Of course you don't. But what does that have to do with the facts?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
|
Of course you don't. But what does that have to do with the facts?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Facts and Vice have nothing in common...
How is it that you righty's forget so quickly, all the lies he told about Iraq?? Oh, oh, wait a minute. I understand, now... You don't think he was lying at all, do you? You think they're going to find those WMD's any day now.
You guys are silly.
excon
I guess 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium doesn't qualify as WMDs.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I guess hundreds of sarin gas mortars aren't WMDs.
And what Israel blew up in Syria in September 2007, I guess those weren't Iraqi WMDs either.
And if all the parts for WMDs are there, but they aren't put together, then they really aren't WMDs either. Just like a gun that has been stripped apart isn't really a gun.
Furthermore, you continue to state that Bush LIED about WMDs. Leaving aside the fact that there were WMDs in Iraq that you have refused to recognize, there is a huge difference between a LIE and a MISTAKE. If Bush and Cheney lied, then so did the UN, the French, Germans, Brits, Israelis, Indians, Pakistanis, Turks, and every other country that stated that Iraq had WMDs. But they didn't lie. If there were no WMDs, then it is because they made a mistake, not a lie. But they didn't even make a mistake, because there were WMDs in Iraq that you continue to brush off.
Who's being silly, excon?
But our topic isn't WMDs. Our topic is TORTURE, and whether the terrorists held at Gitmo were tortured. Please stick to the topic.
And on that topic, you are CLEARLY making assumptions about the innocence of the terrorists (and Zubaidah in particular). You are also making assumptions about the proper method of handling terrorism via the justice system. Both of these assumptions are incorrect as I have indicated above.
You have no response for these points, so instead of responding you change the topic to WMDs... another topic you are wrong about.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Back to torture - cool! We're again, getting to the heart of it...
I don't think Zubaydah is innocent. I don't think ANY of them are innocent. I've never SAID they were innocent. I said, they've never been CONVICTED of anything in ANY kind of court, even the kangaroo ones in Gitmo.
You believe they're bad guys because your government TOLD you they were. Me?? I'll believe they're bad guys when they're CONVICTED!
But, that DOES bring up my point... Who WE are as a nation; what OUR standards are, are NOT based upon who we happen to be fighting at the moment. We've fought bad guys before without becoming them.
YOU, however, are willing to lower OUR standards to that of our enemy. I'm not, and fortunately, neither is our nation. Hopefully, the dufus and vices' torture crap will just be an ugly blot on an otherwise good and honorable people.
excon
How many American civilians will die because of this STUPID move on the part of our oh-so-smart president in telling the whole world all our intelligence procedures?
You know ex, I don't this nation to be a nation of torturers, I'm just still having a hard time being convinced that what was done was "torture" - and it has nothing to do with using PC terms.
Pulling teeth out with pliers, ripping off fingernails, hanging and beating detainees, beatings to the genitals, dislocating fingers - that's torture. 40 of seconds of water poured over your face with a towel over it, I don't know. Slamming someone against a fake wall, a caterpillar, diapers? Surely not. Even as repugnant as the CIA's form of waterboarding may be to you, how do we balance national security with human rights?
You guys aren't seeing that these memos show our country was struggling to define and meet legal limits while fighting a lawless enemy. Does that not show we do have a soul, to carefully take into consideration the laws and the safety of the detainees while executing their duty to protect the nation from terrorists? There is no easy answer considering the enemy doesn’t give a damn about laws and rules.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No, I don't see the same thing you see. I see lawyers trying to find a justification for torture. You see the requirement for a doctor to be present as caring for the dude being tortured. I see it as easing the concience of the torturers by convincing themselves of their compassion.
I'm sorry. Having a doctor there to prevent them from being hurt, all the while hurting them is right out of Nurse Ratched.
excon
And I say that they don't have to be convicted of anything. They aren't criminals. They are POWs. Moreover, they are unlawful combatant POWs. The purpose of holding and interrogating them isn't to punish them for a crime. It is to keep them off the battlefield and obtain the information they have about enemy operations. CONVICTIONS don't enter into the equation... or at least they shouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Again, an incorrect assumption. They aren't baguys. They are enemies. HUGE difference.Quote:
You believe they're bad guys because your government TOLD you they were. Me?? I'll believe they're bad guys when they're CONVICTED!
Since we are bringing up a history of fighting wars without becoming the enemy, let's take a look at the history of POWs held by the USA.Quote:
But, that DOES bring up my point... Who WE are as a nation; what OUR standards are, are NOT based upon who we happen to be fighting at the moment. We've fought bad guys before without becoming them.
Historically speaking, we have held POWs for years during times of war.
In WWI, there were 8 million POWs held worldwide by all parties to the war. NONE of them were convicted of anything because they weren't criminals. They were POWs.
In WWII the DEATH TOLL of POWs held by the AXIS powers was 6-10 million. The actual number held is still unknown. The Allies held over 4 million POWs. NONE of them were convicted of a crime, because they weren't criminals. They were POWs.
In the Civil War, the Union and Confederacy each held roughly 200,000 POWs. NONE of them were ever convicted of a crime because they weren't criminals. They were POWs.
During the Korean War, the UN held 170,000 POWs at Koje-Do Island. None of them were convicted of a crime because they weren't criminals. They were POWs.
At no point in our history (or in any other country's history) has a POW ever been treated like a criminal, been given the right to a trial, and set free if not convicted. It doesn't exist. It never has. This idea was made up by you, and has no basis in history or law.
I'm not trying to lower our standards. I'm trying to maintain them. YOU are creating a standard that has never existed.Quote:
YOU, however, are willing to lower OUR standards to that of our enemy. I'm not, and fortunately, neither is our nation.
Can you name a single time in the history of man where a legal POW was tried as a criminal (unless he committed a crime other than his actions in combat)? Can you name a sigle time in history when a military was required to let POWs go because they couldn't "prove" in a court of law that the POW was a criminal?
Unless you can show me a time when this was a common practice, or even an uncommon one, then you are creating a standard that doesn't exist and never has. I'm just upholding the standard that the entire civilized world signed onto when they signed the Geneva Conventions.
So put up or shut up. Prove that such a standard exists or ever existed.
Actually, it will turn out to have been the exactly correct thing to do... and stopping it and revealing it will turn out to have weakened the USA's intelligence-gathering system to the point that we will again be attacked on US soil. And THAT will be an ugly blot, and an unforgivable one.Quote:
Hopefully, the dufus and vices' torture crap will just be an ugly blot on an otherwise good and honorable people.
excon
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I don't disagree with the standard as you've presented it.
The difference this time, is the dufus declared a never ending war. That's a change in standards if there ever was one - all made up by you and the dufus.
But, when you want to have a war that never ends, that means you want to keep your POW's forever, too. That's a new standard. You and the dufus are responsible for that one too.
The problem is our laws don't make provisions for keeping people in cages forever, without being able to challenge their imprisonment.
And, you want to talk about standards with ME? Dude!
excon
What?!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
When we entered WWII, did we know a date certain when the war would end?
When has there ever been a war where we knew in advance what day the war would end.
Just because we do not yet know the date that the war will end doesn't make it a neverending war.
Also, keep in mind that there have been wars that have gone on for extended periods. The Thirty Years War. The Hundred Years War. The Italian Wars. The Three Hundred Thirty Five Years War (between the Netherlands and the Isles of Sicilly) which ended in 1986. Do you think that none of these wars had POWs just because nobody knew when the wars were going to end?
That's a ridiculous argument.
Clearly that is NOT a new standard. See above.Quote:
But, when you want to have a war that never ends, that means you want to keep your POW's forever, too. That's a new standard. You and the dufus are responsible for that one too.
They most certainly do. It's called the Geneva Convention. It is a treaty that has the same power as the Constitution in US law.Quote:
The problem is our laws don't make provisions for keeping people in cages forever, without being able to challenge their imprisonment.
Yep. I want to talk about unreasonable standards with no basis in sanity. We're not going to take POWs because we don't know when the war is going to end?Quote:
And, you want to talk about standards with ME? Dude!
Excon
Well ex, you may get your wish. Obama seems to have flip-flopped on "looking forward" and decided to hold the door open to prosecutions.
Obama's promises have more expiration dates than the dairy section at Wal-Mart. So who is he going to prosecute for following the legal counsel of the White House? Will he include all the Senators that were briefed but didn't object? And just what position does that put our intelligence operatives in now?Quote:
President Holds Open Door For Prosecutions of Bush Officials For Interrogation Policies, Truth Commission
April 21, 2009 12:50 PM
ABC News' Jake Tapper, Sunlen Miller and Yunji de Nies report:
President Obama suggested today that it remained a possibility that the Justice Department might bring charges against officials of the Bush administration who devised harsh interrogation policies that some see as torture.
He also suggested that if there is any sort of investigation into these past policies and practices, he would be more inclined to support an independent commission outside the typical congressional hearing process.
Both statements represented breaks from previous White House statements on the matter.
While the Bush-era memos providing legal justifications for enhanced interrogation methods "reflected us losing our moral bearings," the president said, he also that he did not think it was "appropriate" to prosecute those CIA officers who "carried out some of these operations within the four corners of the legal opinions or guidance that had been provided by the White House."
But in clear change from language he and members of his administration have used in the past, the president said that "with respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there."
Just yesterday, asked by a reporter as to why the administration was not seeking to "hold accountable" Bush administration lawyers who may have "twisted the law," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, "the president is focused on looking forward, that's why."
On Sunday, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that "those who devised policy, he (the president) believes that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go." Emanuel quoted President Obama saying, "'this is not a time for retribution.' It's time for reflection. It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and any sense of anger and retribution."
The president made his Tuesday remarks in the Oval Office during a joint press availability with His Majesty King Abdullah II Ibn Al Hussein.
Following up on my previous post, Andrew Sullivan has been so good to clear up once and for all the definition of torture:
Now that we've cleared that up and set the bar sufficiently low, let the witch hunt begin.Quote:
What defines torture is not this or that specific technique. We could spend hours poring through the countless ways in which human beings have devised to torture defenseless captives over the centuries. What defines torture is applying sufficiently severe mental or physical pain or suffering to force a victim to say anything to make it stop.
I heard on the noon news that Obama is going to leave it up to the AG to decide whether to prosecute those who drafted the programs.
It looks like this administration may scrap our intelligence capabilities.
Anyone want to buy a bomb shelter?
Sullivan frankly looks like someone who would pay for such services.
I am almost in favor of an independent bipartisan commission if it wouldn't degrade into a public circus like the 9-11 commission became. . Let them start by giving subpoena's for ALL the justice Dept records as Cheney requested .Since Obama promised a transparent Presidency and doesn't want to politicize intelligence he should have no problem with the request.
Subpoena's should also be served to all members of the intelligence commitees of Congress who were fully briefed of the techniques that were approved.
This really is a crock.
Hello again, speech:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The dufus thought he could run the Justice Department too. Fortunately, we now have a Constitutional lawyer running the show, who understands that he has no say in criminal investigations undertaken by the Justice Department.
Fortunately too, the Justice Department ISN'T run by politics. In fact, we tortured because the Justice Department was infiltrated by politicians, who didn't go by the law. They went by the politics. That's why they're guilty of breaking the law.
excon
I totally disagree . The memos already released ,if they prove anything ,prove that the Justice Dept to a fault tried to comply to the letter of the law.
What Obama suggested in his comments today is that those who offer a legal opinion can be charged as criminals for expressing that legal opinion.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Of course you disagree.
But, here's what Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano says on the memos. I happen to agree.
"In the process of explaining to the CIA Deputy General Counsel just what his folks could do in order to extract information from uncooperative detainees, it is immediately apparent that the writers of the memos are attempting to find snippets of language from other memoranda that they or their colleagues have prepared and from unrelated judicial opinions that justify everything that the CIA wants to do.
The bias in favor of permitting torture may easily be concluded from a footnote in one of the memos. In that footnote, the author, now-federal judge Jay Bybee, declines to characterize such notorious medieval torture techniques as the thumbscrew and the rack as “torture.” With that incredible mindset, he proceeds to do his Orwellian best to define away such terms as “pain,” “suffering,” and “inhumane” in such a way as to require that the interrogators produce near death experiences in order to have their behavior come under the proscriptions of the federal statute prohibiting torture, and the Convention (treaty) Against Torture, which was negotiated by and signed in behalf of the U.S. by President George H.W. Bush.
The logic in the memos is simple: The government may utilize the ten procedures inquired about (all of which were publicly known except confinement on a coffin, bound and gagged, and in the presence of insects), so long as no one dies or comes close to death. This conclusion is startling in the case of walling (banging a detainee's head against a solid but moveable wall) and waterboarding (near drowning) since the federal government's own physicians, cited in the memos themselves, have concluded that both techniques are always a near occasion of death. The conclusion is also startling since it fails to account for numerous federal and state prosecutions, and prosecutions in Thailand — where these torture sessions apparently occurred — that have defined torture according to its generally accepted meaning:
“Any intentionally inflicted cruel or inhumane or degrading treatment, unauthorized by a court of law, perpetrated for the punishment of the victim, to extract statements from the victim, or to gratify the perpetrator.”
This universally-accepted definition makes no reference and has no condition that anything goes short of a near occasion of death.
The memos also fail to account for the Geneva Conventions, which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled govern American treatment of all foreign detainees, lawful or unlawful. The third of those conventions PROHIBITS TOUCHING the detainee in any way, other than for the purpose of moving him from place to place, if he refuses to go voluntarily and when told to do so.
The memos place Attorney General Holder, who argued for their release, in an untenable situation. He has stated under oath, at his confirmation hearings, that waterboarding is torture and torture is prohibited by numerous federal laws. He has also taken an oath to uphold all federal laws, not just those that are politically expedient from time to time. He is correct and he must do his moral and legal duty to reject any Nuremberg defense.
This is not rocket science and it is not art. Everyone knows torture when they see it; and no amount of twisted logic can detract from its illegal horror, its moral antipathy, and its attack at core American values."
excon
You'll have to be more specific on Napolitano's claim that they can't be touched. Imagine that, a conservative questioning Fox News. I guess we could always go back to firing squads for 'soldiers' not wearing the uniform. That would make much of this much simpler.
I frequently disagree with FOX analyst JUDGE Napolitano (being a former judge is strike one already) as I'm sure you frequently disagree with MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan.
What the release of the memos actually shows is not the legal game of Twisters that Napolitano describes . It is instead a demonstration of a nation of laws struggling to defend itself against a savage, lawless enemy while adhering to its legal commitments and norms. The vast majority of nations in the world today and throughout history would not have even made the effort.
The memos make it very clear what is torture. They cite an example of how the Serbs treated Muslims :
Mehinovic v. Vuckovic see page 24Quote:
"severe beatings to the genitals, head and other parts of the body with metal pipes and various other items; removal of teeth with pliers; kicking in the face and ribs; breaking of bones and ribs and dislocation of fingers; cutting a figure into the victim's forehead; hanging the victim and beating him; extreme limitations of food and water; and subjection to games of 'Russian roulette.' "
http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/ol...adbury46pg.pdf
Strict unambiguous language defined the limits of what an interrogator could apply to ensure the methods wouldn't cause "severe physical or mental pain or suffering." It went so far as to tell how often a diaper had to be changed if a detainee was subject to wearing them.
Contrast that to a typical Fear Factor Episode .
Here are some of the contestant challenges (which were published on a children's web site )
Kidzworld :: Fear Factor Top Ten Grossest Stunts | Couples | Picture | TV Show | Stunt | NBC - Page 1
Prosecute . Obama's administration had better be as pure as a fresh snow fall because he will open up a precedential can of worms he doesn't want to taste. The idea that a legal opinion on our laws based in good faith by an adviser to the President could land that advisor in jail is as disgusting to me as any one of those Fear Factor stunts.Quote:
1.) Fear Factor Pizza - Episode 317 (Season 3): This stunt must have made some of the contestants give up on eating pizza ever again. With a crust made from cow bile, coagulated blood paste for sauce, rancid cheese and topping choices like live red worms and fish eyes, Although most contestants ended up puking up their tasty treat, all contestants managed to complete the stunt and move on to the next round.
2.) Rat Bobbing - Episode 416 (Season 4): During Couples' Fear Factor, the girls had to lie down in a plexi-glass tank, and then were covered in 400 rats. The guys then had to retrieve ten chicken's feet from the tank, using only their mouths! One couple bowed out of the stunt because it was just too gross! The couple who won this stunt won an all-expenses paid trip to Las Vegas .
3.) Eat Buffalo Testicles - Episode 104 (Season 1): Ever tried a Rocky Mountain Oyster? Peeps in Colorado think they're pretty tasty when they're breaded and fried, but bull's testicles aren't as tastily prepared on Fear Factor. Contestants had to eat two large bull's testicles in four minutes or else they would be eliminated. Before being able to eat the testicles, contestants would need to bite through and then peel back a veiny membrane that was holding the “meat” inside. - only the two guys were able to complete the stunt.
4.) Bug Body Bag - Episode 433 (Season 4): This All-Female edition of Fear Factor included one truly gruesome stunt. Contestants were stuck inside a morgue drawer, in a body bag filled with giant hissing cockroaches, flesh-eating worms, crickets and stink beetles. Locked in the pitch black of the morgue drawer, the girls were locked in chains and had to fumble around to find the right key to unlock themselves.
5.) Eat African Cave-Dwelling Spiders - Episode 408 (Season 4): This stunt was not for elimination but instead to win a brand new car. Contestants lined up at a table full of African cave-dwelling spiders and had to grab hold of them, and then eat them alive. We're not talking run-of-the-mill basement spiders either. These bad boys looked like a cross between a spider and a crab and even had the little pinchers to prove it. This stunt brought one contestant to tears and she almost forfeited the challenge. In the end, all of the contestants ate a couple of spiders. The winner ate a whopping 12!
6.) Cow Eye Juice - Episode 403 (Season 4): For this Fear Factor stunt, contestants had to stick their face in a jar full of cow eyeballs, pick them up without using their hands and then puncture them with their teeth, letting all of the juices fall in to a cup. Once the cup was full, the contestants would then have to drink the cow eyeball juice. As if it's not bad enough putting slimy, gooey eyeballs in your mouth, you would then have to drink the ooze from inside the eye too!
7.) Eat Horse Rectum - Episode 313 (Season 3): This challenge started with the contestants playing a game of horseshoes. They would get three tosses. There were four rings around the horseshoe peg with the numbers 8, 6, 7 and then 8 again. If the contestant got their horseshoe around the peg, that would give them a score of 0. The goal of this game? To see how many inches of horse rectum the contestants would have to eat! Both girls attempted the stunt, but only one was able to complete it which meant that she won $25,000 dollars for choking back 13 inches.
8.) Fear Factor Spaghetti - Episode 211 (Season 2): Another Fear Factor specialty was served up for this stunt. Fear Factory Spaghetti was made up of live night crawlers and coagulated blood balls. Mmmm. This stunt was so gross that none of the contestants made it through their plate of spaghetti. Wonder why?
9.) Intestine Chew, Milk and Chug - Episode 422 (Season 4): Here's yet another stunt that involved the contestants sitting in a glass coffin covered in something disgusting. This time around, Fear Factor's weapon of choice was cow intestines. Contestants were covered in hundreds of pounds of intestines which they then had to puncture with their mouth, suck out the liquid and fill a glass with it. At the end of course, they had to drink the chunky mixture and hope that they could do it faster than their fellow opponents.
10.) Slugs and Bile - Episode 312 (Season 3): First up on the Fear Factor menu for this stunt were 10, fat, slimy slugs. Each contestant had to choke down their 10 slugs, followed by a shot of cow bile. One contestant tried rubbing the slime from the slugs off on her arm, but that only made them more agitated (making them excrete more goo!).
Btw : Obama's own DNI Dennis Blair says the techniques yielded valuable intelligence and were effective.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us...b83&ei=5087%0A
Given the fact that various restrictions on the CIA by Church Committee ,Torricelli ,and Jamie Gorelick legal opinions (why isn't she in jail ?) created a terrible void in our knowledge of who our enemies were and their capabilites ;I think we had no choice but to gather needed intelligence aggressively . It is fine to be a Monday morning quarterback 8 years after the event . But the truth is that after the towers went down,and we were under an anthrax attack ,and Muslim snipers were taking out motorists ,there was a need for real information about the enemies abilities that could not have been gathered in a timely manner with tea and crumpet sessions .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You still don't get it. We BRUTALIZED people and you're still comparing it to a game show. I'm surprised you didn't show a picture of a nice fuzzy caterpillar! Like Hannity last night, in his zeal to minimize what we did, he continually referred to waterboarding as a "dunk in the water". He NEVER called it waterboarding. If it's so cool, I wonder why he can't say it.
You and I (and ALL these people reading this post) know why. Dunk in the water, Twister games, TV quiz shows... If those comparisons weren't so gruesome and bizarre, I'd get a chuckle out of it...
You DO NOT GET IT!! It's CLEAR to me, because you don't want to say the WORDS, that you (and Hannity) know who the EVIL ones were. Yes, WE'RE the EVIL ones...
But, you're right about one thing. If they gave their legal opinion in GOOD FAITH, they're not guilty... But, if they gave their opinion because that's the opinion dufus and vice wanted, they're EVIL, and need to be brought down...
And, before you counter with the argument, that I already debunked, about criminalizing policy decisions, I must point out to you again, that if it were true, Pinnochet would only have been guilty of making bad policy...
In other words, if you make a policy that is CRIMINAL, you can't fall back on "it was just POLICY". My reading of the memos tells me that were LOOKING for the justification to torture - pure and simple.
excon
So what we have here is a situation where the detainees were not subject to the legal system because they weren't criminals, but rather POWs. They were subjected to interrogation techniques which, while harsh, do not meet the legal or moral criterion of "torture". And we now know from Dennis Blair that these techniques WORKED.
There's an old military saying: If it's stupid but it works it isn't stupid.
Similarly, if it is distasteful but it works, it isn't distasteful.
We should be holding these guys up as heroes for doing their jobs to protect us and keep us safe. We should be training others to do the job as well as they did. We sure as heck shouldn't be prosecuting them for doing their jobs.
Nor are Rumsfeld, Cheney or Bush guilty of anything except doing the jobs they were elected and appointed to do. The single, primary responsibility of any government is to protect it from threats both foreign and domestic. That is their Constitutional mandate. That is what they did.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Maybe the troubles stem from your inability to read the Constitution... You can't find privacy rights in there, but you can find the crap you're spouting...
Well, I don't find that crap. In fact, what I find is that their primary job is to do what they swore to do in their oath of office, which is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".
So, as long as one side can't read, It's not surprising they think torture is cool.
excon
It is much worse than criminalizing policy decisions. Obama is also playing political games . Why would he selective edit out Blair's comments from Blair's memo if he weren't ? Why would he "cherry pick " which memos the release from the DOJ files if the truth weren't that it is a political game he is playing ? Seems to me that Blair is confirming what Cheney and the previous people from the Bush administration I have cited have already said.
It is much worse than criminalizing policy decisions. Obama is also playing political games . Why would he selective edit out Blair's comments from Blair's memo if he weren't ? Why would he "cherry pick " which memos the release from the DOJ files if the truth weren't that it is a political game he is playing ? Seems to me that Blair is confirming what Cheney and the previous people from the Bush administration I have cited have already said.
Here is the redacted part of Blair's memo :
"High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the Al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."
"The leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to executive branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques."
"Even in 2009 there are organizations plotting to kill Americans using terror tactics, and although the memories of 9/11 are becoming more distant, we in the intelligence service must stop them."
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Laws against torture were well established BEFORE the dufus and vice indulged in them. Nobody criminalized their activities except they themselves. It's not difficult to understand. If the policy WAS criminal, then THEY who indulged in it are criminals. To say that we're NOW making torture illegal is disingenuous at best.
I wonder why you ignore any discussion of the Pinochet "policy" to torture, which landed him in jail. Nahhhh. I know why - because you wouldn't be able to keep on saying what you're saying...
It's cool.
But, you know... The attitude you display, the BLIND leading the BLIND, is what got us into this jackpot in the first place. There was, and is, ample evidence that torture doesn't work, and besides that, it's illegal. However, the important questions were never asked. Nobody wanted to know stuff. Is it because they wouldn't have liked the answers, or were they just plain scared?
It turns out, they did it because they were afraid. You know, anytime we make decisions because we're afraid, we make 'em wrong.
excon
OK I'm game re Pinochet .
He was also charged ,besides torture, with mass-murder and widespread theft of the treasury .
Specific counts of torture included : inflicting electric shocks until death;beatings to death ,threatening the rape of relatives;suspending from ceiling ;forcing to imbibe hallucinogenic drugs ;burnings ,etc etc .
More than 3,000 people were killed or disappeared during Pinochet's military rule.
He was arrested in England on a Spanish warrant for the murder in Chile of Spanish citizens while he was president. He eventually returned to Chile without facing trial .
After some more political back and forth he was indicted in Chile. July 2002, the Supreme Court dismissed Pinochet's indictment .He was again placed under house arrest a couple of times again before his death without any trials.
Anyway ;as you see ,what was done under his reign was indeed torture. I am not convinced ,nor do I believe that what was done by the CIA in the GWOT rises to that level . Oh they definitely pushed the envelope to go to the edge of what is legal .But as the memos clearly show ,they went to great lengths to insure that they stayed within the boundries of legality .
Sorry your sensiblities got offended but it is a rough world .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Then policy CAN be criminal. Cool. That wasn't too tough to admit, was it? I know you think what they did was legal. I don't.
However, there has been a sea change in these issues just since yesterday. The president, of course, has grasped the limits of his authority. Yes, contrary to the beliefs of the dufus, there ARE limits to presidential authority. Obama's proclamation goes a long way to restoring the balance of power.
No longer will legal decisions made at the Justice Department be guided by politics. That IS the way it should be, no? Well, that's the way it's GOING to be, so if I was vice, I'd be shutting up and hiring a lawyer.
excon
That's my con. Always right on the money.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
As of yesterday Obama left his determination not to criminalize policy differences into what Steve accurately described as a short expiration date. He is taking the cowardly way out by speaking lofty about moving on while leaving the dirty work to either Holder or Waxman. That way ,like Pilot he can wash his hands of it ,stay above the fray and pretend to be above it all.
No... policy differences cannot be criminal .Only criminal acts can be criminal . Prosecuting a lawyer because he wrote a legal analysis with which the current Attorney General disagrees reeks of politics .
Quick quiz :
Who said this ?
Quote:
"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.
"It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't know, and I don't care. The law is what's important here - not the politics du jour.
I'm sure you see a witch hunt underway for vice and Bush. Nothing I could say would change your mind.
But, let me ask you this. Do you think my stance on torture is because Bush did it? Do you think I'd be chuckling and guffawing about it with my buddies if Obama did it?
You probably do.
excon
andQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
I agree. The law of the land is what's important.Quote:
The law is what's important here - not the politics du jour.
Let's start with Article VI of the Constitution:
THAT gives the Geneva Convention, which is a treaty ratified by Congress, the authority of Constitutional Law... the Supreme Law of the Land.Quote:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Then there's Article I section 8 of the Constitution:
So... Congress has a responsibility to see to the security of the Nation. In fact, seen above, it seems to be the single largest responsibility that Congress has.Quote:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
And from Article II Section 2:
There seems to be a Presidential responsibility toward the security of the nation as well.Quote:
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
These things are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. They are spelled out in very easy to read language. So if you can't read them, it isn't because they aren't there, excon.
Can you find any statement of a right to privacy in the Constitution? Can you even find the word "privacy" in the Constitution?
So to recap,
-We have a Constitutional imprimature regarding the power of the Geneva Convention in US law.
-We have a declaration of war by Congress, giving the President the power to conduct the war as he sees fit.
-We have unlawful combatants that were captured during the prosecution of that war.
-We have the war still ongoing; there has been no cessation of hostilities in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
-We have a Geneva Convention that specifically denies unlawful combatants the protections of POWs, but we gant them those protections anyway.
-We have both historical data and legal advice by the AGs office stating that the methods of questioning the prisoners do not constitute torture.
-We have Obama's head of National Intelligence stating that the methods of questioning were effective, informative, and operationally sound.
In other words, excon, you are wrong. The LAW, which "is what's important here", is on our side, not yours.
Elliot
Good then I'm sure you will join me in demanding indictments of Nancy Pelosi ,and every member of both House intelligence comittees who were briefed and signed onto the policy before it was implemented... and also got frequent updates over the last 8 years.Quote:
But, let me ask you this. Do you think my stance on torture is because Bush did it? Do you think I'd be chuckling and guffawing about it with my buddies if Obama did it?
Answer to the question is Eric Holder . He said that back in Jan 2002 when the attacks were still fresh in everyone's mind. A whole bunch of Monday morning quarterbacking going on is what I see.
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
1) True.
2) Not true. Congress did not declare war, and no president has the power to do as he sees fit.
3) True.
4) True.
5)(a) Not true. Historical evidence weighs heavily against torture.
5)(b) True. It has, however, yet to be determined whether the advice was LEGAL.
6) Might be true, but who cares?
7) Not true.
8) The Fourth Amendment.
What's your point?
excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You betcha! Justice is BLIND. Didn't I say that a while ago??
excon
Congress authorized the use of military force, not once, but twice. An authorization to use military force IS a legal declaration of war. See the war powers act.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
True, but historical evidence also shows that what was done to the detainees wasn't torture.Quote:
3) True.
4) True.
5)(a) Not true. Historical evidence weighs heavily against torture.
Congress was informed on multiple occasions of this legal advice and didn't complain about it being illegal. The courts have never deemed it illegal. Ergo, it is legal until such time as a court deems it illegal.Quote:
5)(b) True. It has, however, yet to be determined whether the advice was LEGAL.
Actually, that is the crux of the matter. The head of National Intelligence (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) is saying that it was both legal and effective. As I said before, if it's stupid but it works, it ain't stupid.Quote:
6) Might be true, but who cares?
Extremely true, again.Quote:
7) Not true.
The Fourth Amendment never mentions a right to privacy at all. It prevents illegal search and seizure by the police or government, but it does NOT guarantee privacy of any sort.Quote:
8) The Fourth Amendment.
My point is I'm right and you're wrong.Quote:
What's your point?
Elliot
This is what David Ignatius of the Compost wrote today:
washingtonpost.comQuote:
Sad to say, it's slow roll time at Langley after the release of interrogation memos that, in the words of one veteran officer, “hit the agency like a car bomb in the driveway.” President Obama promised CIA officers that they won't be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don't believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution.
The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard.
One veteran counterterrorism operative says that agents in the field are already being more careful about using the legal findings that authorize covert action. An example is the so-called “risk of capture” interview that takes place in the first hour after a terrorism suspect is grabbed. This used to be the key window of opportunity, in which the subject was questioned aggressively and his cellphone contacts and “pocket litter” were exploited quickly.
Now, field officers are more careful. They want guidance from headquarters. They need legal advice. I'm told that in the case of an al-Qaeda suspect seized in Iraq several weeks ago, the CIA didn't even try to interrogate him. The agency handed him over to the U.S. military.
Agency officials also worry about the effect on foreign intelligence services that share secrets with the United States in a process politely known as “liaison.” A former official who remains in close touch with key Arab allies such as Egypt and Jordan warns: “There is a growing concern that the risk is too high to do the things with America they've done in the past.”
I wonder what the shadow warriors at Langley feel about their new CIC now ?
And just think, the Taliban has moved to within 70 miles of Islamabad. Imagine Mullah Omar with his hand on the nuclear trigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Bottom line... dunking KSM exposed the 'next wave' which was a plot to attack LA with International Airliners . The question is ;since the technique most likey saved the lives of hundreds if not thousands in LA ,where is the moral authority... in using aggressive interrogation or not using them at the cost of lives lost. That is what the rough people on our side have to consider .
"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:50 AM. |