Bush's torture memo's

[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/pel...07/212165.html

[rb336]

already talked about, old news