Bush's torture memo's

**firstandten** · April-25-09, 01:17 AM

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** · April-25-09, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by 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

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

"Go fuck yourself Mr. Cheney!"

ccbatson · April-26-09, 08:18 PM

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

**firstandten** · April-26-09, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

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** · April-27-09, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

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** · April-27-09, 09:36 AM

RB, I understand that you are 100% correct.

**d.mcc** · April-27-09, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Big Dog

RB, I understand that you are 100% correct.

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

**Big Dog** · April-27-09, 11:39 AM

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

ccbatson · April-27-09, 03:10 PM

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** · April-27-09, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · April-27-09, 03:20 PM

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** · April-27-09, 06:07 PM

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** · April-27-09, 06:25 PM

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** · April-28-09, 12:45 AM

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** · April-28-09, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · April-28-09, 03:22 PM

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** · April-28-09, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · April-28-09, 11:37 PM

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** · April-29-09, 01:49 AM

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** · April-29-09, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, you might have some company

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...7GQuQD97RPCCO0

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

**rb336** · April-29-09, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · April-29-09, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

Worker Says Boss Waterboarded Him

ccbatson · April-29-09, 04:12 PM

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** · April-30-09, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · April-30-09, 03:58 PM

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".