Bush's torture memo's

[firstandten]

Here' some reading for you I don't think this is going away anytime soon


http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html

[d.mcc]

Here' some reading for you I don't think this is going away anytime soon


http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html

Condy and Cheney both signed off on torture practices too. If I can quote a famous ER doctor:

"Go fuck yourself Mr. Cheney!"

[ccbatson]

Redefine the word torture and then the whole deception being proposed (all of which is irrelevant and moot now anyway) begins.

[firstandten]

Redefine the word torture and then the whole deception being proposed (all of which is irrelevant and moot now anyway) begins.

You know what torture is , just like the folks that say I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it !

Its not a moot point these memo's and the discuss of these memo's goes to the every essence of what this country stands for and why we have some of the situations we are now in.

[rb336]

Redefine the word torture and then the whole deception being proposed (all of which is irrelevant and moot now anyway) begins.

let's see -- define it as we did in the 40s after wwii? we prosecuted waterboarding and several of the other approved "enhanced interegation techniques" against both enemy and our own

Torture works for only one thing -- getting someone to say what YOU WANT them to, not getting to the truth

[Big Dog]

RB, I understand that you are 100% correct.

[d.mcc]

RB, I understand that you are 100% correct.

Redefine 100% and Correct, and suddenly the meaning begins to change

[Big Dog]

The part about 100% is the part of using torture to get whatever you want to hear.

[ccbatson]

The debate about the effectiveness is a silly one. Clearly, they have gathered valuable/American life saving intelligence, however, that would be classified and therefore not a subject for proper study.

[rb336]

The debate about the effectiveness is a silly one. Clearly, they have gathered valuable/American life saving intelligence, however, that would be classified and therefore not a subject for proper study.

then, clearly, you don't know if they did or didn't get any valuable information. You are in the realm of pure speculation, and ready to believe crap that comes out of the mouths of those who proved time and again that they will lie to forward their anti-iraq/anti-US constitution agenda. One thing they DID get from "interrogation" was an al queada guy saying "oh, yes, Iraq is involved with us" -- a clearly false statement, exactly the type torture is useful for extracting

[ccbatson]

Thwarted plans and arrests are based on the intelligence...it is just impossible to precisely trace the source given the classified nature of it.

[Detroitej72]

I'm wondering what intelligence they got from the terrorist after the 184th waterboarding that he didn't give up after the 183rd time?

The whole thing seems a bit suspect to me...

[mjs]

Heres a pair of questions for those that feel that 9/11 made it necessary that the a government created on liberty and justice use torture to save American lives:

1. Out of all the people that were in the custody of America and its Allies on 9/11, who would have told us about the attack had we tortured them?

2. How does saying that "military necessity does not admit of . . . torture to extort confessions" undermine the United States of America, its military, or protecting American lives?

[firstandten]

Its starting to come out now that the real reason for the torture was not so much to find out about the 9-11 and similar plots that might exist but to to get false information so the Bush crime family could link and convince the american public of a connection with Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein and his so-called weapons of mass destruction. The Bush crime family was told in FBI memos that torture doesn't work that people will say anything to get the torture to stop. Thats exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted so that Bush could always be the wartime president that he wanted to be. He felt the people would love him because he was keeping them safe , his corporate friends would love him because now he can take the oil with Hussein out of the way and finally he could get his domestic agenda passed, which by the way was mainly privatizing social security

[rb336]

Thwarted plans and arrests are based on the intelligence...it is just impossible to precisely trace the source given the classified nature of it.

possible but unlikely given the nature of info gained under torture. there have been several well-reported arrests and thwarted plans that were uncoverred -- by good, solid police work. no torture involved. the ones where key info came from torture? non-existent. the constant "threat level" warnings based on nothing? those were stimulated by torture "yes, yes, we are planning to bomb a shopping mall"

there have been numerous well-documented studies on the reliability of intelligence gathered via torture. they all say the reliability is virtually non-existent. The defense intelligence agency said as much as well when they issued memos against it in 2002

[ccbatson]

More than just possible...known, but classified.

BTW, WWII japanese water torture ending in death or permanent physical injury is not the same as the waterboarding being discussed here.

[Detroitej72]

More than just possible...known, but classified.

BTW, WWII japanese water torture ending in death or permanent physical injury is not the same as the waterboarding being discussed here.

Then why are all the reports saying that Jose Padilla is basically mentally destroyed, pretty much reduced to an idiot-like state? I guess he should be happy to be alive at this point...

[mjs]

I wish that when the Bush Administration was declaring that even talk against torture was Un-American and harmful to our military, their opponents had quoted a military directive of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln:

Military necessity does not admit of cruelty - that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp

That was issued during a war where 620,000 Americans were killed in a struggle that was to decide if the United States of America was going to continue to exist. On a population basis, thats the same as five million men today. Weren't those circumstances even graver than what we face today? Yet, still to this day, there are still politicians, many of them from Lincoln's own party, that think Lincoln was wrong.

[reddog289]

Not that this has anything to do with this, But one of my co-workers threatened to WATERBOARD me if I didn't give up some gossip. Sounds kinda harsh for that form of torture for info that is soon to be released.

[firstandten]

Not that this has anything to do with this, But one of my co-workers threatened to WATERBOARD me if I didn't give up some gossip. Sounds kinda harsh for that form of torture for info that is soon to be released.


Well, you might have some company

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jADf7Acwh1ozkVvkjNQ9dkk7GQuQD97RPCCO0

Waterboard is not only torture but can and will drown you if the people doing it don't know what they are doing

[rb336]

More than just possible...known, but classified.

BTW, WWII japanese water torture ending in death or permanent physical injury is not the same as the waterboarding being discussed here.

We prosecuted Americans who waterboarded after WWII too. so who is it known by? oh yeah, that lying sack of evil cheney and his henchmen. you haven't, as usual, a leg on which to stand

[Jimaz]

Not that this has anything to do with this, But one of my co-workers threatened to WATERBOARD me if I didn't give up some gossip. Sounds kinda harsh for that form of torture for info that is soon to be released.Worker Says Boss Waterboarded Him (http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/02/11/Worker_Says_Boss_Waterboarded_Him.htm)

[ccbatson]

Classified means it is known to some, not all.

I am not aware of any instances where enemy combatants, or POWs were waterboarded by American (agents of the American government) and said Americans were prosecuted. Do you have a reference for that claim?

[rb336]

Classified means it is known to some, not all.

I am not aware of any instances where enemy combatants, or POWs were waterboarded by American (agents of the American government) and said Americans were prosecuted. Do you have a reference for that claim?

The very existence of those memos is in doubt, and classified means it is NOT KNOWN BY YOU.

and yes, I have a reference, but I don't need to show it because my ideology says i'm right, and that should be good enough for you, since it is your usual excuse

[ccbatson]

You were not making an ideologic, or logical claim argument, you alleged a particular event or action occurred (by someone else) and must support that sort of allegation.

To simplify for you...you don't need to site references in support of a claim like "slavery is wrong", but you do need to support a claim that "John Smith robbed a bank yesterday".

[Redford Kid]

I do not know where some of you get your information. Clearly the bits that are known, points to no relevent information obtained..........none. The Senate Armed Service committee, the President, ad infinitum all are basically saying that. Everyone except Dick Cheney a perp in these crimes.

Any arguement about effectiveness or urgency is assinine because this asserts torture may not be criminal and it is clearly so.

[Detroitej72]

The fact that Dick Cheney is showing up on all FauxNews programs and defending himself tells me he is starting to get a little nervous about possible indictments in the future.

[reddog289]

I got the word to talk, I can respond to questions now without fear of WATERBOARDING.

[rb336]

The fact that Dick Cheney is showing up on all FauxNews programs and defending himself tells me he is starting to get a little nervous about possible indictments in the future.

and he knows he can't ever step foot outside the US and a few other countries like paraguay because if he does, he'll end up in the Hague

[ccbatson]

Right, because as any good lawyer would advise, the first thing to do when you fear an indictment is to open your mouth in the media....get real libs.

[mjs]

ccbatson, you're right. The debate about the effectiveness of the torture is a silly one. Torture is clearly an act that contradicts American character so its effectiveness is irrelevant. I assume that since you haven't said Lincoln was wrong about military necessity, we agree that he was right.

So, that makes the issue one of whether convincing people that you'll let animals maul them is torture. In 1984 by Orwell, when the government strapped a caged rat to the main character's face and lead him to believe the rat was going to chew on his face, was that meant as torture or "enhanced interrogation"? If you recall, he took the endless beatings and mind games, but betrayed his principles because of the cage mask.

And if its not torture, does that mean that you would have supported a Bush policy extending such tactics to the police to "interrogate" "suspects"? If you wouldn't have supported it, tell me what part of the Constitution seperates the two.

[firstandten]

ccbatson, you're right. The debate about the effectiveness of the torture is a silly one. Torture is clearly an act that contradicts American character so its effectiveness is irrelevant. I assume that since you haven't said Lincoln was wrong about military necessity, we agree that he was right..

The effectiveness was about getting false information to get the linkage Bush needed to justify two wars to the american public

[ccbatson]

That might be appropriate if it were torture that we were discussing...but we aren't.

The absence of torture does not mean that detainees/enemy combatants are to be treated well, and/or equivalent to US citizens.

[mjs]

"Well" can be a lose definition and you are leaving it undefined. However, under the Geneva Convention, the United States of America has sworn to treat all enemy captives humanely. The commentary in the Fourth Convention specifically states that:

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.

Under the American concept of justice, Judges interpret the law because if everyone subject to the law could act according to their own interpretation, there would be no law at all. So, if an Executive Branch was sincerely attempting to follow the law, why would they ignore the Convention's interpretation by creating a new classification of "unlawful combatant" and why would they block the Federal courts from interpreting either the Geneva Convention or humane treatment? The American system of government is based on a balance of power. How can any American still support people that have no regard for international law, our system of government, or even making American officials behave humanely?

[ccbatson]

Volunteer to be treated badly (albeit, not tortured)? Nonsense, try a compelling argument.

Is "no intermediate status", a status of its' own? If they are not covered by existing criteria, then why should we be compelled to make them so?

[mjs]

"Is "no intermediate status", a status of its' own?"

I can't understand the question. Please clarify.


"If they are not covered by existing criteria, then why should we be compelled to make them so?"

Because the Geneva Convention says that they are covered by some existing criteria one way or another. The US State Department participated in the Geneva Convention, the President of the United States signed it, and the Senate ratified it. Furthermore, the fact that Al Queda is not a recognized government is irrelevant. The Confederates were not part of a recognized government nor where the Viet Cong and even the Army of the American Revolution was initially part of an unrecognized country and without uniforms.

[Detroitej72]

That might be appropriate if it were torture that we were discussing...but we aren't.

The absence of torture does not mean that detainees/enemy combatants are to be treated well, and/or equivalent to US citizens.

Its interesting to note that during the American Revolution, Gen. George Washington demanded that all enemy soldiers should be treated humanely.

I guess today Rush would label him a liberal who must be stopped at all costs. Good thing there was no right-wing radio back then!

[mjs]

Actually, I take comfort in the fact that there was extremist media and extremist politicians and we survived though it quite well.

It was Thomas Jefferson said that "Those that read nothing at all are less ignorant than those that read only newspapers." and Bush, Cheney, and Rush would have been cheering on President Adam's Alien and Sedition Acts.

[ccbatson]

How Washington defines humane treatment, and how...say appeasement/apologist Obama views it are COMPLETELY different things. Many of the hellish actions of that war would get him a ticket to GITMO courtesy of Obama today.

[Redford Kid]

Your reading comprehension skills seem to be a liitle affected by the late hour cbatson. Perhaps some shut eye would help.

[d.mcc]

Your reading comprehension skills seem to be a liitle affected by the late hour cbatson. Perhaps some shut eye would help.

Perhaps the copy and paste fest on 25 different threads is getting to him

[ccbatson]

Copy and paste? I am constantly being criticized for shunning this method, and now you are accusing me of it?? Which is it? Think before you type next time.

[jams]

Copy and paste? I am constantly being criticized for shunning this method, and now you are accusing me of it?? Which is it? Think before you type next time.
Cc doesn't C&P, he carefully types his tripe over and over again.

[Bobl]

John McCain, and logic, tell us that torture does not work and only forces the victim to say what the interrogator wants him to say. Disregard logic if you wish, bats, but at least give Senator McCain some credibility.
He was there, and experienced it. You and I did not.

[ccbatson]

Correct...I do not C&P...at least somebody is paying some attention.

Logic tells us no such thing. Although that is a moot point as this is not torture by definition.

[Lorax]

CCBatty apparently hasn't met a FUX NOISE KoolAid talking point he didn't like drinking.

We as a nation signed onto the Geneva Conventions, which the Tushies called "quaint" and irrelevant to "today's" new warfare.

Bullcrap.

When you abandon your principles for political expediency, the nation loses.

We are not safer as a result of Tush's policies. I know 9/11 happened on their watch, but did they have to go so overboard in trying to convince us they'll make up for it by launching illegal wars and murdering a million Iraquis?

There is nothing short of war crimes here- in the league with the worst revelations of Nuremberg.

Cheney had better shut his ass up or Obama is going to release the dogs on him. He needs to shrink out of existence or face the consequences, in my view. He's lucky he hasn't ended up in prison. He can't travel to Europe now for fear of being arrested by The Hague on war crimes.

I may suggest CCBatty stop listening to FUX- only one vowel movement removed from what they do to the news.

[rb336]

Copy and paste? I am constantly being criticized for shunning this method, and now you are accusing me of it?? Which is it? Think before you type next time.

no, you are constantly criticized for posting crap and then running away when asked for actual facts that support it

[rb336]

Correct...I do not C&P...at least somebody is paying some attention.

Logic tells us no such thing. Although that is a moot point as this is not torture by definition.


it is, by definition in US trial cases, in the Geneva Conventions and all the way back to Torquemada

[4real]

Pelosi (speaker of the house for those who don't know) knew about the tortue methods as did many democrats . She lied, again, too typical.

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was thoroughly briefed in September 2002 that CIA interrogators were waterboarding terrorist Abu Zubaydah, according to report from the National Intelligence Director's Office that Fox News and other agencies obtained.
The revelations completely contradict Pelosi’s repeated assertions that she knew nothing about “harsh interrogation” measures being carried out on enemy combatants."
According to the report, Pelosi was told of the techniques used against Zubaydah during a Sept. 4, 2002, meeting with intelligence officials, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "






http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/pelosi_interrogation_cia/2009/05/07/212165.html

[rb336]

already talked about, old news

[Detroitej72]

Logic tells us no such thing. Although that is a moot point as this is not torture by definition.

You have to be posting this absurd comments just to get a reaction out of folks here. Nobody can be that naive, even real conservatives agree that torture took place at Gitmo and abroad.

[Lorax]

CCBatty and 4Heel are in the bag for the Repugnican Reich, and simply spew back talking points dictated to them by the Australian fascist, Rupert Murdoch.

With Big Dick Cheney out there on all the talk shows trying desperately to shape his legacy, is sort of like trying to get the toothpaste back into the tube, a little messy, and ultimately impossible.

There is no doubt that crimes were committed by this band of thugs, and anything short of indictment and prison would be tragedy.

The damage done by the Tushies and the Repugnican Reich is so deep and will take generations to work out of our system.

Read the Downing Street Memos as well, they show the link between Tush and Blair, and how they colluded/conspired to fix the policy around the Iraq war. Pre-emptive war as a first resort- only despots and tin horn dictators use these tactics, and that is what Tush and Cheney are.

These people are criminals, plain and simple, and have been investigated by the European courts, and in the case of the Tushies, they will be arrested if they travel to any of the EU member nation.

[ccbatson]

I was referring to water boarding when describing it as less than torture.

[rb336]

And yet we have prosecuted Americans for waterboarding in the past, the GC considers it torture, Torquemada used it and it was considered torture back then

[ccbatson]

Japan was not using waterboarding as we have (the biggest clue being that the subjects had a funny way of expiring from it).

[rb336]

Since the bushies would not de-classify info on the deaths at Gitmo, how do you know the same didn't occur there?

[mjs]

I was referring to water boarding when describing it as less than torture.

I got to thinking on the whole thing of how torture is defined. It is clearly and definitively defined as a federal crime under Title 18. It was written in a manner free from other countries' invasion of our sovereignty.

As used in this chapter—

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

Waterboarding, walling, and many others were designed to be a "threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering." If I threaten to kill someone, whether I can or will do it is irrelevant under the law. The issue is whether the person being threatened would reasonably believe the threat.

That is the law. The Executive branch is tasked with enforcing the laws, not rewriting them. The Executive branch can not redefine a congressionally defined term no matter how many memos are written. If the Excutive branch doesn't like the law, the Constitution gives them the means to pressure the Legislative branch to rewrite it.

[ccbatson]

Nobody has died from it...not so imminent then, is it?

[mjs]

Threat of imminent death you idiot. You don't need a death to have a believable death threat. Furthermore, it also speaks to threats of severe physical pain or suffering.

To use your example, we can't defend our attack on Iraq as a response to an imminent threat because Iraq has never attacked Americans on American soil.

[Detroitej72]

Threat of imminent death you idiot. You don't need a death to have a believable death threat. Furthermore, it also speaks to threats of severe physical pain or suffering.

To use your example, we can't defend our attack on Iraq as a response to an imminent threat because Iraq has never attacked Americans on American soil.

Home run, mjs.

[ccbatson]

Threat as perceived by whom? The detainee? Or the interrogators? If the latter is the case...and nobody is killed (ever), then it is not torture.

[mjs]

The detainee. You're thinking of assault with intent to do great bodily harm.

When someone pours water on someone else with the intent of making them think they are drowning, its torture, felony assault, and battery. By the 80th time, the fear of death and great bodily harm is gone, so it drops to misdemeanor assault and battery.

The detainee is evaluated from a reasonable person test. If the detainee has an unreasonable fear of something like say bugs and you know it and threaten him with bugs, you're back to misdemeanor assault. If you touch him with the bugs, you add misdemeanor battery. If you tell him they're poisonous, you add felony assault. If they are poisonous, you add felony battery and assault to do great bodily harm. Its one of the most common items on the bar, so all attorneys, even Bush attorneys, had to learn this to pass the bar.

[rb336]

If the latter is the case...and nobody is killed (ever), then it is not torture.

possibly the stupidest thing you have ever posted. torture is not meant to kill, otherwise it would be called "execution" burning at the stake was not torture, dunking was not torture. these were methods of carrying out a death sentence (if you lived through dunking, sometimes they considerred that the waters rejected you and you were then considerred guilty. stupid religious fanatics)

[Detroitej72]

If the latter is the case...and nobody is killed (ever), then it is not torture.

Yet despite your support for torture, it is still illegal by everyone's standard...except for Bush and Cheney's.

[ccbatson]

And all of the lawyers that rendered their legal opinions on the matter to congress on several occasions. You know, the briefings that Pelosi claims never to have had...those legal opinions.

[Detroitej72]

I would gladly let Pelosi be prosecuted if it meant the prosecution of Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the neo-con regime.

[ccbatson]

She would be sanctioned and removed from the position of speaker (not prosecuted) for conduct unbecoming the office completely different than the obtuse claims made against GWB.

Perhaps a case could be made for treason for her in her undermining our intelligence agencies publicly.

[mjs]

I don't even care if she remains Speaker of the House. Just get her off the Senate Intelligence Committee since she claims she doesn't realize her ability to pass laws restricting their actions. Especially if they are in response to wisdom she has from being on the committee.

[ccbatson]

A Conviction for treason with Panetta as the prosecutor would be good...it is never going to happen, but it would be justice.

[rb336]

nothing obtuse at all about the claims against Dubya and his thugminestration

[ccbatson]

and....Rb, you always leave things hanging like that. You make a comment, and then...no supporting arguments and it falls flat.

[rb336]

and....Rb, you always leave things hanging like that. You make a comment, and then...no supporting arguments and it falls flat.

coming from you, that is quite funny. it only took you a month and a half to come up with that?

it was a direct response to your #69 in this thread in which, surprise surprise, "You make a comment, and then...no supporting arguments and it falls flat"

what is it about you that you can't see that you constantly bitch about people not doing things you NEVER do? delusion?

[Detroitej72]

Conservatives like to use the "do as I say, not as I do" approach when preaching to the masses.

[ccbatson]

My concise logical and compelling arguments are not the same as Rb's complete absence of, well, anything at all.

[rb336]

My concise logical and compelling arguments are not the same as Rb's complete absence of, well, anything at all.

I challenge you to list one logical and compelling argument, bolstered by actual facts, that you have made here

[ccbatson]

Which one, or ones would you like me to beat you down with Rb?