrolling the Mexican border.

[remmy]

I do realize we have released quite a few of the captures without charging them, they probably had no information and were peons in small operations that we picked up off the battle fields. I do not believe we currently hold anyone that is anything but a top tier terrorist and we have obtained much valuable information with our techniques.

Sorry you do realize that your country held people captive without charge for a long period of time, and labeling them as part of a small operation with as much evidence as the US probably had on them.

You would be screaming retaliation if a Arab country captured some US soldiers, and invasion if they had been tortured as much as what the US has committed.

[freeny]

I keep seeing this get off track. There is not a debate on weather or not they are terrorists, weather or not they planned on killing more people or weather or not they are innocent. It doesnt matter.

The debate is weather or not we knowingly used "torture" in interrogations.

If torture is acceptable, as some of you are saying, then it is acceptable for others to torture us/our soldiers.

By saying torture is ok/legal, when you capture the heads of these groups, the international community will not be allowed to prosecute as so. a good amount of them will walk away scott free because of what they are doing is labeled "not illegal".

The international community has these laws for a reason. If there are no laws then all we have is anarchy.

[mactastic]

And we haven't, terrorist chop people's head off, stab their eyes out, pull finger nails.

We simulate a drowning. Thats the very worst of our interrogation.
************. I suggest you pull your head out of your posterior and realize what's been done in your name. We've put a man in a sleeping bag and beaten him to death. We've left men chained to the ceiling, hosed them down with cold water, then found them dead in the morning after leaving them in freezing conditions all night. We've bolted plywood to concrete block walls so that when we slam someone's head into it, it doesn't leave as bad of a mark.

Would you like to volunteer to have these techniques applied to you?

[Eanair]

According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, torture is

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female 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

Emphasis mine.

Being subjected, repeatedly, to a simulation of drowning at least constitutes the mental aspect of torture. It was already quoted in the thread, but the commentary by the journalist who voluntarily tried out waterboarding seems evidence enough for us to be able to understand the simulation of drowning is quite mental as well as physical.

[Peace]

I keep seeing this get off track. There is not a debate on weather or not they are terrorists, weather or not they planned on killing more people or weather or not they are innocent. It doesnt matter.

The debate is weather or not we knowingly used "torture" in interrogations.


It's not a debate freeny. The former administration already called it torture.

It seems to me the debate in this country is whether or not torture is ok.

[freeny]

It's not a debate freeny. The former administration already called it torture.

It seems to me the debate in this country is whether or not torture is ok.

only if its "not us" apparently.

were the survivors from this tortured? they are still alive...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/22/berga.folo/index.html

[hulugu]

I keep seeing this get off track. There is not a debate on weather or not they are terrorists, weather or not they planned on killing more people or weather or not they are innocent. It doesnt matter.

The debate is weather or not we knowingly used "torture" in interrogations.

If torture is acceptable, as some of you are saying, then it is acceptable for others to torture us/our soldiers.

By saying torture is ok/legal, when you capture the heads of these groups, the international community will not be allowed to prosecute as so. a good amount of them will walk away scott free because of what they are doing is labeled "not illegal".

The international community has these laws for a reason. If there are no laws then all we have is anarchy.

It's not a debate freeny. The former administration already called it torture.

It seems to me the debate in this country is whether or not torture is ok.

Yes, but if you read carefully in every defense of torture you will see several basic assumptions, each of which I believe has been seriously challenged by evidence.


Torture is effective as an interrogation method
That since the methods were used in controlled circumstances during SERE training, these actions can be used against prisoners
Torture cannot be psychological, but physical, even if the psychological aspect is really—according to various experts on the subject—the important part.
Since lawyers working for the Bush administration called it legal it is, and moreover that any change is a "policy change" rather than an important redress of the law
Lastly, that there will be no future consequences from these actions: first in the United States, because the law was stretched in such a way as to allow the President to mark anyone as an unlawful combatant, and because the use of torture marks the US as a rogue nation.

[Zombie Acorn]

You're funny..hehehe..

And so naive..

I certainly hope you don't believe waterboarding is the worse thing this country has done.

It is what this thread is about is it not? I don't remember the report saying that Rice and Cheney OK'd killing detainees to get info.

[Zombie Acorn]

************. I suggest you pull your head out of your posterior and realize what's been done in your name. We've put a man in a sleeping bag and beaten him to death. We've left men chained to the ceiling, hosed them down with cold water, then found them dead in the morning after leaving them in freezing conditions all night. We've bolted plywood to concrete block walls so that when we slam someone's head into it, it doesn't leave as bad of a mark.

Would you like to volunteer to have these techniques applied to you?

Not what this thread is about, clearly leaving people chained to the ceiling to die is not waterboarding.

I have work to do, but until I get back this is my thought on the issue: If I would volunteer for the "torture" then I don't consider it torture.

I am not going to volunteer to get bamboo shoved under my nails, or limbs/fingers cut off, I would volunteer to get waterboarded however.

[skunk]

It was already quoted in the thread, but the commentary by the journalist who voluntarily tried out waterboarding seems evidence enough for us to be able to understand the simulation of drowning is quite mental as well as physical.To repeat what has undoubtedly been said before, waterboarding is not "simulated drowning", it is actual drowning.

[BoyBach]

Quote of the day right there. ;)

The only good terrorist is a dead one.


The campaign starts here. It's time to kill that bastard Mandela!

:rolleyes:

[freeny]

It is what this thread is about is it not? I don't remember the report saying that Rice and Cheney OK'd killing detainees to get info.
Perhaps, but several did die...

To repeat what has undoubtedly been said before, waterboarding is not "simulated drowning", it is actual drowning.
But because they stop right before you actually die its "simulated"

[hulugu]

It is what this thread is about is it not? I don't remember the report saying that Rice and Cheney OK'd killing detainees to get info.

Well, why not? Didn't you earlier compare the life of 1 American as far more valuable than others? Why not chop off an arm, use a cordless drill to punch holes in their back? Why not burn their feet, or beat them for hours?

Forget mock executions, although they're illegal under the Geneva Convention, let's kill somebody, I bet the rest will talk.

[Zombie Acorn]

To repeat what has undoubtedly been said before, waterboarding is not "simulated drowning", it is actual drowning.

They don't allow them to drown to death is what I meant, I consider it a simulated watery death experience.

[Zombie Acorn]

Well, why not? Didn't you earlier compare the life of 1 American as far more valuable than others? Why not chop off an arm, use a cordless drill to punch holes in their back? Why not burn their feet, or beat them for hours?

Forget mock executions, although they're illegal under the Geneva Convention, let's kill somebody, I bet the rest will talk.

Once again each person can draw the line on what they consider torture, if I would volunteer for it I don't consider it torture.

[Peace]

Once again each person can draw the line on what they consider torture, if I would volunteer for it I don't consider it torture.

So are you saying the detainees "volunteered" ?

[Zombie Acorn]

So are you saying the detainees "volunteered" ?

I don't see how you pulled that from my statement :confused:

We are trying to figure out if waterboarding is torture, I don't consider it to be because I would volunteer for it. Much like I don't consider a tazer to be excessive force in certain situations by our law enforcement because I would volunteer to get shocked.

Moreover the people administering the waterboarding KNEW what it felt like. The same system they use for police officers who use tazers, you have to get tazed before you can carry one so that you can empathize.

[Peace]

I don't see how you pulled that from my statement :confused:

We are trying to figure out if waterboarding is torture, I don't consider it to be because I would volunteer for it. Much like I don't consider a tazer to be excessive force in certain situations by our law enforcement because I would volunteer to get shocked.

Moreover the people administering the waterboarding KNEW what it felt like. The same system they use for police officers who use tazers, you have to get tazed before you can carry one so that you can empathize.

I guess you didn't get the memo ? The previous administration already said waterboarding was torture.

To save lives..

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAQ_DEATH_TOLL?SITE=CALAK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[leekohler]

I don't see how you pulled that from my statement :confused:

We are trying to figure out if waterboarding is torture, I don't consider it to be because I would volunteer for it. Much like I don't consider a tazer to be excessive force in certain situations by our law enforcement because I would volunteer to get shocked.

Moreover the people administering the waterboarding KNEW what it felt like. The same system they use for police officers who use tazers, you have to get tazed before you can carry one so that you can empathize.

If it's not torture, then what is it?

[freeny]

Once again each person can draw the line on what they consider torture, if I would volunteer for it I don't consider it torture.

Would you be cool if it was done to one of your family members? your mother? your kids?

Is that torture?

[mactastic]

Not what this thread is about, clearly leaving people chained to the ceiling to die is not waterboarding.
The Bush OLC authorized much more than just waterboarding. Are you suggesting that you think that when we waterboarded people it wasn't torture, but that many of the other things we did to people DID amount to torture?

I have work to do, but until I get back this is my thought on the issue: If I would volunteer for the "torture" then I don't consider it torture.

I am not going to volunteer to get bamboo shoved under my nails, or limbs/fingers cut off, I would volunteer to get waterboarded however.
So would you support the overturning of sentences given to Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American soldiers during WWII?

[JLatte]

The Bush OLC authorized much more than just waterboarding.

Sorry, dumb question but what does OLC stand for? Searches on google produced for me sites with the term being used but not defined that I could see.

[Peace]

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=olc&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Google search. 7th link down.

[JLatte]

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=olc&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Google search. 7th link down.

Ah, thank you. I googled Bush OLC because I somehow thought OLC would be too vague, apparently not though.

[mactastic]

Sorry, dumb question but what does OLC stand for? Searches on google produced for me sites with the term being used but not defined that I could see.
Office of Legal Counsel. Where the lawyers live.

[mactastic]

Interesting Op-Ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1&ref=opinion) from a guy who knows a thing or two about this whole situation...
My Tortured Decision

By ALI SOUFAN
Published: April 22, 2009
FOR seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned.

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.

It was the right decision to release these memos, as we need the truth to come out. This should not be a partisan matter, because it is in our national security interest to regain our position as the world’s foremost defenders of human rights. Just as important, releasing these memos enables us to begin the tricky process of finally bringing these terrorists to justice.

The debate after the release of these memos has centered on whether C.I.A. officials should be prosecuted for their role in harsh interrogation techniques. That would be a mistake. Almost all the agency officials I worked with on these issues were good people who felt as I did about the use of enhanced techniques: it is un-American, ineffective and harmful to our national security.

Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).

My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue. (It’s worth noting that when reading between the lines of the newly released memos, it seems clear that it was contractors, not C.I.A. officers, who requested the use of these techniques.)

As we move forward, it’s important to not allow the torture issue to harm the reputation, and thus the effectiveness, of the C.I.A. The agency is essential to our national security. We must ensure that the mistakes behind the use of these techniques are never repeated. We’re making a good start: President Obama has limited interrogation techniques to the guidelines set in the Army Field Manual, and Leon Panetta, the C.I.A. director, says he has banned the use of contractors and secret overseas prisons for terrorism suspects (the so-called black sites). Just as important, we need to ensure that no new mistakes are made in the process of moving forward — a real danger right now.

Ali Soufan was an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005.
Emphasis mine.

[Peace]

Wow. Just wow.

[yg17]

Once again each person can draw the line on what they consider torture, if I would volunteer for it I don't consider it torture.

So, based on your logic, if the detainees didn't volunteer, which I'm sure they ddin't, then it's torture.

[werther]

So, based on your logic, if the detainees didn't volunteer, which I'm sure they ddin't, then it's torture.

I don't agree with zombie in the least, but I must say you are twisting his words. It seems evident to me that he is saying that in his mind since he would willingly subject himself to waterboarding then it must not be torture.

edit: I wouldn't subject myself to listening to a Palin speech, that means Sarah Palin is torture.

[mactastic]

Wow. Just wow.
I've long wondered why the Bush administration would use tactics that simply aren't effective; and I think that piece of the puzzle fell into place this week when it came to light that torture was being used to try to link Iraq to al-Qaeda. It now seems clear that what the Bushies were after wasn't information to protect America from more attacks; what they wanted were confessions linking Saddam to al-Qaeda.

[freeny]

I've long wondered why the Bush administration would use tactics that simply aren't effective; and I think that piece of the puzzle fell into place this week when it came to light that torture was being used to try to link Iraq to al-Qaeda. It now seems clear that what the Bushies were after wasn't information to protect America from more attacks; what they wanted were confessions linking Saddam to al-Qaeda.

Is this documented or your own personal conclusion?

[Peace]

"One of the officials quoted in the report says some of the harsh tactics were used before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq amid frustration in Washington at the lack of evidence linking al-Qaeda and Baghdad.

"Even though they were giving information and some of it was useful, while we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq,'' the report quoted US Army psychiatrist Major Paul Burney as saying."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25370015-23109,00.html

[skunk]

"Make the facts fit".

[mactastic]

Is this documented or your own personal conclusion?
Somewhere in between I suppose. There's been no admission from the Bush folks that this was the driver behind torture, but there have been accusations from people in the know that when traditional tactics weren't providing the information they wanted regarding a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, harsher techniques were introduced.

SERE training was instituted to help Americans resist the torture techniques that were employed by our opponents during the Korean war to extract false confessions from American servicemembers. It would make no sense to reverse-engineer tactics that produce false confessions if your goal was to get actionable intelligence to prevent upcoming attacks. However, it would make sense to reverse engineer tactics that produce false confessions if your goal was to produce confessions that bolstered your political position.

[mactastic]

"Make the facts fit".
Reminds me of how my little sister used to do puzzles when she was young. If the puzzle piece didn't fit, she'd go get the hammer from my tool kit and pound on it until it fit. It didn't matter if it was the right piece or not, it eventually was made to fit...

[leekohler]

Reminds me of how my little sister used to do puzzles when she was young. If the puzzle piece didn't fit, she'd go get the hammer from my tool kit and pound on it until it fit. It didn't matter if it was the right piece or not, it eventually was made to fit...

I bet Bush and Cheney both did that as kids.

[Peace]

I bet Bush and Cheney both did that as kids.

Cheney did it as an adult. Didn't he accidentally shoot a friend in the face ?

[mactastic]

I bet Bush and Cheney both did that as kids.
Now now... be nice to my sister. She's never ordered anyone tortured. ;)

[hulugu]

Once again each person can draw the line on what they consider torture, if I would volunteer for it I don't consider it torture.

No, we can't allow each person to "draw the line" just as we can't allow people to "draw the line" on another other illegal activity. To invite this kind of subjective value is madness.

Furthermore, we also cannot establish a legal framework based on what you are willing to volunteer for. You might be certifiable.


I invite anyone who approves of torture to review the numerous articles and books on the subject, written by those who have used interrogation methods and who describe what works and what doesn't, including Jane Meyer's "The Dark Side" and "How To Break A Terrorist" by Matthew Alexander. You can even read a few chapters of "The Gamble" by Thomas Ricks to understand how torture fails, not only as a technique, but as part of the larger strategic goal to win the war.

Lastly, I'd argue that those who approve of torture (or play Orwellian word games about the subject) also consider how little of their viewpoint is based on facts and how much it is based on various revenge fantasies, as explored by the show "24" and other similar works.

[KingYaba]

Those who deny it and practice it should really be subject to the same kind of treatment.

Link somewhat related.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2I6qRYJfYg

[Delta608]

I hate torture. Those who deny it and practice it should really be subject to the same kind of treatment.

How about a lie detector to get the truth out? Easy, and is mentally challenging to trick or fake.


As you sit, typing on your Mac basking in the freedom others have earned for you...:(

[Iscariot]

As you sit, typing on your Mac basking in the freedom others have earned for you...:(

Yeah! My great uncle fought in WWII so that the freedom of due process, the freedom from cruel and unusual treatment, and the freedom from arbitrary detention could be thrown away in the name of paranoia!

…oh, wait.

[.Andy]

Yeah! My great uncle fought in WWII so that the freedom of due process, the freedom from cruel and unusual treatment, and the freedom from arbitrary detention could be thrown away in the name of paranoia!

…oh, wait.
Unfortunately I think the message of this post (albeit obvious) might still be too subtle for some....

[skunk]

As you sit, typing on your Mac basking in the freedom others have earned for you...:(Iscariot answered most appropriately. An astounding inversion.

[freeny]

Hannity volunteers to be waterboarded-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/hannity-offers-to-be-wate_n_190354.html

The thing I dont understand is, if the "procedure" is no big deal, how do they expect it to garner any results? Are the Terrorists going to snap one day from the annoyance?

[hulugu]

Hannity volunteers to be waterboarded-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/hannity-offers-to-be-wate_n_190354.html

The thing I dont understand is, if the "procedure" is no big deal, how do they expect it to garner any results? Are the Terrorists going to snap one day from the annoyance?

I don't expect that much will come from this. Hannity is smart enough to either avoid actually doing it and blame others for such circumstances, but look tough for volunteering, or he'll do it under such controlled (and edited) circumstances that he'll be able to announce it's no bid deal and he'll hold this opinion even if he sobs uncontrollably at the sight of a full bath-tub for the rest of his life.

Waterboarding was used by the Nazis, Pol Pot's guerillas, and the Japanese during WWII. We prosecuted both Germans and Japanese officers for such actions, and in the case of the Japanese, executed them for war crimes.

[freeny]

I don't expect that much will come from this. Hannity is smart enough to either avoid actually doing it and blame others for such circumstances, but look tough for volunteering, or he'll do it under such controlled (and edited) circumstances that he'll be able to announce it's no bid deal and he'll hold this opinion even if he sobs uncontrollably at the sight of a full bath-tub for the rest of his life.

Waterboarding was used by the Nazis, Pol Pot's guerillas, and the Japanese during WWII. We prosecuted both Germans and Japanese officers for such actions, and in the case of the Japanese, executed them for war crimes.

I dont believe for a second he will actually do it. Hes just posturing so it seems like he doest believe waterboarding is torture.

Oh yeah, well i double dog dare ya!

http://madeinhead.org/anism/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/tongue_stuck_on_pole.jpg

I just find it funny that this is becoming the new GOP talking point. :P

[hulugu]

I dont believe for a second he will actually do it. Hes just posturing so it seems like he doest believe waterboarding is torture.

Oh yeah, well i double dog dare ya!

I just find it funny that this is becoming the new GOP talking point. :P

I'm not surprised at all. The GOP, and its various apparatchiks, are looking for relevance and they feel they can win on security issues.


As you sit, typing on your Mac basking in the freedom others have earned for you...:(

You know, I was going to avoid this, but it's just nagging at me. My grand-uncle, a fighter-pilot, did not go down during the Battle of Midway, so that a generation later we could reject those freedoms for safety. My grandfather did not land on the beaches of Naples, unloading jeeps and tanks, so that we could reject those freedoms either. My uncle who served in Vietnam as a counselor, nor my friends who have fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan, did so we could reject our freedoms for safety.

Each of these men served because they believed in our moral imperative, in our Constitution, and in the rule of law. So, what do we say to these men? We were scared?

[Iscariot]

Hannity volunteers to be waterboarded-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/hannity-offers-to-be-wate_n_190354.html

The thing I dont understand is, if the "procedure" is no big deal, how do they expect it to garner any results? Are the Terrorists going to snap one day from the annoyance?

Is Hannity volunteering to be waterboarded a single time in controlled situations by friendlies, or is Hannity volunteering to be thrown into solitary, forced into stress positions, deprived of sleep, and waterboarded every four hours by an opposing force?

[mactastic]

Hannity volunteers to be waterboarded-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/hannity-offers-to-be-wate_n_190354.html

The thing I dont understand is, if the "procedure" is no big deal, how do they expect it to garner any results? Are the Terrorists going to snap one day from the annoyance?
Please tell me it'll be on PPV? :D

[Delta608]

I'm not surprised at all. The GOP, and its various apparatchiks, are looking for relevance and they feel they can win on security issues.




You know, I was going to avoid this, but it's just nagging at me. My grand-uncle, a fighter-pilot, did not go down during the Battle of Midway, so that a generation later we could reject those freedoms for safety. My grandfather did not land on the beaches of Naples, unloading jeeps and tanks, so that we could reject those freedoms either. My uncle who served in Vietnam as a counselor, nor my friends who have fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan, did so we could reject our freedoms for safety.

Each of these men served because they believed in our moral imperative, in our Constitution, and in the rule of law. So, what do we say to these men? We were scared?

First you can say to these men THANK-YOU....Then you get off your moral soapbox and say thank-you to the past administration for doing what they thought best to ensure your right to EXIST...Then get on your hands and knees and thank those who in Camp Delta are guarding those who would like to take your rule of law and shove it down your throat after your head is cut off...but you wouldn't mean it, and I wouldn't accept it...For your reading pleasure regarding REAL torture during WWII....AFTER the war ended....

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/07/torture-in-germany-after-world-war-ii/

[.Andy]

First you can say to these men THANK-YOU....Then you get off your moral soapbox and say thank-you to the past administration for doing what they thought best to ensure your right to EXIST...Then get on your hands and knees and thank those who in Camp Delta are guarding those who would like to take your rule of law and shove it down your throat after your head is cut off...but you wouldn't mean it, and I wouldn't accept it...For your reading pleasure regarding REAL torture during WWII....AFTER the war ended....
This is extraordinary.

[skunk]

Are you going to join the queue for the freedom to be waterboarded?

[mactastic]

This is extraordinary.
Sadly this is par for the course around here...

[Delta608]

Are you going to join the queue for the freedom to be waterboarded?

Your making quite a few assumptions in your small remark, are you really sure you even know what it really is...??

[skunk]

Your making quite a few assumptions in your small remark, are you really sure you even know what it really is...??Isn't it written down in the Constitution somewhere?

[Delta608]

This is extraordinary.

What is extraordinary...?? We all dont share your moral compass...Pray for us, so you can have your morals....


Wait, what do you mean you actually don’t want me on that wall?

[skunk]

Wait, what do you mean you actually don’t want me on that wall?Which wall is this? :confused:

[.Andy]

We all dont share your moral compass...Pray for us, so you can have your morals....

Wait, what do you mean you actually don’t want me on that wall?
You've lost me. I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to :confused:. I think it was all the metaphors.

[mactastic]

Which wall is this? :confused:
http://www.themusicinmylife.com/images/pink-floyd-the-wall.jpg

[freeny]

Hannity will never do it nor will any of the other volunteers. Its a lose lose situation. Either they will admit it was torture, or they will say it wanst all that bad, which would mean it wasnt effective in the first place.

[Delta608]

You've lost me. I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to :confused:. I think it was all the metaphors.

Here Ill make it easy for you...



"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom.... You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.
...
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

Have nice life....

[skunk]

http://www.themusicinmylife.com/images/pink-floyd-the-wall.jpgOh, that wall.

[.Andy]

Hannity will never do it nor will any of the other volunteers. Its a lose lose situation. Either they will admit it was torture, or they will say it wanst all that bad, which would mean it wasnt effective in the first place.
The problem is that it is that bad. The only way it can be conceived as not that bad is if it's not done properly or through slight of hand.

Worth watching the experience by Christopher Hitchens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

[skunk]

Here Ill make it easy for you...



"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom.... You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.
...
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

Have nice life....Nope. Sorry. I still have no idea what you're talking about. I did not ask you to defend me from anything. And certainly not by using torture in my name. You're fired.

[mactastic]

Here Ill make it easy for you...



"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom.... You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.
...
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

Have nice life....
That's from the Bible, right?

[.Andy]

Here Ill make it easy for you...
I'll make it easy as well. Cowards torture defenseless men and women. Cowards support and justify the torture of defenseless men and women. Cowards turn a blind eye to the torture of defenseless men and women. Cowards are the biggest threat to freedom.

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom.... You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.
...
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
I'm not sure you understood the movie Delta608.

[remmy]

What film is it from???

[.Andy]

What film is it from???
A Few Good Men (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/fewgoodmen?q=a%20few%20good%20men)

[skunk]

A Few Good Men (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/fewgoodmen?q=a%20few%20good%20men)I love the Chicago Reader's review:
I'm usually a sucker for courtroom dramas, but Rob Reiner's highly mechanical filming by numbers of Aaron Sorkin's adaptation of his own cliched and fatuous Broadway play kept putting me to sleep.

:)

[remmy]

A Few Good Men (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/fewgoodmen?q=a%20few%20good%20men)

My god I don't believe someone is quoting from a film to suggest that torture is acceptable. :rolleyes:

[yg17]

First you can say to these men THANK-YOU....Then you get off your moral soapbox and say thank-you to the past administration for doing what they thought best to ensure your right to EXIST...Then get on your hands and knees and thank those who in Camp Delta are guarding those who would like to take your rule of law and shove it down your throat after your head is cut off...but you wouldn't mean it, and I wouldn't accept it...For your reading pleasure regarding REAL torture during WWII....AFTER the war ended....

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/07/torture-in-germany-after-world-war-ii/

If Dubya wanted to keep America safe, he could've not sat around on his lazy ass and done nothing when he received a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"

The previous administration did nothing to keep us safe and I will not be thanking them for a god damn thing.

And BTW, you can be thankful to our troops and oppose torture at the same time.

[hulugu]

Here Ill make it easy for you...



"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom.... You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.
...
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

I think you've entirely misunderstood the point that "A Few Good Men" (originally a play by Aaron Sorkin) was trying to make.

...Then you get off your moral soapbox and say thank-you to the past administration for doing what they thought best to ensure your right to EXIST...

As if you're not standing on what you feel is your own higher ground, but I digress. You're entire argument presupposes the idea that the people captured and taken to Gitmo were capable and about to unleash some kind of massive attack against the United States. There is very little evidence that this is true, and according to all unclassified sources, it appears that the many of the cases were drummed up or made from whole cloth.
Your argument assumes that torture is A) effective and B) necessary to save this country from some vast Bondian threat, rather than the internecine and long-term war we have to fight.

Then get on your hands and knees and thank those who in Camp Delta are guarding those who would like to take your rule of law and shove it down your throat after your head is cut off...

Yes, there are evil horrible people in the world, and I don't mind them being boxed up and shipped to a prison, what I do mind is torturing them for the sake of torture, when information can be attained, maybe even more efficiently and quickly, through the interrogation methods that don't involve beatings and water-boarding. We're supposed to be better than those who torture and behead.

Secondly, I'd much rather thank people like Matthew Alexander, a US Army interrogator who used his wit and intelligence to attain information which led to the direct assassination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

...For your reading pleasure regarding REAL torture during WWII....AFTER the war ended....

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/07/torture-in-germany-after-world-war-ii/

Yes, and prisoners were also tortured, included the use of waterboarding, by US Marines in Haiti and the Philippines. What's your point? It was wrong then, it's still wrong, and it will be wrong in the future.

[.Andy]

My god I don't believe someone is quoting from a film to suggest that torture is acceptable. :rolleyes:
What is even more ironic is that Delta608 is quoting the bad guy in the film. The guy that gives orders to assault someone under his command that ultimately leads to the young mans death. He then tries to cover up that he gave the order, falsifying paperwork and lying that he never gave the orders. Ultimately he's found out and tries to justify and position himself above reproach with the above quoted tirade. He's then arrested for his crimes.

Moral compass indeed....

[sysiphus]

That your own Nancy Pelosi didn't object, either...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

[mactastic]

Moral compass indeed....
Our good friend should get down on his knees and beg forgiveness from all the men and women who have honorably served to defend his right to be free to make such disgusting remarks that denigrate everything they fought and died for.

[.Andy]

That your own Nancy Pelosi didn't object, either...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html
She's not "my" Nancy Pelosi so hopefully that's not directed at me. Irrespective of what's in that article everyone that has participated, approved, ignored, encouraged, supported torture is a coward and will hopefully be bought to trial if possible or at least made to never forget their position. Nancy Pelosi included.

Their political affiliation has nothing to do with it.

[mactastic]

That your own Nancy Pelosi didn't object, either...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html
You conveniently forget (pure accident I'm sure :rolleyes:) to mention that Pelosi was not allowed to discuss this with *anyone*. To do so would have been ILLEGAL. Even to discuss it with someone who could have advised her as to the potential legality of these techniques would have been a violation of law regarding classified information. Her only source of information regarding whether these techniques were legal or not was the Bush administration briefers -- who of course were assuring her that everything was completely legal.

If Pelosi had raised an objection to these procedures at that time, she would have been subject to arrest and prosecution, not to mention impeachment -- and make no mistake, the Republicans would have been more than happy to do so.

[Iscariot]

First you can say to these men THANK-YOU....Then you get off your moral soapbox and say thank-you to the past administration for doing what they thought best to ensure your right to EXIST...Then get on your hands and knees and thank those who in Camp Delta are guarding those who would like to take your rule of law and shove it down your throat after your head is cut off...but you wouldn't mean it, and I wouldn't accept it...For your reading pleasure regarding REAL torture during WWII....AFTER the war ended....

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/07/torture-in-germany-after-world-war-ii/

When you die, and you get up to heaven, and you come face to face with all the heroes of WWII like my uncle who fought and died for freedom, are you going to say thank you? When they ask you why you willing took that freedom away from somebody else — the very freedom that they were fighting to give to everyone, even though the war had not touched our shores — what are you going to say? That you were afraid? That you were a coward?

You speak with such bravado, as if there is some kind of courage in torturing a defenseless person. No, courage lies in conviction even in the face of overwhelming adversity. Courage is saying "no matter what you do to us, you can not reduce us."

Torture is something performed and condoned only by cowards.

[.Andy]

If Pelosi had raised an objection to these procedures at that time, she would have been subject to arrest and prosecution, not to mention impeachment -- and make no mistake, the Republicans would have been more than happy to do so.
That would have been an admirable thing for her to do however. Speaking out against/blowing the whistle on atrocities even when it costs you your own job or your own freedom would have been the most ethical course of action.

[freeny]

That would have been an admirable thing for her to do however. Speaking out against/blowing the whistle on atrocities even when it costs you your own job or your own freedom would have been the most ethical course of action.

Agreed

[Gelfin]

She's not "my" Nancy Pelosi so hopefully that's not directed at me.

She is, in a specific Constitutional sense, my Nancy Pelosi, and I assure you I both am aware of it and deeply displeased by it.

For all the good it does. I mean, my alternatives were a business-before-humans nobody in the R column and Cindy Sheehan. Seriously, I couldn't stomach a "tactical" vote, so my only choice was to enter no vote at all for that office. Beyond that, I don't make the kind of money it takes to buy a California politician, so there's only so much I can do.

[mgguy]

You conveniently forget (pure accident I'm sure :rolleyes:) to mention that Pelosi was not allowed to discuss this with *anyone*. To do so would have been ILLEGAL. Even to discuss it with someone who could have advised her as to the potential legality of these techniques would have been a violation of law regarding classified information. Her only source of information regarding whether these techniques were legal or not was the Bush administration briefers -- who of course were assuring her that everything was completely legal.

If Pelosi had raised an objection to these procedures at that time, she would have been subject to arrest and prosecution, not to mention impeachment -- and make no mistake, the Republicans would have been more than happy to do so.
I don't believe this is true. Please cite a source if you have one. A report by a congressman I heard yesterday on the news said that they could have raised objections formally through the CIA but only Harman did so. So by not raising objections, which in a way was their responsibility as representatives of the people if they did not agree with these techniques, essentially condoned the use of these methods. Two of the Congressmen who were briefed even suggested during the briefing that they push even harder on the captives to get them to talk, and none of the others expressed disagreement with that.

[freeny]

Yes, National Review, We Did Execute Japanese for Waterboarding
LINK (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/yes-inational-reviewi-we_b_191153.html)

"In a CNN debate with Ari Fleischer, I said the United States executed Japanese war criminals for waterboarding. My point was that it is disingenuous for Bush Republicans to argue that waterboarding is not torture and thus illegal. It's kind of awkward to argue that waterboarding is not a crime when you hanged someone for doing it to our troops. My precise words were: "Our country executed Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American POWs. We executed them for the same crime we are now committing ourselves.""


Your Daily Dose of Hypocrisy-

"The Democrats had long labeled the impeachment debate a distraction from the urgent business of a great nation. But the Republicans argued that the pursuit of justice is the business of a great nation. In winning this point, they caught the falling flag, producing a triumph for the rule of law, a reassertion of the belief that no man is above it, and a rebuke for an arrogance that had grown imperial,"
- Peggy Noonan, December 21. 1998.

"It"s hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, "Oh, much good will come of that." Sometimes in life you want to keep walking. Some of life has to be mysterious."
- Peggy Noonan, April 19, 2009.

[Peace]

snip



If Pelosi had raised an objection to these procedures at that time, she would have been subject to arrest and prosecution, not to mention impeachment -- and make no mistake, the Republicans would have been more than happy to do so.

This is not true. ANY member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has every right to raise objections to anything being discussed in that committee. That's why they hold those meetings. So the commitee can either approve it or not.

Nancy is trying to cover her arse too.

And I might add a few other Democrats. And ANY member of congress that approved the war in Iraq.

[mactastic]

That would have been an admirable thing for her to do however. Speaking out against/blowing the whistle on atrocities even when it costs you your own job or your own freedom would have been the most ethical course of action.
Oh I agree, and I certainly don't absolve Pelosi of any responsibility for this, but LEGALLY the best she could have done is resign without telling anyone why.

Of course, because of the way this was foisted upon this "group of four" (it's always presented as if Pelosi was the only one informed of this program) they had no way to independently verify if what the Bush administration was telling them about the legality of the program was true or not. Also, it is my understanding that Pelosi was -- at the time -- only informed that these methods were considered legal, not that there were -- and had already been -- used on prisoners.

I don't believe this is true. Please cite a source if you have one. A report by a congressman I heard yesterday on the news said that they could have raised objections formally through the CIA but only Harman did so. So by not raising objections, which in a way was their responsibility as representatives of the people if they did not agree with these techniques, essentially condoned the use of these methods. Two of the Congressmen who were briefed even suggested during the briefing that they push even harder on the captives to get them to talk, and none of the others expressed disagreement with that.
So when you don't raise objections to something said in this forum, can I assume that you condone it?

[sysiphus]

Oh I agree, and I certainly don't absolve Pelosi of any responsibility for this, but LEGALLY the best she could have done is resign without telling anyone why.


Err...did you read the posts above you? The whole point of the committee was that they COULD have protested the issue...Pelosi is covering her ass, just like everybody else.

[mgguy]

So when you don't raise objections to something said in this forum, can I assume that you condone it?

You can if you want. However, there is a slight difference between my responsibilities as a voyeur in this forum and those of Pelosi and other congressmen who were acting in their official duties to review the executive branch's policies and practices regarding interrogation of prisoners. She is paid to protect the public trust and took an oath to do so, while I am not and did not. Surely you are not attempting to equate a debriefing of congressmen with my reading of comments posted in this forum. Or are you?

You also did not provide a reference for your claim that there were not channels through which Pelosi could have raised objections without retribution. Harman did without any penalty.

[mactastic]

Err...did you read the posts above you? The whole point of the committee was that they COULD have protested the issue...Pelosi is covering her ass, just like everybody else.
Yes, they could have protested. To the Bush administration, and to no one else.

You can if you want. However, there is a slight difference between my responsibilities as a voyeur in this forum and those of Pelosi and other congressmen who were acting in their official duties to review the executive branch's policies and practices regarding interrogation of prisoners. She is paid to protect the public trust and took an oath to do so, while I am not and did not. Surely you are not attempting to equate a debriefing of congressmen with my reading of comments posted in this forum. Or are you?
The fact that Pelosi "gave tacit approval", as you say, has no bearing on how I feel about torture.

You also did not provide a reference for your claim that there were not channels through which Pelosi could have raised objections without retribution. Harman did without any penalty.
Now, I know that conservatives are unfamiliar with the concept of being punished for discussing classified information with newspapers (see Plame, Valerie), but are you actually suggesting that you think it would be legal for someone to receive a classified briefing, and then go talking about what they learned in the briefing with people not authorized to hear what was in the briefing? Seriously?

But, since I know you won't ever shut up about this once you've sunk your teeth into it, here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=39012).
"Now, to your second point, there is no ability for members to take this any place because you cannot even take it to your other colleagues on the committee. They are talking about what their certain legal opinions are. That's what they're telling you. However, what I have tried to do when I became -- in the light of these things is to say that it's the responsibility of the executive branch, which controls all of that, to inform the committee, the Intelligence Committee, because the Intelligence Committee has to vote on these issues, has to make important decisions about them, and they don't even know it's happening. And you can't tell them. And I have always been truly faithful to never disclosing, because that is what the law is, what happens in those briefings.

Harman wrote a letter to the Bush administration, who promptly filed it in the circular file. Her objections did nothing to stop the process.

And quite frankly, if Pelosi knew about this and did nothing, I have no problem seeing her swing along with everyone else in the Bush administration who knew. But at this point, what she is saying is that the people in Congress who were told, were told that there were legal opinions stating that they could use certain techniques, and that they promised to return to Congress and inform them if they used these techniques. It is now clear that they were already using these techniques, and so far no information has surfaced showing that they returned to tell Congress that they had.

By the way, do you have any proof that Harman was able to file a protest without any penalty?

[mgguy]

Now, I know that conservatives are unfamiliar with the concept of being punished for discussing classified information with newspapers (see Plame, Valerie), but are you actually suggesting that you think it would be legal for someone to receive a classified briefing, and then go talking about what they learned in the briefing with people not authorized to hear what was in the briefing? Seriously?

I'm not talking about going to the press or to anyone else who is not authorized to hear this information. I am talking about raising objections to the CIA and other bodies who have clearance to hear it. Not only did Pelosi not object, but according to those who were there, many in the group encouraged the CIA to do more and she did not say no.

You still haven't provided a reference supporting your claim that Pelosi would have been punished for saying anything to the CIA and others who had security clearance to hear this information. You cited Pelosi herself as evidence of this restriction, but she is really not that credible here as she is attempting to cover her own vulnerability.


By the way, do you have any proof that Harman was able to file a protest without any penalty?
This has been stated in many of the major media reports on this story, including one presented by NPR. There is also Harman's own statement that she did so. A copy ofa letter she sent to the CIA objecting to the interrogation techniques can be found here: http://www.cfr.org/publication/15164/representative_jane_harmans_letter_to_cia_general_counsel_muller.html I'm not sure it is the same one that she sent regarding the debriefing, but it covers the same security-protected information.

[mactastic]

I'm not talking about going to the press or to anyone else who is not authorized to hear this information. I am talking about raising objections to the CIA and other bodies who have clearance to hear it. Not only did Pelosi not object, but according to those who were there, many in the group encouraged the CIA to do more and she did not say no.
Then fry her. I'm not defending her. This proposition that because Pelosi didn't object, no liberal should object is just stupid.

However, do you have any proof (beyond, of course, the word of Republicans; who are no more believable to me than the word of Pelosi is to you) that no objections were raised and encouragement was offered?

How far did Harman's objection go? As far as I'm concerned, that was just ass-covering on her part, as she surely knew it would do no good to complain to those conducting torture that she thought it was illegal.

You still haven't provided a reference supporting your claim that Pelosi would have been punished for saying anything to the CIA and others who had security clearance to hear this information. You cited Pelosi herself as evidence of this restriction, but she is really not that credible here as she is attempting to cover her own vulnerability.
LOL... again, are you honestly suggesting that it is acceptable to discuss classified information with people who are not cleared to hear it? Anyone cleared to hear it was obviously under the same restrictions against discussion, or was a "loyal Bushie". There was no ability to get independent confirmation that what the Bush administration was telling them was correct, was there?

Even the act of asking someone if they are cleared to discuss this subject would be a violation of Title 18, Part 1, Chapter (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C37.txt)37.

This has been stated in many of the major media reports on this story, including one presented by NPR. There is also Harman's own statement that she did so. A copy ofa letter she sent to the CIA objecting to the interrogation techniques can be found here: http://www.cfr.org/publication/15164/representative_jane_harmans_letter_to_cia_general_counsel_muller.html I'm not sure it is the same one that she sent regarding the debriefing, but it covers the same security-protected information.
Yes, we all know Harman wrote a letter. You still have not provided any proof that she did so without suffering any consequences.

[mgguy]

However, do you have any proof (beyond, of course, the word of Republicans; who are no more believable to me than the word of Pelosi is to you) that no objections were raised and encouragement was offered?

Those who attended the briefing said this, but of course they could be lying.

LOL... again, are you honestly suggesting that it is acceptable to discuss classified information with people who are not cleared to hear it?

No, I am not suggesting this and never have. I said that she could have raised it through channels that would not have represented a security breach, like Harman did.


Yes, we all know Harman wrote a letter. You still have not provided any proof that she did so without suffering any consequences.

I believe she said she didn't suffer any consequences. Also, the CIA's letter of response (quoted below) didn't suggest she did anything wrong and even thanked her for her letter.

Text of CIA General Counsel Muller’s Response to Representative Harman:
28 February 2003
The Honorable Jane Harman
Ranking Democratic Member
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Ms. Harman:
Thank you for your letter of 10 February following up on the briefing we gave you and Congressman Goss on 5 February concerning the Central Intelligence Agency’s limited use of the handful of specially approved interrogation techniques we described. As we informed both you and the leadership of the Intelligence Committees last September, a number of Executive Branch lawyers including lawyers from the Department of Justice participated in the determination that, in the appropriate circumstances, use of these techniques is fully consistent with US law. While I do not think it appropriate for me to comment on issues that are a matter of policy, much less the nature and extent of Executive Branch policy deliberations, I think it would be fair to assume that policy as well as legal matters have been addressed within the Executive Branch.
Sincerely,
Scott W. Muller

Of course, it is possible that she was reprimanded in some way and they told her she could not divulge the fact that she had been punished, but this is highly unlikely.

[mactastic]

Those who attended the briefing said this, but of course they could be lying.
So I guess that's a no, you don't have any proof.

No, I am not suggesting this and never have. I said that she could have raised it through channels that would not have represented a security breach, like Harman did.
And all Harman did was CYA. What good did Harman's objection do other than prevent a modicum of scorn from being heaped on her? Did it slow down or halt the torture? Would the history of the Bush administration been any different had Harman not written about her objections?

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly WHO Pelosi could have written to that would have made a bit of difference? Since you've said that she had this recourse several times now, perhaps you could provide some names beyond just "the CIA"?

I believe she said she didn't suffer any consequences. Also, the CIA's letter of response (quoted below) didn't suggest she did anything wrong and even thanked her for her letter.
Do you have any proof that she didn't suffer any consequences, or is this just pure conjecture on your part?

Of course, it is possible that she was reprimanded in some way and they told her she could not divulge the fact that she had been punished, but this is highly unlikely.
Or it's possible her turning up on a wiretap crossed someone's desk, and she was told to keep her mouth shut or else...

Equally possible, since both outcomes would constitute idle speculation with no proof.

And, of course, none of this Pelosi/Harman mouth music has diddly-squat to do with whether or not Bush administration officials committed war crimes in our name. It's just an attempt by those who are the most culpable at muddying the waters and trying to prevent the political will to investigate these atrocities by Congress. A battle it appears they are losing, as they get ever more desperate to include others in their blame game.

[solvs]

Remind me to thank Delta for supporting those who protect our freedoms by taking them away. Love the sig, and the attached irony. And the quoting of exactly why we need laws to protect us from those like the person he quoted in the fictional account of how those in power do horrible things in the name of protecting the rest of us. Also ironically mostly to cover their own butts. Which is what he was doing, and which is what we now know that 'Mac was right in that the Bush administration was also doing in regards to the 9/11-Iraq link that never existed.

Here's an article the people who need to read it most won't covering just exactly what is wrong with this whole situation:

Torture: "It's Perfectly Legal -- But We Don't Do It" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/torture-its-perfectly-leg_b_191336.html)

Here's a rundown: they lied and said we didn't torture, which is exactly what this is as defined by international standards we help set, then admitted they did, but that it was to protect us. Which it didn't, because they can't actually prove it worked. Which goes with what we hear from every expert, that it doesn't, which is why it actually made us less safe, because the FBI and CIA were sent all over on wild goose chases, not being able to tell the good intel from the bad. Nor can we actually use anything we got under torture to prosecute anyone, so we may actually wind up letting bad people go since we can't charge them with anything and prove it without it being counteracted as false confession.

CIA official: no proof harsh techniques stopped terror attacks on America (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66895.html)

Even if we did though, doesn't make it right. Even if we aren't as bad as "they" are, we still lowered ourselves below where we should be all in the name of perceived safety. We threw our own laws out the window, in the exact type of test of where we should have been strong enough to prove we can keep them, which should be disturbing to anyone, for essentially nothing. But to piss off our enemies, giving them more fodder, more of an ability to recruit others against us, and allies alike. And future enemies. Or those we're trying to fight against now even. How do we condemn places like Iran that do this when so do we? How do we condemn those who we've convicted of the exact same things in the past? Simple, we can't. Which even if it did work, which it doesn't, is far worse for us in the long run.

We throw away our values, we spit in the face of the freedoms we say we're protecting, and we do a disservice to our soldiers to put them into these situations (then worse, to blame them as "bad eggs" when it's coming from orders from above), which for some is unthinkable to the extreme:

U.S. Soldier Killed Herself -- After Refusing to Take Part in Torture (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/us-soldier-killed-herself_b_190517.html)

We're supposed to be the good guys. We're supposed to be the ones who follow the law no matter what. Who believe in freedom no matter what. WE DON'T TORTURE. We just don't. It's against everything we're supposed to stand for. For any of you to support that, for whatever reason, no matter how you try to spin it as being against the troops somehow or for the terrorists, it is you who need to remember what country you live in. Who need to re-read the founding documents that specifically spoke out against such things, specifically because that is what our enemies did that seemed so abominable to our values. You need to rethink your values. Give me liberty or give me death is more than just a saying. We don't give up our liberties, the liberties of any of us, even our enemies, for the perception of safety. To protect our lives. Because freedom and values are worth more than that. Maybe you're willing to give those up because you're scared of being attacked by something that statistically won't affect you in any way, but those of us who believe in the rule of law, who believe we should stand by what we say we stand for, we prefer to retain our values no matter what. No matter what!

And we prosecute those who break the laws, no matter who they are.

[solvs]

"Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere... I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture."

-- George W. Bush, June 2003

[solvs]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: OCTOBER 30, 1997


SPEAKER'S STATEMENT ON VISIT OF PRESIDENT JIANG
Washington, D.C. -- House Speaker Newt Gingrich released the following statement today following his meeting with Chinese President Jiang Zemin.

"As I said in China this spring, there is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture and arbitrary detention. There is no place for forced confessions. There is no place for intolerance of dissent." "While we walked through the Rotunda. I explained to President Jiang how the roots of American rule of law go back more than 700 years, to the signing of the Magna Carta. The foundation of American values, therefore, is not a passing priority or a temporary trend.

[mactastic]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: OCTOBER 30, 1997


SPEAKER'S STATEMENT ON VISIT OF PRESIDENT JIANG
Washington, D.C. -- House Speaker Newt Gingrich released the following statement today following his meeting with Chinese President Jiang Zemin.

"As I said in China this spring, there is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture and arbitrary detention. There is no place for forced confessions. There is no place for intolerance of dissent." "While we walked through the Rotunda. I explained to President Jiang how the roots of American rule of law go back more than 700 years, to the signing of the Magna Carta. The foundation of American values, therefore, is not a passing priority or a temporary trend.
Newt's always been a hypocrite, from his days going after Bill Clinton for an affair while having his own affair, to claiming to represent family values as he divorced his cancer-striken wife in her hospital.

[solvs]

Kind of expected some of our more "patriotic" members to shoot back with how much freedom I'm hurting or terrorist loving I'm doing or something.


(With the exception of 'macs agreement of course) I still can kill a thread's arguments can't I? :o

[mactastic]

(With the exception of 'macs agreement of course) I still can kill a thread's arguments can't I? :o
You da man!

[solvs]

You da man!
I guess, but I came here for an argument and none of them seem to want to play.

So I shall slap you with a dead parrot you pusillanimous piffle pushers!



Oh, and in case I didn't get my point across the 1st time... WE DON'T ****ING TORTURE!!!