# Bush's book



## billc (Nov 5, 2010)

I have to start by saying that this forum is great.  I like politics and the martial arts and being able to do both at the same place is great.  Now, at another site I go to "Biggovernment.com" they are pointing out excerpts from President Bush's new book.  The one that caught my attention was about the decision to use waterboarding to interogate three of the terrorists at guantanamo bay. You can check out the exact excerpt yourself but I find it interesting.  When the C.I.A told him they had khalid sheik mohammud and that he had information on upcoming terrorist attacks, they requested permission to waterboard the guy.  Bush gave the okay himself.  He isn't hiding, he isn't passing the buck.  What a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 5, 2010)

CNN has an article on this http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/bush.book/index.html?hpt=T2



> Bush takes responsibility for giving the go-ahead for waterboarding  terror suspects, which has touched off a new round of criticism of Bush  and calls for his prosecution. He says that he did decide not to use two  more extreme interrogation methods, but did not disclose what those  were.
> Here are excerpts from the book, which CNN obtained on Friday:
> *'The choice between security and values was real'*
> Bush reveals the decision points that led him to choose waterboarding as an interrogation technique.
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Nov 5, 2010)

I reckon the library'll get a copy or two, and I'll check it out......
.....but he won't even get _paperback_ royalties from me. :lol:


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 5, 2010)

didn't need to write it in a book.....think we all knew the cia had allowed the use of torture with those prisoners anyways.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 6, 2010)

I'm not advocating charges or anything, but isn't that admitting to a war crime?  Waterboarding is considered torture by both the Geneva convention and our own military code of conduct.  Seems admitting to authorizing torture doesn't do himself any good and gives enemies of the US more ammunition in thier recruiting.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 6, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> I'm not advocating charges or anything, but isn't that admitting to a war crime?  Waterboarding is considered torture by both the Geneva convention and our own military code of conduct.  Seems admitting to authorizing torture doesn't do himself any good and gives enemies of the US more ammunition in thier recruiting.



Neither Bush nor the CIA operatives engaged in the technique are in the military, so there are no code of conduct issues there.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 6, 2010)

I thought Bush was at that time the CIC....though what rule applies where I'm not sure.  But I think WC is right, Bush just admitted to authorizing an action that's listed as torture by treaty.

Me personally, I think he had the whole thing ghost written...because it wasn't in crayon n all that.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 6, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Neither Bush nor the CIA operatives engaged in the technique are in the military, so there are no code of conduct issues there.


 
That really wasn't the point.  The point is that our government recognizes waterboarding as torture, even to the extent that we have prosecuted other country's soldiers and even our own soldiers for doing it.  Now an ex-president is saying he personally authorized the use of torture, which is a war crime.  It lends credence to our enemy's claim and to those that want Bush brought up on charges.  It doesn't seem admitting to such a thing would be in Bush's best interest.

Also, if you want to get into the issues of breaking a code of conduct, both Bush and the CIA were representatives of our government.  Our government is a signer of the Geneva convention treaty.  Water boarding is expressly listed as torture in that treaty and they KNOWLINGLY violated that treay.  So with that perspective, whether they are in the military is moot.


----------



## billc (Nov 6, 2010)

First, the terrorists didn't need waterboarding to recruit terrorists who,Bombed the Kobar towers, our embassies in Africa, the attack on the Cole, or the killing of over 3000 americans, the attack on Mumbai india the attack in Bali etc...The idea that anything we do will help or hurt  their recruitment is silly.  Again, terrorists are not covered under the geneva convention.  If we wanted to we could shoot them on the battlefield without trial, they are the war criminals, not us.  I support waterboarding.  It doesn't tear flesh, break bones or leave permanent damage.  As soon as you stop the waterboardee is fine.  It was done to three terrorists with the utmost legal and ethical scrutiny and it was done to save innocent lives.  I do not believe in the kind of torture that the terrorists use everyday to kill innocent human beings around the world.  I do not believe in the kind of torture the terrorists use to make innocent  people so afraid that they have to go into hiding just because they suggested that artists draw pictures of Mohummaed.  Lets get real out there.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2010)

billcihak said:


> *<snip!>* Lets get real out there.


 
By torturing in our name, our government has made terrorists of us all.

That's real.


----------



## billc (Nov 6, 2010)

Really, that's what you can come back with.  Explain that to all the people who would have died without the information from khalid sheik mohummed, and the other two.  Real lives were saved and the terrorists planning to murder them didn't even sustain lasting or permanent damage.  War is not bean bag, the terrorists know this, we need to learn this.  Maybe some of the moderates in the muslim world would be more helpful if they didn't see the U.S. as the weak horse.  The terrorists cut off heads, hands, noses and feet from innocent people.  They cut the throats of innocent flight attendants, they have real, real medieval torture chambers.  They slaughter innocent people without remorse and you compare our waterboarding three guys, to that.


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 6, 2010)

i bet if terrorists were waterboarding american guys, the US wouldnt like it. But its ok for US to do it to them because they're saving lives. Well it saves lives so torture is ok ? Heck Omar Khadr (our canadian one) was threatened with rape and everything. Wtf? Just cause the terrorists do it, doesnt mean the us should then feel ok to launch into a less brutal form of torture.  It hardly makes US much better than them.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2010)

billcihak said:


> . They slaughter innocent people without remorse and you compare our waterboarding three guys, to that.


 

This is pretty medieval.:



> The team spent much of February, 2004, in Iraq. Taguba was overwhelmed by the scale of the wrongdoing. These were people who were taken off the streets and put in jailteen-agers and old men and women, he said. I kept on asking these questions of the officers I interviewed: You knew what was going on. Why didnt you do something to stop it? 
> 
> 
> Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=4#ixzz14WIfCJC2


 




> *I*n an interview with the British newspaper the Daily Telegraph published Wednesday, former US General Antonio Taguba said that photographs the Obama administration is seeking to suppress show images of US soldiers raping and sodomizing Iraqi prisoners. Taguba, who conducted the military inquiry of prisoner abuse at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 after some photos of US soldiers torturing prisoners became public, said that *among the photos are images of soldiers raping a female prisoner, raping a male detainee, and committing sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and phosphorescent tube*, according to the Telegraph.


]


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 6, 2010)

Story written by a guy who tried waterboarding for himself to see what it is like. 

Story by writer Chistopher Hitchens.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5061441.ece


----------



## billc (Nov 6, 2010)

For our guys who actually torture prisoners and commit war crimes, you punish them, they are covered by the geneva convention and need to go to jail or be executed if the crimes warrant it.  These acts are not U.S. policy.  The terrorists do these things as religously sanctioned activities.  Yeah, I can see it now,  the american officer goes to the iraqi, or afghani local leader, "can you tell us where the terrorists are?"  the leader replies, "yes, but if I tell you, they will come and torture, rape and murder not only my family but many families in this town.  They will do it in front of the husbands and village elders.  What will you do to protect us?"  " Well, first, we will give the terrorists we capture their miranda warnings and make sure they have access to legal council, then, after we run it up the chain of command I am pretty sure we will maybe get the chance to ask some pretty direct questions about what they have been doing."  "Hopefully, their court appointed lawyer will allow them to tell us about their activities so then we can possibly get a civillian judge to give us a warrant to arrest the terrorists.  We can probably be pretty sure that noone will screw up the warrant, and that the capture will be legally binding."  "I just hope you help us pretty soon because the new administration wants us out of here in about a year, so you better act quick, cause you know, once were gone, only the terrorsits will be left, and they might be a little mad that you and your village helped us." Hmmm.  Let me  think.  What are the odds that the town leaders are going to help our weak horse.


----------



## billc (Nov 6, 2010)

After the water boarding, having heard Christopher Hitchens on Hugh Hewitts show for at least once a week, till he became ill, I'm sure he had a smoke, a stiff drink and went on his merry old english way.  What do you think the people tortured by the terrorists did after their bodies were found.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 6, 2010)

Fighting wrong with wrong is rarely right.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 6, 2010)

Actually, if the presidient authorizes it, the State Dept okays it, and the DoD doesn't raise hell about it, it is indeed US government policy to torture prisoners as a means of interogation.  That is what Bush did by authorizing waterboarding.

According to experts in intellegence gathering, torture (re waterboarding) is very, very, unreliable as a means of interogation.  Building a trust with the prisonoer is the best and most reliable means and torture is %100 counter-productive to that. 

Either we are a civilized country that believes in the rule of law or we are not.  There is no middle ground.  There is no acceptable circumstance in which torture and breaking our own laws is bad, unless we think we can get what we want by doing so.

Now as to waterboarding being torture, we have prosecuted foreign nationals for waterboarding our soldiers.  We have prosecuted our own soldiers for waterboarding foreign nationals.  According to treaties we have signed, our government has agreed it is indeed torture. The question has been answered already many, many years ago.  As far as no lasting physical effects, that is hogwash.  There is serious risk of lung damage in the process of waterboarding. 

I don't particularly care a whit about the terrorist these techniques are being used on.  However, they are ineffective and put us as a country on the wrong side of both the law and morality...not to mention making the U.S. a hyporytical country.  How do you sanction other countries because of human rights violations when our government sanctions torture?  How do you expect people we fight not to abuse our soldiers when taken prisoner, when we abuse people in our custody?

As to the arguement that terrorist are doing it.  Well they are terrorsit, aren't they?  Thier behaviour makes them terrorist and criminals.  If we resort to the same behaviour, what does that make us?  Sadaam Hussien gassed people, does that mean it was acceptable to do the same?  Terrorist killed 3000 innocent people on 911.  Does that mean we are authorized to kill 3000 innocent people in our war on terror?  In my opinion this arguement is one of the biggest piles of bull dung I have heard.


----------



## billc (Nov 6, 2010)

Torture does work, that's why it is used by every monster out there.  They were getting nothing out of Khalid.  In fact, when they were waterboarding them he held up his hand and showed that he was counting on his fingers how long they could hold him under at a whack.  He opened up the entire Al queda network after he was waterboarded.  This is the real equation, three terrorists, waterboarded with no lasting harm or damage versus possibly hundreds or thousands of dead, or maimed innocent men women and children.  All the terrorist has to do to stop the waterboarding is to reveal his plans on how he is going to torture and murder innocent men, women and children.  He can then go to his cell, pray to mecca, eat his kosher dinner and read his koran.  What do the people who are maimed and killed do after his plot is not stopped.  Do the families of the victims ever have normal lives after the attack.  Real people are dying all over the world because of these monsters.  I'll take waterboarding three terrorists with no permanent harm done, over one more innocent person being tortured, raped, maimed, beheaded or killed.  What are you willing to do to save the next innocent life?


----------



## billc (Nov 6, 2010)

Mr. Hubbard, do you prosecute a police officer who shoots and kills a man about to murder someone?  Do you charge the firefighters fighting forest fires in federally protected forests with arson when they set fires to trees to stop the forest fire?  When a surgeon cuts open a patient with a sharp knife to save his life, do you charge him with armed assault?  What would you authorize to have stopped the murder of 3000 American and foriegn innocent men, women and children?  Would you run water down the nose of a monster, who would torture, maim, rape you and your family and then claim he was going to heaven, to stop the murder of the people of Mumbai?  It is coming up to reality check time.  The terrorists haven't given up, the current administration doesn't take them seriously, and we can't keep getting lucky.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Torture does work, that's why it is used by every monster out there.




No,  As covered here repeatedly,  it *doesn't*




billcihak said:


> They were getting nothing out of Khalid. In fact, when they were waterboarding them he held up his hand and showed that he was counting on his fingers how long they could hold him under at a whack. He opened up the entire Al queda network after he was waterboarded. This is the real equation,


 
But is it the real story?

If you look at this interview, with Deuce Martiinez, the analyst who interrogated KSM, it wasn't torture that got information out of him....
.....it was tea and dates.

Oh, and KSM was waterboarded 183 time in one month, and we still don't know what "plots" his "intel" helped avert. Given the cellular, nonlateral configuration of al Qaeda, it simply seems unlikely that there was much, beyond finances.....

I thought we were done with this particular argument a year ago.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 6, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Mr. Hubbard, do you prosecute a police officer who shoots and kills a man about to murder someone?



Happens all the time. 


> Do you charge the firefighters fighting forest fires in federally protected forests with arson when they set fires to trees to stop the forest fire?



Not the same thing.



> When a surgeon cuts open a patient with a sharp knife to save his life, do you charge him with armed assault?



Again, not the same thing.


> What would you authorize to have stopped the murder of 3000 American and foriegn innocent men, women and children?



I would have had the so-called intelligence experts doing their job, not missing tons of leading information and warnings from other intel groups, combined with a more secure border and better alien tracking and control.



> Would you run water down the nose of a monster, who would torture, maim, rape you and your family and then claim he was going to heaven, to stop the murder of the people of Mumbai?



No.



> It is coming up to reality check time.  The terrorists haven't given up, the current administration doesn't take them seriously, and we can't keep getting lucky.



So we should become terrorists ourselves then, is that your point? Sorry, we're a nation of laws and must be bound by them and operate within them.

As I said, fighting wrong with wrong is rarely right. You can not save something by destroying what it stands for. You can not save the United States by disregarding the laws and principles on which it was founded. You can not stop crime by becoming a criminal. 

But maybe you're right. Maybe we should have hired Uday and Qusay to head our interrogation squads. I bet they know even better techniques, huh? I know I would love to live in a nation that accepted this as normal...we can maybe bring back the rack, the iron maiden and the Spanish horse as part of regular police equipment in their gang units hmm?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 6, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> That really wasn't the point.  The point is that our government recognizes waterboarding as torture, even to the extent that we have prosecuted other country's soldiers and even our own soldiers for doing it.  Now an ex-president is saying he personally authorized the use of torture, which is a war crime.  It lends credence to our enemy's claim and to those that want Bush brought up on charges.  It doesn't seem admitting to such a thing would be in Bush's best interest.
> 
> Also, if you want to get into the issues of breaking a code of conduct, both Bush and the CIA were representatives of our government.  Our government is a signer of the Geneva convention treaty.  Water boarding is expressly listed as torture in that treaty and they KNOWLINGLY violated that treay.  So with that perspective, whether they are in the military is moot.



You're the one that brought it up, not me.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> .*we can maybe bring back the rack*, the iron maiden and the Spanish horse as part of regular police equipment in their gang units hmm?


 

[yt]Vze0utkYypI[/yt]

Great film! With my all time favorite actor! By all means, watch the entire clip, but the part you want starts at 5:23....:lfao:


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 6, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> combined with a more secure border and better alien tracking and control.



That's Racist Bob.  

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Lets face it;We don't want to have to resort to torture to find Terrorists and Uncover terrorist plots, but we don't want to stop/track the flow of immigrants coming over the border illegally.  We might impede with their search for a better life.

You can't carry a weapon to defend yourself, but we won't require police to do it either.  Better hope you live, so you can report it later.

the list goes on.  Blah.  I'm sick of it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 6, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> That's Racist Bob.
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Lets face it;We don't want to have to resort to torture to find Terrorists and Uncover terrorist plots, but we don't want to stop/track the flow of immigrants coming over the border illegally.  We might impede with their search for a better life.
> 
> ...


terrorist, illegal and alien aren't a race.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 6, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You're the one that brought it up, not me.


 
Yes, you are right, I did bring it up.  I brought it up as a point that our government knows water boarding is wrong.  You inferred that since the CIA and Bush were not in the military it was okay.  

I don't know the answer to this, but since the president is in fact the cammander-in-chief, is he held to the same regulations as military?  My gut says no, but I don't know that as fact.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 6, 2010)

Right/Wrong aside, the "torture doesn't work they will just tell you anything" thing is an intentional denial of how this stuff works in order to support a stance against it's use. Unlike in the movies, you don't depend on this stuff in a "tell me something I dont know"  manner. Information obtained is compared against other data gathered from other sources for confirmation. If 5 water-boarded prisoners are saying things that can be confirmed against each other and independent sources thats pretty "good" intelligence. If something one guy spills can be cross checked against known intell thats something to follow up on.

Stick to the right/wrong argument. Don't get bogged down on the effective/noneffective debate until you know how a particular case was handled.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Stick to the right/wrong argument. Don't get bogged down on the effective/noneffective debate until you know how a particular case was handled.


 

I'll just say *it's wrong.* More to the point, though, KSM is often offered as an example of how "it works," in spite of what his interrogator says to the contrary-evidence of how a "particular case was handled."


----------



## billc (Nov 6, 2010)

What highlighted this topic for me is an interview I heard with Marc A. Thiessen, the author of Courting Disaster: How the C.I.A. kept us safe and how Obama is inviting the next attack.  He discussed khalid mohummed and was interesting enough that I am finally reading his book.  He goes throught the purpose of the geneva convention and how terrorists are not supposed to be covered by it.  I will tell you, water boarding terrorists to save lives is not wrong.  Letting innocent people die, because a false sense of equivalence, is wrong.  No permanent harm is done, no bones are broken, no flesh is torn, noone is maimed or killed.  They get up and they are done.  I'll trade that for 3000 innocent people any day of the week.

On another note, I appreciate everyone discussing this issue.  The other site I post on fightingarts.com, will not allow politics and as soon as you disagree with people on the site the name calling and swearing starts.  This site is great.


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 6, 2010)

billcihak said:


> On another note, I appreciate everyone discussing this issue.  The other site I post on fightingarts.com, will not allow politics and as soon as you disagree with people on the site the name calling and swearing starts.  This site is great.



:angel: I agree. 

btw I don't believe refusing to allow water boarding means you are going to let innocent people die.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 6, 2010)

Because Thiessen is an impartial observer, right?

I'll take the word of the CIA operative who actually got intel from KSM on the effectiveness of torture over a political hack with an agenda.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 6, 2010)

I've seen interviews with many of the men responsible for the military's anti-interogation program, which includes the use of torture.  they got thier information mostly from US servicemen from Vietnam.  Thier analysis is torture is not reliable.  In my eyes and that of the government, they are experts on the matter.

I've also read the CIA operative who interviewed Khalid Mohummed.  He said that the actionable intelligence recieved from him was done BEFORE he waterboarded.  He also stated that the men waterboarding him were not trained at interrogation.  Again, I'll defer to him as an expert.

If you think you just get up and are done after being waterboarded over 180 times, you have no understanding of the stresses that puts on the human body.  Again, I don't really care about the terrorist, but lets not make water boarding out to be some passive intterogation technique.  Our government and many around the world have already classified it as torture.  Let me restate that so the point is made; our own governement has classified water boarding as torture.  The false equivelescy here is pretending it is anything else.


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2010)

The government is doing a lot of things these days that I don't agree with, classifying water boarding as torture would be one of them.  Putting terrorists from the battlefield through civillian courts would be another one.  How did that first trial, where much of the case was thrown out because the witness was interogated, go for you?  Of course we have been gaurenteed that that terrorist will never go free, even if the case against him ist thrown out, how does that help the credibility of our legal system?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 7, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Yes, you are right, I did bring it up.  I brought it up as a point that our government knows water boarding is wrong.  You inferred that since the CIA and Bush were not in the military it was okay.



No, I didn't.  I specifically said that there were no military Code of Conduct issues as neither entity were actually in the military.  I said nothing as to the rightness or wrongness  of their actions.



> I don't know the answer to this, but since the president is in fact the cammander-in-chief, is he held to the same regulations as military?  My gut says no, but I don't know that as fact.



I doubt it as well.  We specifically say that our military is run by a civilian elected government.  In our government, the President is in charge of the Executive Branch of the government, and therefore has direct control of the military, ie., he's the Commander-in-Chief.  But that doesn't make him an officer in the military.  Every officer in the military is appointed by Congress.  The Congress does not appoint the President.

I've also never seen a sitting President prosecuted under the USCMJ.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 7, 2010)

billcihak said:


> The government is doing a lot of things these days that I don't agree with, classifying water boarding as torture would be one of them.


 
The Senate Judiciary Committee has called waterboarding, and other methods of "harsh, enhanced interrogation" *torture:*

What Went Wrong: Torture and the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration&#8221;




Mal Nance, former Master Chief Instructor at SERE states uncategorically that waterboarding is *torture*.:



> In fact, waterboarding is just the type of *torture* then Lt. Commander John McCain had to endure at the hands of the North Vietnamese. As a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California I know the waterboard personally and intimately. SERE staff were required undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception. I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people
> 
> The carnival-like he-said, she-said of the legality of *Enhanced Interrogation Techniques* has become a form of doublespeak worthy of Catch-22. Having been subjected to them all, I know these techniques, if in fact they are actually being used, are not dangerous when applied in training for short periods. However, when performed with even moderate intensity over an extended time on an unsuspecting prisoner &#8211; it is *torture*, without doubt. Couple that with waterboarding and the entire medley not only &#8220;*shock the conscience*&#8221; as the statute forbids -it would terrify you. Most people can not stand to watch a high intensity kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American.


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2010)

From the book courting disaster:

"...One of the FBI agents initially involved in Zubaydah's questioning,Ari Soufan, has claimed he got the information on Padilla from Zubaydah, and did so without the use of enhanced interrogation techniques.  His claims have made him a hero onthe left, and critics cite his supposed success as proof that enhanced interrogation is unnecessary.  But recently released documents suggest his claims are false..."  "...the Department released a revised version of its March 2009 Inspector General's report on the FBI's involvement in detainee interrogations.  In that report, the other FBI agent involved in Zubaydah's interrogation(referred to by the alias "Agent Gibson") said it was the CIA-not Soufan-that got the information on Padilla."

"...Gibson stated that during the CIA interrogations Zubaydah 'gave up' Jose Padilla and identified several targets for future al-qaeda attacks, including the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Libery."  "The information was not obtained by Soufan; it was obtained by the CIA. And it was not obtained "before harsh techniques were introduced"; it was obtained only after the CIA began to apply enhanced interrogation techniques-including forced nudity, cold temperatures, and sleep deprivation."  "...According to the Justice Department Inspector General, Soufan's claims are simply false.  (Soufan turned down repeated requests for an interview to explain the discrepancy.)


----------



## elder999 (Nov 7, 2010)

billcihak said:


> From the book courting disaster:
> 
> "...One of the FBI agents initially involved in Zubaydah's questioning,Ari Soufan, has claimed he got the information on Padilla from Zubaydah, and did so without the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. His claims have made him a hero onthe left, and critics cite his supposed success as proof that enhanced interrogation is unnecessary. But recently released documents suggest his claims are false..." "...the Department released a revised version of its March 2009 Inspector General's report on the FBI's involvement in detainee interrogations. In that report, the other FBI agent involved in Zubaydah's interrogation(referred to by the alias "Agent Gibson") said it was the CIA-not Soufan-that got the information on Padilla."
> 
> "...Gibson stated that during the CIA interrogations Zubaydah 'gave up' Jose Padilla and identified several targets for future al-qaeda attacks, including the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Libery." "The information was not obtained by Soufan; it was obtained by the CIA. And it was not obtained "before harsh techniques were introduced"; it was obtained only after the CIA began to apply enhanced interrogation techniques-including forced nudity, cold temperatures, and sleep deprivation." "...According to the Justice Department Inspector General, Soufan's claims are simply false. (Soufan turned down repeated requests for an interview to explain the discrepancy.)


 
So we're to take what a White House speech writer has written about the "_anonymou_s Agent Gibson,"(Steve Gaudin) over what other acknowledged interrogators have said?


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2010)

There are a lot of interviews with numerous people involved in the inerrogation of detainees and the oversight of these interogations in this book.  I would counter you by saying that trusting left wing journalists with axes to grind against President Bush, the CIA, the war in Iraq and afghanistan, Guantanamo bay, and using enhanced interrogation techniques is far from a useful way to glean insight into the war against the terrorists.

From Courting Disaster:
Former National Security Adviser Steve Hadley
Former CIA director Mike Hayden
Former director of National Intelligence Admiral Mike McConnell
CIA inspector general John Helgerson
Gardner Peckham Former National security advisor to Newt Gingrich
June 3, 2005 CIA report "Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the war against Al-Qa'ida
July 14, 2004 report "Khalid Shaykh Muhammadreeminent Source on Al-qu'ida"
CIA's psychological assesment of Abu Zubaydah

These are some of the people and documents discussed in this book.  The author also speaks to the men who interrogated these detainees as well.


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2010)

From Courting Disaster: On Christopher Hitchens undergoing water boarding,
"In undergoing this experiment, Hitchens intended to prove that water boarding is torture.  Instead, he proved it is not.  There is a legal definition of torture,which we will explore in a moment.  But there is also a common sense definition: If you are willing to try it to see what it feels like, it is not torture.  If Hitchens tormentors had offered to attach electrodes to his body, and then turned on the switch, would he have tried it to see what it feels like?  I seriously doubt it.  What if they had offered to remove his fingernails with a pair of pliers? Or drill his teeth without anesthetic? Or place him on a rack and pull his limbs until they popped out of their sockets?..." "The reason he would decline, of course, is that each of these techniques would have caused "severe physical or mental pain or suffering"-the standard for torture in U.S. law.  Water boarding, as conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency, does not cause such "severe" pain or suffering-which is why Hitchens was able to endure it.  More than endure it, he was so unhappy with how he performed in the first time around, he asked for a second try...Most torture victims do not ask for more."


----------



## elder999 (Nov 7, 2010)

1st off, voluntarily submitting to waterboarding and being stripped, bound and _tortured_ with it are two different things.

Kinda like the difference between rough sex and rape.


And now, from the more than satisfactory Merriam Webster Collegiate English Language Technical Manual (That's engineerspeak for _dictionary_):



> *torture*
> 
> _verb_
> *tor·tured**tor·tur·ing*\&#712;to&#775;rch-ri&#331;, &#712;to&#775;r-ch&#601;-\
> ...


 
And, from the CIA WEBPAGE:



> As I read the volume, my thoughts drifted back to James J. Angleton, the CIA's chief of counterintelligence from 1954 to 1974. In 1975, Senator Frank Church of Idaho led a Senate investigation into alleged intelligence abuses. I was his special assistant on the committee, and one of my assignments was to spend time with Angleton, probing his views on counterintelligence. At Angleton's suggestion, he and I met weekly for a few months at the Army-Navy Club in Washington DC. One of the key principles of counterintelligence interrogation, he emphasized to me, was this:* if you torture a subject, he will tell you whatever you want to hear.* The infliction of pain was a useless approach-- "counterproductive," as some of the authors in this anthology would put it. Angleton also had little regard for the polygraph or for chemicals as instruments of truth-seeking. He was not above using some forms of discomfort, though, such as Spartan quarters for the subject, along with sleep deprivation, time disorientation, and exhaustive questioning by way of a "good cop, bad cop" routine. Like some of the authors in this volume, he believed in using a combination of rapport-building (the good cop) and the engendering of some fear (the bad cop--although not one armed with a pair of pliers).
> 
> If Angleton had been able to read this book, he would have discovered a considerable corpus of research that suggests that the induction of sleep deprivation, fatigue, isolation, or discomfort in a subject merely raises the likelihood of inaccurate responses during subsequent questioning. As for the polygraph, researchers in this study tell us that this approach has definite shortcomings, but "there is currently no viable technical alternative to polygraphy."


 
The entire document is here: Educing Information


So we have a comprehensive scientific study of over 40 years of data compiled by the intelligence community and generated_ under the Bush administration_ pretty much says what Senator John McCain and others have said for years:*Torture doesn't work.*

Interestingly, wateboarding was used to elicit false confessions in Missippi, back in 1926, and the Missisippi Supreme court overturned a confession of murder, and called waterboarding _torture._

Waterboarding was also used by U.S. soldiers in the Phillipines in 1898, and it caused something of a scandal at the time, though feelings were...._mixed,_ those on both sides of the controversy called it _torture_.

The Japanese and the Gestapo used waterboarding on U.S. troops during WWII. Many Japanese and Germans were convicted of war crimes, including waterboarding, which was classified at the time as _torture._

Waterboarding was declared illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam, and U.S. soldiers were forbidden from using the practice to get information. At least one U.S. soldier was court martialed for participating in waterboarding.The U.S. generals called it _torture._

The Chilean Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture called the practice of waterboarding by the Pinochet regime _torture._

Most interestingly, though, waterboarding is used in the SERE school because it was specifically used by Communist regimes-North Korea, Red China and North Vietnam-to elicit _false_ confessions from American POWs. Consequently, one can conclude that, just as John McCain-a victim of torture himself-has said:*torture doesn't work*-the subject will say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear to make it stop.

What's waterboarding? *Stupid*,really stupid. It makes us look bad, and it doesn't work.

And it's _torture_. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Heree's what Brigadier Genreal David Irvine had to say about _torture_:



> No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives. Exhibit A is the torture-extracted confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda captive who told the CIA in 2001, having been "rendered" to the tender mercies of Egypt, that Saddam Hussein had trained al Qaeda to use WMD. It appears that this confession was the only information upon which, in late 2002, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state repeatedly claimed that "credible evidence" supported that claim, even though a now-declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report from February 2002 questioned the reliability of the confession because it was likely obtained under torture. In January 2004, al-Libi recanted his "confession," and a month later, the CIA recalled all intelligence reports based on his statements.


 
and a former FBI interrogator says about _torture_:



> former FBI agent said some of the most aggressive interrogation techniques in dispute are rarely effective anyway.
> 
> 
> "*Generally speaking, those don't work,"* said Jack Cloonan, a former FBI agent and an ABC News consultant.
> ...


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2010)

From Courting Disaster:  

"Ali Soufan, the FBI agent and CIA critic,says:' " When they are in pain, poeple will say anything to get the pain to stop.  Most of the time, they lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them...That means the information you're getting is useless."  

"What this statement reveals is that Soufan knows nothing about how the CIA actually employed enhanced interrogation techniques.  As Former National Security Advisor Steve Hadley explains, "The interrogation techniques were not to elicit information.  So the whole argument that people tell you lies under torture misses the point."  Hadley says the purpose of the techniques was to "bring them to the point where they are willing to cooperate, and once they are willing to cooperate, then the techniques stop and you do all the things the FBI agents say you ought to do to build trust and all the rest."  According to Mike Hayden, as enhanced techniques are applied, CIA interrogators would ask th detainees questions to which the interogators already know the answers-allowing them to judge whether the detainees are being truthful and determine when the terrorists had reached a level of compliance...Once interrogators determine a terrorist has reached a point of compliance, the techniques stop, and traditional non-coercive methods of questioning are used.


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2010)

From Courting Disaster:  

"One thing the U.S. government learned from SERE training is that waterboarding is highly effective.  According to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, by 2001 all the military services except the Navy stopped using the waterboard in Sere training because it was too effective.  In his May 2005 memo to the CIA, the OLC's Steve Bradbury wrote that "the use of the waterboard was discontinued by the other services not because of concern about possible physical or mental harm, but because students were not successful at resisting the technique and, as such, it was not considered to be a useful training technique.  If waterboarding was found to be this effective against our millitary personnel, it strains credulity to argue that it would not be effective against captured terrorists as well."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2010)

http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/

Long read, lots of citations, references to treaties, US law, etc.  Couple of highlights, bolding mine.



> Three major treaties that the United States has signed and unambiguously ratified prohibit the United States from subjecting prisoners in the War on Terror to this kind of treatment. First, *Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War*, which the Senate unanimously ratified in 1955, prohibits the parties to the treaty from acts upon prisoners including &#8220;violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; . . . outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.&#8221;[18]  Second, the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*, which the Senate ratified in 1992, states that &#8220;[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.&#8221;[19]  Third, the *United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment*, which the Senate ratified in 1994, provides that &#8220;[e]ach State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction,&#8221;[20]  and that &#8220;[e]ach State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .&#8221;[21]
> 
> *The United States has enacted statutes prohibiting torture and cruel or inhuman treatment.* ... the *Torture Act*,[23] the *War Crimes Act*,[24],and the *laws entitled &#8220;Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government*&#8221;[25] and &#8220;*Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment*.&#8221;[26] The first two statutes are criminal laws while the latter two statutes extend civil rights to any person in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world.
> 
> ...



So, waterboarding is legally considered torture, and torture is a violation of law, both US and international.  Regardless on if it works, it's illegal, and as such should not considered acceptable for use by US forces.


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2010)

Well, I have to go so I will leave this idea out there.  The terrorists just tried to blow up cargo plains.  If we capture some of them I hope that we use some really, really stern questioning to get these hardened religous fanatics to give us the information we need to stop them.  I know, maybe we should take the advice of Monty Python's flying circus because noone can withstand...the Comfy Chair.  May the next victims of terrorism rest in peace.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2010)

Maybe we need to address the causes of terrorism? Maybe we need more efficient security to stop them before they get in position to act?

Tell me, have all these people who were water boarded actually terrorists? Not 1 innocent person in the mix? I wonder what Canadian Maher Arar would say to that. Oh wait, the US turned him over to Syria for just under a year of "questioning", where he was "questioned" by a steel cable, and other "enhanced questioning methods". Oh, he was found innocent.

Over 3,000 people have been "disappeared" and "questioned" since 9/11. How many were actually innocent? 

Or, should we accept a few innocents as "acceptable losses" as we "fight to keep our freedom and rights"? I wonder, are -you- an "acceptable loss" should you be mistaken for a suspect and "questioned"? Am I? Are any of us?

Personally, as I said, 2 wrongs don't make a right. You can not strip me of my legal protections and justify it as a means to support those same protections any more than you can destroy the village in order to save it. Didn't work in Vietnam, doesn't work today. When you do this, when you violate your core values, your laws and your rights, the terrorists DO win. In fact, they have won, and the culture of fear, of security theater, of sanctioned molestation at air ports, of justifying rights and property violations have done more to destroy US that any dozen planes could have done. Somewhere, in a cave, is a 6 ft US funded terrorist laughing at his victory. All it cost him was ten grand and 20 men...we did the rest ourselves.

As a side bar, 1-2 books vs 50 different sources that agree does not build a winning case. Might want to gather additional support material to strengthen your side of the debate. :asian:


----------



## elder999 (Nov 7, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Well, I have to go so I will leave this idea out there. The terrorists just tried to blow up cargo plains. If we capture some of them I hope that we use some really, really stern questioning to get these hardened religous fanatics to give us the information we need to stop them. I know, maybe we should take the advice of Monty Python's flying circus because noone can withstand...the Comfy Chair. May the next victims of terrorism rest in peace.


 

Perhaps, rather than offering the anonymous and unsubstantiated-_or the shrill shills of Bushites locked in march step_-you could offer just one example of a terrorist plot being foiled by intel obtained through "enhanced interrogation techniques."


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 7, 2010)

I have to ask this again, since it hasn't been answered.  If we do not follow our own laws, resoting to things such as torture, how are we so different than the terrorist?  You can't be a nation of laws and at the same time break them when it suites you.


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2010)

From Courting Disaster:

"Some of these plots, which the Inspector General said the agency did not know about before KSM and other detainees told them, included "plans to [Redacted]; attack the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan; hijack aircraft to fly into Heathrow Airport...[and] hijack and fly an airplane into the tallest building in California in a west coast version of the World Trade Center attack'"  "According to the report, "Khalid Shaykh Mohammed, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, innacurate, or incomplete."  After undergoing the waterboard, however, the report says that KSM became "the most prolific" of the detainees in CIA custody:  "He provided information that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists including Sayfullah Paracha, and his son Uzair Paracha, businessmen whom [KSM] planned to use to smuggle explosives into the United States; Saleh Almari, a sleeper operative in New York; and Majid Khan, an operative who could enter the United States easily and was tasked to research attacks [REDACTED]"  And this is only a small fraction of the actionable intelligence KSM provided after being water boarded."

In fact only 3 terrorists were waterboarded.

"Zubaydah began to provide information on key al qaeda operatives, including information that helped the CIA find and capture more of those responsible for the 9/11attacks...Zubaydah'a questioning after the application of enhanced interrogation techniques led directly to the capture of Ramzi bin-alShibh.  Bin al-Shibh was a big catch.  According to theOffice of the Director of National Intelligence, he was the primary communications intermediarybetween the 9/11 hijackers in the United States and the al qaeda leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan..."

"The bottom line?  Before KSM's interrogation, just two operatives in the West Coast plot were in custody and hadtold us nothing about their plans.  After Ksm's interrogation, some nineteen terrorists involved in the plot were in custody, and we knew the details of their plans to fly a plane into the Library tower."  

The book also discusses the other intel gathered from these terrorists that Ali Soufan was not privledged to know.  These guys are not mob guys or bank robbers.  They do not plan on stopping, there is no mercy in their souls.  Look through this book and see all the other plots that were discovered and stopped.  I can't keep typing the whole book.  I hope there is enough here to show that the spin on what the CIA is doing will eventually cause a lot more deaths.


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2010)

We are not terrorists because we are not intentionally targeting civillians.  We would stop fighting if the terrorists stopped killing innocent people.  If we stop fighting they will just keep killing innocent people.  They use real torture to enforce Shariah, killing non-believers, gays, Hindu's,christians, Jews etc.  If you cannot see the difference between a free democratic nation defending itself, then my original example holds.  No police officer should ever use violence to stop a criminal act, once he used violence he would be no better than the criminal.  Any fire fighter who burned forest to create a fire break in a national forest would be no better than any other arsonist and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  Any doctor who intentionally took a knife to cut a seriously wounded person should be prosecuted for attempeted murder.  Isn't that what murderer's do, cut people with sharp objects?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2010)

Critics comment on "Courting Disaster"



> This is to be expected. As Mayer points out, Thiessen is "neither a  journalist nor a terrorism expert," rather he is a frantic,  torture-thrillist PR hack of the highest order, and the book "has become  the unofficial Bible of torture apologists."


The Huffington Post



> Thiessen&#8217;s book, whose subtitle is &#8220;How the C.I.A. Kept America Safe  and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack,&#8221; offers a relentless  defense of the Bush Administration&#8217;s interrogation policies, which,  according to many critics, sanctioned torture and yielded no appreciable  intelligence benefit. In addition, Thiessen attacks the Obama  Administration for having banned techniques such as waterboarding.  &#8220;Americans could die as a result,&#8221; he writes.
> 
> Yet Thiessen is  better at conveying fear than at relaying the facts. His account of the  foiled Heathrow plot, for example, is &#8220;completely and utterly wrong,&#8221;  according to Peter Clarke, who was the head of Scotland Yard&#8217;s  anti-terrorism branch in 2006. &#8220;The deduction that what was being  planned was an attack against airliners was entirely based upon  intelligence gathered in the U.K.,&#8221; Clarke said, adding that Thiessen&#8217;s  &#8220;version of events is simply not recognized by those who were intimately  involved in the airlines investigation in 2006.&#8221; Nor did Scotland Yard  need to be told about the perils of terrorists using liquid explosives.  The bombers who attacked London&#8217;s public-transportation system in 2005,  Clarke pointed out, &#8220;used exactly the same materials.&#8221;


The New Yorker


Wikipedia offers this bit on the controversy:


> *Book*
> 
> Thiessen's first book, _Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack_ (ISBN 1596986034), was published by Regnery Publishing in January 2010. The book is endorsed by the former Vice President Dick Cheney,[6] former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,[7] and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.[8][9] It reached the No. 9 spot on the _New York Times_ Best Sellers list for hardcover nonfiction in February 2010.[10]
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Thiessen


The Ends Do Not Justify The Means.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 7, 2010)

billcihak said:


> "He provided information that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists including Sayfullah Paracha, and his son Uzair Paracha, businessmen whom [KSM] planned to use to smuggle explosives into the United States; *Saleh Almari, a sleeper operative in New York*; and Majid Khan, an operative who could enter the United States easily and was tasked to research attacks [REDACTED]" And this is only a small fraction of the actionable intelligence KSM provided after being water boarded.".


 
Well, the book's pretty bogus.

_Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri_ was arrested in a routine traffic stop in Peoria, Illinois, in December of 2001, and transferred to New York as a material witness. It was ALi Soufan (FBI guy who says torture doesn't work) who's interrogation of another terrorist led to charges against al-Marri, in 2002.

All of that doesn't matter, though, because *KSM WASN'T CAPTURED UNTIL MARCH,2003.*
not going to even bother anymore....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2010)

billcihak said:


> We are not terrorists because we are not intentionally targeting civillians.  We would stop fighting if the terrorists stopped killing innocent people.  If we stop fighting they will just keep killing innocent people.  They use real torture to enforce Shariah, killing non-believers, gays, Hindu's,christians, Jews etc.  If you cannot see the difference between a free democratic nation defending itself, then my original example holds.  No police officer should ever use violence to stop a criminal act, once he used violence he would be no better than the criminal.  Any fire fighter who burned forest to create a fire break in a national forest would be no better than any other arsonist and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  Any doctor who intentionally took a knife to cut a seriously wounded person should be prosecuted for attempeted murder.  Isn't that what murderer's do, cut people with sharp objects?



Your comparisons of cops, firefighters and doctors using accepted and LEGAL procedures as a defense of representatives of the United States using an ILLEGAL procedure is flawed. 

Waterboarding is torture. US Law says so. International law says so.
Torture is illegal. US Law says so. International law says so.
Rape is illegal. It -was- used as an "enhanced interrogation technique". It was regularly used by the Iraqis, the Nazi's, and the Soviets, as a means of torture, to instill fear and punish. It is illegal. We as a culture abhor it.
Why should that be ok to use against our enemies?

You are defending the use of an illegal, unethical, unsuccessful and immoral action, under the false premise that "its ok to do to the bad guys because we're the good guys.". Under that same logic, it should be ok for your local cop to do the same to your kid to get him admit he stole that CD from the music store. After all, it's "safe" right?

There have been over 50 sources cited against this procedure.
You've cited 1.
Again, more sources supporting your position other than continuing to quote a book that in our eyes has been debunked and discredited would better defend your position.


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2010)

Hey, rape was never used as an enhanced interrogation technique, it is a war crime.  The techniques used against these terrorists do not apply to prisoners of war, of which they are not. Tell me.  How do we get these hardened, religous zealots, who kill children, in front of their parents, to give up information.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2010)

You sure rape wasn't used? I've seen a number of reports that say it was, and still is.

A reading of the various treaties, laws, etc would clearly show that -regardless- of their classification or non-classification as POW's, that torture is still illegal, and that -regardless- of their classification or non-classification as POW's that waterboarding was still legally classified by US and international law and treaty as torture.

As to how you get them to talk, you obey the law and work within it using legally allowed methods and procedures.  What those are, I don't know, not my job to know, and don't really care.

Anyone who engaged in waterboarding, anyone who authorized it, should be brought to trial for the authorization and engaging in illegal torture, in violation of US and International law.

I would seriously suggest that Mr. Bush never visit Brattleboro and Marlboro Vermont where a warrant exists for his arrest for his crimes.  Similar warrants exist in several nations, his admittance of guilt in his book is sure to be used against him, should any of those warrants ever be enforced.


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2010)

The reality is that we are not prepared to fight this enemy and they know it, especially with the new Commander in Chief.  Your notion of using these techniques against civillian non-combatants is not even what the terrorists do.  Waterboarding isn't even the starting point for these monsters, they start with the nail pulling right out of the gates.  I would authorize waterboarding without blinking an eye, knowing that it in no way jeopordizes the American ideal of a democratic nation.  I can't convince you, you will not convince me, we will just have to sit back and watch the carnage on television.  I would, however, suggest that you stay out of major cities.  If you saw the documentary, "Terror in Mumbai," you will know what will eventually happen here.  There is already "chatter" about this coming from al-qaeda's online magazine.  We won't know about it till it happens.  We can feel happy in the knowledge that our hands are clean and not sullied by waterboarding.  The hands of first responders will, of course be a lot less clean.  Blood does wash off hands, it just stains clothes pretty bad.  I would suggest a good pre-soak for all you first responders out there.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 7, 2010)

Terrorist leadership may be fanatical, but they are not generally stupid, far from it. From what Ive read everyone breaks under torture, which is why you tell your people as little as possible about the organization, its finance and future operations. Also people will say and/or admit anything to make the torture stop, hence the information you retrieve is of little value because how do you separate the chaff from the wheat? 

The Brits and the Israelis have proven the best way to fight terrorist organizations is through intelligence, infiltration, covert operations and hitting first & hitting hard. Eventually after all that, you need to sit down and talk with them.


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2010)

Finally, for those interested, Marc Thiessen in his book discusses the careful, meticulous and medically safe way the CIA conducted waterboarding on the 3, 3  high value terrorists and then goes through the actual way the inquisition and the Kmer Rouge did it.  He points out that the torturer of the kmer rouge tortured more than 14,000 people, men women and children and only 7 survived.  There is no comparison between the monsters who actually torture people and the men and women in the CIA waterboarding actual monsters to keep innocent men, women and children safe.  Check out this book and see for yourselves.  There is no comparison and the people who are trying to make it are being dishonest with the public and they are making us and our loved ones vulnerable to the next attack.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2010)

Stay out of the high rises too, never know when another plane might get hijacked. 

Flying? Get used to being groped, stripped, swabbed, irradiated and molested.  Cuz it makes us safer.

Better invest in breathing gear, seal your house, and plan on living in your basement on recycled air until it's safe to come out again. You know, in case they poison our water, air and soil.

Yes, I can do the 'crazy extremist' talk too, but there's no need here.  My position is backed by law, the views of experienced experts, and the US Constitution. Your's is backed by fear and a need to justify barbarism for the illusion of safety.

The US likes to claim to be the good guys. Well, the "good guys" don't shoot helpless pow's. They even made it a focal point of at least 1 WW2 movie how the evil Nazi's slaughtered a bunch of helpless US GIs.  Of course, you never hear about the US doing the same. How MP's under Patton shot German POW's rather than escort them back for questioning.  You don't hear about the Canicattì, Dachau, or Biscari massacre. You don't hear about US Generals authorizing "No Quarter". But, we're the "Good Guys". The good guys who chopped off parts of dead Japanese troops as trophies.

But that was then. We're supposed to be "Better" now.

How are we better if we do to them, what they do to us, in violation of the law, of morality and common decency?

I repeat my question, should local police be allowed to use the "safe and harmless" method of waterboarding to question you, your wife, or your kids?

Show me where it is stated that waterboarding is NOT torture. Not in some hack's book, but in a law, treaty or court decision. 

You can't, because the experts and laws agree, it's torture, it's illegal and it's ineffective. So, you are right, neither of us will budge in our position.

You do "everything and anything" to defend.  When it's over with, I'll thank you by putting you on trial in front of a jury of your peers, and if found guilty of violating those laws, they will thank you by teaching you to dance on air after treating you to a nice meal.  

I don't believe that it 'will' happen here.  Despite my own belief that the current and former occupier of the CIC seat are incompetents, I do not share that belief when it comes to the men and women in the front lines of actually defending the nation and my city.  I trust them to take care of things, so that I don't have to plastic wrap my house and stock up on MRE's out of fear, uncertainty and doubt. When we give in to fear, when we justify lawlessness and barbarity, when we surrender our freedoms and rights to save them, then the terrorists will have truly won, and America will be truly dead.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Terrorist leadership may be fanatical, but they are not generally stupid, far from it. From what Ive read everyone breaks under torture, which is why you tell your people as little as possible about the organization, its finance and future operations. Also people will say and/or admit anything to make the torture stop, hence the information you retrieve is of little value because how do you separate the chaff from the wheat?
> 
> The Brits and the Israelis have proven the best way to fight terrorist organizations is through intelligence, infiltration, covert operations and hitting first & hitting hard. Eventually after all that, you need to sit down and talk with them.



Funny you mention the Israelis. If ever there has been a nation under constant and direct assault for years, it's that one.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 7, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Finally, for those interested, Marc Thiessen in his book discusses *<snip!>*.


 
Why would anyone be interested in anything a man who would make such an obvious error of fact, or _deliberate lie_, as to have someone disclosing information that led to an arrest _two years before he was captured?_



elder999 said:


> Well, the book's pretty bogus.
> 
> _Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri_ was arrested in a routine traffic stop in Peoria, Illinois, in December of 2001, and transferred to New York as a material witness. It was ALi Soufan (FBI guy who says torture doesn't work) who's interrogation of another terrorist led to charges against al-Marri, in 2002.
> 
> ...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 8, 2010)

The next question as to Bush's criminal culpability in this is whether there was a violation of the Geneva Convention.  Everything that I have read, including a reading of the Treaty itself, shows that non-aligned entities, ie., terrorists, garner no protection from it.

So in that sense, to my understanding, there is no criminality there either.

The next facet is his criminal liability under U.S. Federal Law.  Let's delve into that in our next episode.  That one will be tricky as we may have some jurisdictional issues.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 8, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Well, I have to go so I will leave this idea out there.  The terrorists just tried to blow up cargo plains.  If we capture some of them I hope that we use some really, really stern questioning to get these hardened religous fanatics to give us the information we need to stop them.  I know, maybe we should take the advice of Monty Python's flying circus because noone can withstand...the Comfy Chair.  May the next victims of terrorism rest in peace.



You are intentionally palying dense. It is not about torturing terrorists, the whole debate is about torturing anyone who anyone thinks might have something to do with terrorism or might have just hung out with the wrong people.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 8, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> The next question as to Bush's criminal culpability in this is whether there was a violation of the Geneva Convention.  Everything that I have read, including a reading of the Treaty itself, shows that non-aligned entities, ie., terrorists, garner no protection from it.
> 
> So in that sense, to my understanding, there is no criminality there either.
> 
> The next facet is his criminal liability under U.S. Federal Law.  Let's delve into that in our next episode.  That one will be tricky as we may have some jurisdictional issues.



I have had this discussion with Don before so I could dredge it up if I had to. Basically, some of the stuff in the geneva convention deals with aligned parties (like terms for release or culpability, locality of where one was captured, etc) and some parts cover just everybody / everybody else.

In that regard it is like the US constitution, which sometimes covers 'Americans' specifically, and in other places covers 'Everyone'.

In the discussion I mentioned, between the various articles of the Geneva convention, it boils down to the fact that torture and abuse are always wrong, no matter the specifics. If you catch a saboteur (and even that is subject to specific definitions) on your own ground at wartime you only get to execute them, not to torture them. They are entitled to humane treatment right until the moment where you kill them.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 8, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I have had this discussion with Don before so I could dredge it up if I had to. Basically, some of the stuff in the geneva convention deals with aligned parties (like terms for release or culpability, locality of where one was captured, etc) and some parts cover just everybody / everybody else.
> 
> In that regard it is like the US constitution, which sometimes covers 'Americans' specifically, and in other places covers 'Everyone'.
> 
> In the discussion I mentioned, between the various articles of the Geneva convention, it boils down to the fact that torture and abuse are always wrong, no matter the specifics. If you catch a saboteur (and even that is subject to specific definitions) on your own ground at wartime you only get to execute them, not to torture them. They are entitled to humane treatment right until the moment where you kill them.


 
I would be interested if you could point me to some specifics which say that, because I can't find any.  The Geneva Conventions speak specifically to who is protected.  It does say that when the status of the captured party is unknown, they are to receive humane treatment.  But what does it say about when the party is a known combatant, with no government affiliation for his actions, and had not surrendered but is captured on the battlefield or after an investigation?

In fact, let's look at the Third Convention, Article 5:



> The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.


 
Without listing the specifics of Article 4, none of the "terrorists" fit into that category.  Which means that the Convention does not apply to them and they are not entitled to their protections.

Even looking at the provisions of the first and second Conventions, they speak specifically to who the Articles of those Conventions apply.

But let's look at your example, that of the saboteur.  As you say, there is a very specific definition of such a person.  The question is what classification do the terrorists which we are currently fighting fall under.  There is no "general" provision which covers everyone.

In fact, one of the interesting aspects of the Geneva Conventions says that the Signatory Member is only obliged to abide by them if the non-signatory member abides by their provisions as well.  Now, I think that the cutting off of the heads of captured U.S. soldiers would count as them not abiding by the provisions of the Geneva convention, even if we could classify them in some manner consistent with that of a nation-state.  Therefore, I don't see how Bush violated any provision of the Geneva Conventions.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 8, 2010)

Ok hang on...

I started copy-pasting into this post but it is getting too complex since Don and I exchanged words over multiple posts with quotes.
My point starts here:
http://martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1256336&postcount=12
and ends with Don in post 15 saying that he still thinks it is wrong.

Please read those couple of posts if you want to expand on this topic. My main arguments are that if Art 4 does not apply article 3 will by virtue of these people being detained.



> (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
> 
> To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
> (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
> ...



and



> Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.



and



> 'including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause'


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2010)

billcihak said:


> We are not terrorists because we are not intentionally targeting civillians. We would stop fighting if the terrorists stopped killing innocent people. If we stop fighting they will just keep killing innocent people. They use real torture to enforce Shariah, killing non-believers, gays, Hindu's,christians, Jews etc. If you cannot see the difference between a free democratic nation defending itself, then my original example holds. No police officer should ever use violence to stop a criminal act, once he used violence he would be no better than the criminal. Any fire fighter who burned forest to create a fire break in a national forest would be no better than any other arsonist and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Any doctor who intentionally took a knife to cut a seriously wounded person should be prosecuted for attempeted murder. Isn't that what murderer's do, cut people with sharp objects?


 

You are being very naive and I don't think you have a grasp on what the situation is tbh. You also have little knowledge of the law which although we have differences between our countries many parts are the same.

Yes, the surgeon cutting someone is assault but like boxing, sparring, MMA etc is it however it is not considered illegal as it's between consenting adults. Both parties are consenting to the procedures, fights etc. Arson isn't just setting fire to something, there has to be a context which makes it illegal. Police officers are allowed by law to use reasonable force in the course of their duties. 

Intelligence is everything in the war against terrorism, physical intel not just the electronic type, hearts and minds ops plus talking, endless talking will stop the terrorists. We've had experience in this in several countries, Oman, Malaya, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, Aden, Kenya in recent times. My other half was in Oman in the 1970's fighting terrorists. We've both been in N Ireland and my shift partner was in Aden. Hearts and minds and Intel will win over crude torture which is all water boarding is, if you've got to the point where you are considering waterboarding etc you've lost anyway. 

One must be judicious in choosing who to 'capture', don't imagine for one minute that all the detainees were captured on the battlefield shooting at the Allies. Many were reported on by neighbours or work colleagues, shades of the Gestapo, the Stasi etc there. Not a reliable way to pick up terrorist suspects. Things do escalate, the laws that are enacted to protect will end up strangling you. Look at history.

Waterboarding and other tortures are the response of scared people towards that which scares them. The terrorists expect to be tortured even welcome it as martyrdom and as justification for their actions. You catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar so don't do something that is morally and legally repugnant and also useless.

There was torture by the British in Northern Ireland, it was never for infomation it was for the revenge, troops were killed so the terrorists suffered, there wasn't evidence to take them to court so they were hurt instead. They also tortured ours for the same reason. Nothing to be proud of to be sure but it did feel good at the time, getting your own back.
I think you are advocating torture for the same reasons, that of getting your own back. You need however to look higher and further than this.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 8, 2010)

Its ironic that some of the best intelligence we have recieved from a prisoner came after the prisoner was given sympathy for his diabetes and cookies.  He was expecting to be tortured.  Instead he was treated like a human being so he gave up his information.   According to LEO and inteligence professionals, this was text book on the best way to get information.

I do not agree with the assessment that we can torture and not violate the Geneva convention.  However, even if it was not a violation, we as a country and a civilized people know it is wrong.  All the justifications in the world does not remove the stain that we, as a country, allowed and then condoned the use of torture.  When we committ actions that we know are wrong because we are afraid, the terrorist have won.  It gives me a sick feeling.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2010)

Police detectives in a great many countries aren't allowed to torture suspects and while there may be a case or two of beatings etc the vast majority of confessions etc are obtained by patience and good interrogation techniques that are proven to work which frankly torture rarely does. The suspect may give up 'the truth' eventually but there's no way to verify that what they say is in fact the truth or an attempt to stop the torture. Unless you are sure you have the top person in a terrorist organisation, the suspect will know little of immediate value, that's how the terrorist cells work for safety. What does work with the lower ranks is patient conversation which brings out information they think is of little use but can help Int officers piece pictures together with info gained from other people and places. Even sitting listening to a terrorist boasting about exploits is worthwhile. A quiet interrogator will learn so much more than a torturer.

We do have to take the moral high ground here in the use of torture, we can't justify it by saying it works, it doesn't, we can't justify it by saying the other side used it so we should. We are supposed to be the good guys we can't be that and look ourselves in the eye if we torture and abuse prisoners. Sure it's frustrating seeing people who have committed terrorist acts being treated with dignity but it's what makes us better, it's what makes us civilised, we are supposed to be the ones who value life. We have to live up to standards not drop to the terrorist levels of inhumanity.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 8, 2010)

If, as you post, they are not prisoners of war, then the Third Geneva Convention does not apply to them.  

With regard to the Second Geneva Convention, they are not maritime personnel, so it does not apply.

The Convention that would seem to most appropriately apply would be that of the First Convention.  They spell out, in Article 13, to whom it applies:



> Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:
> 
> (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
> (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
> ...




None of those conditions apply to those specific individuals who were waterboarded, therefore they do not receive protections from the Convention.

The problem as it relates to Article 3 (typically referred to as Common Article 3, as it is in all of the separate Convention treaties) is that does not apply in this situation.  You have only partially quoted it.  Here is the part that you have left out:



> *In the case of armed conflict not of an international character *occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions




From the Red Crosses website regarding Article 3:



> Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions, marked a breakthrough, as it covered, for the first time, situations of non-international armed conflicts. These types of conflicts vary greatly. *They include traditional civil wars, internal armed conflicts that spill over into other States or internal conflicts in which third States or a multinational force intervenes alongside the government.*




None of those situations apply to this conflict, nor to the particular individuals who were waterboarded.

You quote the following Article from the Fourth Convention:



> Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.




This Article is intended to apply to civilians, not combatants.  In fact, the official title of this treaty is: 



> *Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.*




But lets say, for the sake of argument, that this Convention could in some way apply to international terrorists.  I then point you to a more complete reading of Article 4:



> Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. *Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.*




Lets examine this.  All three of the subjects who are known to have been waterboarded are citizens of ratifying countries of the Genva Conventions, two from Saudi Arabia and one from Pakistan.  Currently, both of these states have normal diplomatic relations with the U.S.  Therefore this Convention does not apply to them.  

Suffice it to say that none of the individuals who were waterboarded meet the criteria cited within any of the Geneva Conventions.  Your best bet would have been to use Protocol II of the Convention.  The only problem with that would be that although the U.S. is a signatory to it, it has not been ratified, therefore the U.S. and its personnel cannot be bound to its articles.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 8, 2010)

Tangenting here. Bear with me. I'll follow up with more shortly.
Lets assume that it's illegal in the US.
The action was performed by a US citizen, but in a foreign nation.
Who's laws apply? US or the foreign nations?

Lets assume it's illegal in the US, but NOT in the country where it was done.
Who's laws apply? US or the foreign nations?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 8, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Tangenting here. Bear with me. I'll follow up with more shortly.
> Lets assume that it's illegal in the US.
> The action was performed by a US citizen, but in a foreign nation.
> Who's laws apply? US or the foreign nations?
> ...


 
Not tangenting at all.  In fact, I was gonna speak to this as soon as we got through all of the international law stuff.  But, here is the U.S. Code that applies specifically to torture in the context of your question.

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113C, Section 2340A:



> (a) *Offense. **Whoever outside the United States* commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
> 
> (b) *Jurisdiction. There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if **(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or *
> *(2) **the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.*
> ...


 
So, if a CIA agent tortured someone in a country other then the United States, this section would still apply.

The conspiracy section would, on the face of it, seem to apply to George Bush, as he "conspired" to have the activity committed.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 8, 2010)

*In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions *

Actually, I think Art.3 still does apply. Because your war against terror is an armed conflict without an international character. It is a 'unofficial war' of individuals against a nation state. The list at the end is not an exclusive list. It merely lists a number of included examples, but it is not limited to those. Otherwise the word 'including' would not have been used.

Art 4 covers participants in an internation conflict, Art 3 covers the scenarios of a war without that declared international character. So imo both cases are covered.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 9, 2010)

Also, as a P.S. to my previous post I should acknowledge that I don't think the 3d article covers everyone. There has to be something that qualifies as an armed conflict, and the detention has to happen by one of the conflicting parties.

So for example, in the case of al-qaeda vs the US, we can safely say that a) there is an armed conflict, and b) the US (being the detainer) is also one of the parties. So anyone detained by the US in the context of that conflict is ccovered.

Otoh, the bloods vs the crips is an armed conflict, and not of an international character, but the party detaining them (the US gov or one of its local branches) is not party to the conflict. So neither the bloods nor the crips are covered. In this case the laws of the land still apply though, and these have provisions for treatment of prisoners.

If one of the Idaho militias would go to war with the US government, then that again would be covered under the 3d article, but also by the laws of the land. I am not smart enough to know what outcome is then. Since no international parties are involved, it would probably be the laws of the land but there is a good argument to say that both would apply and therefore the militia guys would be awarded the logical maximum of both protections.

I do agree it is not always a simple matter, and I am sure that high$$$ lawyers could argue each paragraph both ways, depending on who is paying for them to do such. But I do believe that the intent of the 3d article is to protect anyone in anything that can be qualified as an armed conflict, when detained by one of the parties of said conflict.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 9, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> *In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions&#8230; *
> 
> Actually, I think Art.3 still does apply. Because your war against terror is an armed conflict without an international character. It is a 'unofficial war' of individuals against a nation state. The list at the end is not an exclusive list. It merely lists a number of included examples, but it is not limited to those. Otherwise the word 'including' would not have been used.
> 
> Art 4 covers participants in an internation conflict, Art 3 covers the scenarios of a war without that declared international character. So imo both cases are covered.


 
How is the War on Terror not international in scope? 


Al-Qaeda, the group we are ostensibly fighting, is considered an *international *terrorist group by many of the world's governments. It is believed to have the following franchises: 

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,which comprises
Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, and
Islamic Jihad of Yemen

Al-Qaeda in Iraq
Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb
Harakat al-Shabaab Mujahideen in Somalia
Egyptian Islamic Jihad
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
East Turkestan Islamic Movement in Xinjiang
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is Pakistani. He was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. After that, he travelled to the Phillipines and worked on Operation Bojinka, a plot that involved planting bombs on 12 airplanes from different countries. Only 10% of the planted bombs were to be used on U.S. registered airlines. He was also involved in planning the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. He also convinced Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, to bomb an airliner. He has also been linked to the Bali night club bombing in the Phillipines. He was then captured in Pakistan. He is also reportedly said to have confessed to personally killing Daniel Pearl, which occurred in Pakistan.

Abu Zubaydah was a trainer at a camp utilized by Al-Qaeda, an internationally recognized terrorist group.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is a member of al-Qaeda, an international terrorist group. He attempted to attact the USS The Sullivans while it was in port in Yemen. He then, successfully, attacked the USS Cole, also ported in Yemen. This gave him enough reputation to be "promoted" as the chief of operations for the Arabian Peninsula, which covers about a dozen countries. 

Article 3 is limited to engagements within a single country, or those that spill into neighboring countries. Again, I will point you to the Red Cross' own characterization of the circumstances over which Article 3 was to have jurisdiction:



> They include traditional civil wars, internal armed conflicts that spill over into other States or internal conflicts in which third States or a multinational force intervenes alongside the government.


 
also:



> The International Conference was thus envisaging, explicitly and for the first time, the application by the Parties to a *civil war*, if not of all the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, at any rate of their essential principles.
> source: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600006?OpenDocument


 
All of these relate to internal conflicts within a country. If these terrorist do not represent a country, and are truly individuals, then they are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections. 

It is interesting that you also call it an unofficial war of _individuals _against the United States. Well, the Geneva Conventions are specifically for wars between nations. If what you believe is true, that is even more credence that those that were waterboarded receive no protections.

At least not those of the Geneva Convention. (Hint, hint)


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 9, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Also, as a P.S. to my previous post I should acknowledge that I don't think the 3d article covers everyone. There has to be something that qualifies as an armed conflict, and the detention has to happen by one of the conflicting parties.
> 
> So for example, in the case of al-qaeda vs the US, we can safely say that a) there is an armed conflict, and b) the US (being the detainer) is also one of the parties. So anyone detained by the US in the context of that conflict is ccovered.


 
It's not quite that simple.  Each of the Conventions has provisions in it which specify who is and is not covered by that convention, even in the case of an armed conflict between a ratifying party and another group. 

Even still, as stated before, this is a conflict which is international in character, and therefore this Article does not apply.



> I do agree it is not always a simple matter, and I am sure that high$$$ lawyers could argue each paragraph both ways, depending on who is paying for them to do such. But I do believe that the intent of the 3d article is to protect anyone in anything that can be qualified as an armed conflict, when detained by one of the parties of said conflict.


 
If that were truly the case, then why repeat the same thing four separate times?  The fact of the matter is that each provision has different categories as to whom they do and do not apply.

Also if true, there would have been no need to have the subsequent 1st and 2nd Protocols.  Or other treaties (hint, hint).


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 9, 2010)

> Well, the Geneva Conventions are specifically for wars between nations.



Imo the 'international character' indicates the lack of official conflict between nation states. Just because individuals in al qaeda are not American does not mean it is an international conflict.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 9, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Imo the 'international character' indicates the lack of official conflict between nation states. Just because individuals in al qaeda are not American does not mean it is an international conflict.


 
It's international because it is happening in multiple countries and with citizens from multiple countries. Article 3 is specifically about internal national conflicts, nothing else. Every commentary that I have found on Article 3 states as much 

Websters second definition of international is of or pertaining to two or more nations and it's citizens. So by definition an international armed conflict is a fight between two nations or the citizens of two nations. That's what the war on terror is.

I'm sorry, but you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  You should be looking elsewhere for you arguments, rather then the Geneva Conventions.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 9, 2010)

My suggestion for those who want to determine whether George Bush committed a war crime consistent with international law is that you look up two things:

The United Nations Convention Against Torture

and

the concept of Customary International Law (which is considered by the International Courts of Justice, the United Nations, and it's member States to be among the primary sources of international law). 

This is what you are looking for in order to determine Bush's international criminal liability for the waterboarding, NOT the Geneva Conventions which don't apply in this case.

One issue that comes to mind in this whole debate though is this: is he liable for erroneous advise given to him by Department of Justice lawyers?  He did not do this in a vacuum.  He apparently had extensive meetings with them in order to determine what was and was not legal.  They told him that waterboarding was legal.

I had thought about this yesterday, and then heard Matt Lauer's interview with Bush.  When asked about the legality of waterboarding, Bush's reply was that it was legal because lawyers said it was legal.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 9, 2010)

If it was bad advice Bush got in this matter, it wouldn't be the first time it happened.  Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc tend to operate in a vacuum..the only intel they get distilled and summarized and spoon fed to them. This isn't to suggest they are idiots (though my opinion is that they are), but that the shear amount of data needed to sift through is incredibly huge.  If Bush personally had to look up all possible laws, etc, he'd still be searching, where as an experienced and focused team could pull the data together in a brief time. 

I've had discussions about things where the comment "well it was in the paper" were made...but how many papers are there in the US? This is why these guys start their day with daily briefings and have scheduled updates. Somewhere, IMO, this chain failed him, he got bad advice and ran with it. Now he, not some faceless clerk, gets the heat and hate.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 10, 2010)

Part of the problem with the advice he was given by lawyers such as John U (sp?) is that the lawyers were asked repeatedly until the Bush administration got the answer they were looking for.  The system failed in this case because of what apeared to be lawyers currying favor with the administration.   The question and the answer got very complicated, when it really wasn't.  Is waterboarding torture?  Simple answer is according to our history, yes it is.  The precedent was already there, but the administration and the lawyers of the administration chose to ignore the precedence.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Somewhere, IMO, this chain failed him, he got bad advice and ran with it. Now he, not some faceless clerk, gets the heat and hate.



Personally, if I were to invade another country, I'd double check before actually committing myself. And If I had so little to show for it that I didn't even dare show it to my allies for fear of getting laughed at (despite asking them to commit themselves too)... then maybe I'd reconsider.


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 10, 2010)

I have very mixed emotions on this. First Bush started an illegal war and lied to the American public about the real threats to America. His father was smart enough to know yeh Sadam is bad but it is a tribal society they will not change if those people had enough they would kill him. Who are you going to replace him with democracy? 
I have sat in our airport many times watching young men 19-21 kissing thier young wives and babies good by and I talk to them they say hey we gotta go over thier to keep the terrorist from comming here? no they don't we have buttons we can push not send our youngest and brightes peopel to be killed and maimed dialy for Oil, so Haliburton can steal billions in fraudulant contracts.

Our death toll would be over 50,000 troops if not for improvments in field medical and other advancements no now we have over 50,000 people with maimed bodies and minds and the highest suicide rate in military history not to mention who our government has misstreated them once home with improper care and training for new jobs. 

At first I thought maybe the hiden agenda which some of my friends said in the military was by having a war in Iraq it would draw in all the terrorists in like a sponge and we can just kill them off but they don'g fight fair one on one they blend in who is the enemy they all look alike just like another war? so our guys loose it and start killing what ever they see. I hate it that people complain because war is ugly inocent people die on both sides its the cost of having war thats why it is last resort. 

Bush now wants to rewrite history like he had no choice or he was missled give me a break he and Chennie knew what they were doing was illegal and thats why the last 24 months in office they protected evidence so it could not be examined and destroyed the rest all under the guise of NSA and executive privilage. 

For all those right wing people that say yeh I support the war and all the other crap well you pay for it and you sign up and go over there not your kids but you go. Lets start a draft of 45 year olds and up why not because they are not going to just march down any hill with out having a pretty good reason? Young people believe they can't be killed thats why they make the best soldiers not just physical advantages. 

GW book just his way of trying to deal with his guilt and get people to pay for it.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 10, 2010)

Master Dan said:


> I have very mixed emotions on this. First Bush started an illegal war and lied to the American public about the real threats to America.


 
Prove it.  I've not ever seen such a thing in the law as "Illegal War Starting".

Congress gave Bush the authority, as have many past Congresses before have given past Presidents, to use military force in the absence of a formal declaration of war.  Don't crap on this one if you ain't gonna crap on all the others, including those conducted by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc.

Prove he lied, rather than was given faulty intelligence.  After all, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, many Congressmen (with Intelligence Oversite responsibility) believed that Saddam had WMDs.  Lest we not forget in 2009 the Iraqi government declared that they had  "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities".  Lets not forget that the Wikileaks document show that U.S. forces found chemical weapons in Iraq after the invasion.

So despite all the evidence to the contrary, its still "Bush lied, people died."


For all those right wing people that say yeh I support the war and all the other crap well you pay for it and you sign up and go over there not your kids but you go. Lets start a draft of 45 year olds and up why not because they are not going to just march down any hill with out having a pretty good reason? Young people believe they can't be killed thats why they make the best soldiers not just physical advantages. 
[/quote]

I'll do that when all those left wing people pay for Medicare, Medicade, unemployment insurance, welfare, public education which my children don't attend, stimulous packages, and ObamaCare.

By the way, I would go, but my wife won't let me.   Yeah, I'm :whip1:

But I do my part by protecting their children and other loved ones while they are over there.  So don't give me this, "I have to go to Iraq or Afganistan if I support the war" bull.


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 10, 2010)

UN never gave the go ahead to invade iraq bush just done it without un approval. 

and he did lie. Nobody over there found any weapons of mass destruction nor any links to 9/11, obama or al quaida.

I'm not surprised they found out about him authorizing torture and lying so quick.  Info and the internet and such make it harder to hide stuff, just like a earlier american president (forget his name now) lied so that he could get america into the vietnam war. Just took longer for that stuff to come out.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 10, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Prove he lied, rather than was given faulty intelligence.  After all, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, many Congressmen (with Intelligence Oversite responsibility) believed that Saddam had WMDs.  Lest we not forget in 2009 the Iraqi government declared that they had  "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities".  Lets not forget that the Wikileaks document show that U.S. forces found chemical weapons in Iraq after the invasion.
> 
> So despite all the evidence to the contrary, its still "Bush lied, people died."



Well, to quote another president: 'The buck stopped with him'.
I don't think he lied on purpose, as much as he wanted to believe what he was told.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> I'll do that when all those left wing people pay for Medicare, Medicade, unemployment insurance, welfare, public education which my children don't attend, stimulous packages, and ObamaCare.



They already do. It's called taxes 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> By the way, I would go, but my wife won't let me.   Yeah, I'm :whip1:
> 
> But I do my part by protecting their children and other loved ones while they are over there.  So don't give me this, "I have to go to Iraq or Afganistan if I support the war" bull.



This is genuine, respectful curiosity and not a challenge: why would you go? I mean, Iraq is not, nor was ever a real threat to the US. Afghanistan I understand why people would sign up. But wanting to sign up to go to Iraq is something that I don't get.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 10, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> This is genuine, respectful curiority and not a challenge: why would you go? I mean, Iraq is not, nor was ever a real threat to the US. Afghanistan I understand why people would sign up. But wanting to sign up to go to Iraq is something that I don't get.



To try to do some good, of course. At this point in time, Iraq is truly Colin Powell's Pottery Barn:

Before the war with Iraq, Powell bluntly told Bush that if he sent U.S. troops there "_you're going to be owning this place_." Powell and his deputy and closest friend, Richard L. Armitage, used to refer to what they called "*the Pottery Barn ru*le" on Iraq: "_You break it, *you own it*,"  _

_....._of course, we all own it now......


----------



## billc (Nov 12, 2010)

Bruno@mt,
  To answer your question, Why go?  If the United States went to war with Russia or China, their governments are evil but their citizens are not.  You would be fighting just regular people doing their patriotic duty to serve their country.  The terrorist jihadis are not the same type of enemy.  They are individuals who want to torture, maim and kill innocent men women and children.  They are pure, un-adulterated  evil.  If you are an individual who wants to stand against evil on this planet, and you want to take part in the fight against true evil, these terrorists fit that bill and Iraq and Afghanistan is where they are concentrated right now.  All deeper political, national, and economic issues aside, fighting terrorists and protecting innocent people is on reason you might want in.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 12, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Bruno@mt,
> To answer your question, Why go? If the United States went to war with Russia or China, their governments are evil but their citizens are not. You would be fighting just regular people doing their patriotic duty to serve their country. The terrorist jihadis are not the same type of enemy. They are individuals who want to torture, maim and kill innocent men women and children. They are pure, un-adulterated evil. If you are an individual who wants to stand against evil on this planet, and you want to take part in the fight against true evil, these terrorists fit that bill and Iraq and Afghanistan is where they are concentrated right now. All deeper political, national, and economic issues aside, fighting terrorists and protecting innocent people is on reason you might want in.


 

You have of course heard the expression 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.

You know of course that the American's who fought in your War of Independance were described as terrrorists by the English? And we are Allies now.

How do you know the governments of China and Russia are evil? It's just your opinion. 

Two wrongs never make a right.


----------



## billc (Nov 12, 2010)

I have been waiting for someone to use that silly quote.  The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is what happens after they win.  The founding fathers were not terrorists, they created a democracy that has eventually led to the most free country on the planet.  There is a peaceful change of power every two years and for the most part the greatest level of equality that you are going to find anywhere.  The terrorists want to impose shariah law on the world.  This would subjugate women and all non-muslims.  It would be a theocracy governed by the muslim religion.  They would kill gays and jews, and atheists, and all religions not of the book, hindus, bhudists, wiccans etc.  There would be no democracy, there would only be one religion enforced by religous police.  Sooo, a terrorist is actually a terrorist, a freedom fighter fights for truth, justice, and the American way, freedom of religion, speech, pretty much the American bill of rights or something similar to it.  And yes, the russian government is evil, as is the chinese government.  Ask the people suppressed by Putin or the people run over by tanks at Tianeman square.  

The terrorists, also, for example, hate the ruling family of Saudi Arabia.  Not because they are a democracy, but because they do not live up to shariah themselves.  The terrorists do not want to over throw the Saudi government to create a free democracy but to set up their theocratic dictatorship.  So that is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.  And yes, America has done bad things in the past as well, but in no way can be compared to the evils of the socialists in russia or china.  The socialists in russia murdered 25 million people or more, and the Chinese count is about what, 70 million people murdered, not including all the babies murdered with their one child policy.  So please, do not try to compare freedom loving America with russia and china.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 12, 2010)

Terrorist are actually people who use terror to influence politics.  So for that definition,  the original tea party in Boton harbor and the guerilla tactics used by the American colonials were terrorism.  I'm not saying that a greater good didn't come of it, but quit pretending we are something we aren't.

To accept behaviour that is immoral from our government just because we think it is the best is ridiculous.  How can we really critisize another country such as China for things such as human rights violations when we also abuse human rights? The whole I-did-wrong-because-they-did-worse arguement should have lost it power about first grade.  Also, don't forget, America's hands in history aren't exactly blood free.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 12, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Terrorist are actually people who use terror to influence politics. So for that definition, the original tea party in Boton harbor and the guerilla tactics used by the American colonials were terrorism. I'm not saying that a greater good didn't come of it, but quit pretending we are something we aren't.


 
Not to mention the attempted kidnapping of the Earl of Selkirk....or the genocide of the rightful inhabitants of the continent.....the absolute intolerance of colonies founded for religious freedom towards _other_ religions: the Puritans were terrible people. 

Detractors to the faith like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were exiled from the colony. &#8220;Heretics&#8221; were physically beaten. In Nathaniel Hawthorne&#8217;s story _Young Goodman Brown_, the devil tells the young prospective initiate, &#8220;I helped your grandfather, the constable, when he lashed the Quaker woman so smartly through the streets of Salem&#8230;&#8221; Quakers were not welcome in Massachusetts and well into the 19th-century, and New Englanders annually burned an effigy of the pope. Colonial diversity was far less than inclusive.

I won't even get into the forcible kidnap, rape and transport of millions of Africans as _cargo._

_Oh, yes I *WILL.:soapbox:*_


The British arrived in Jamestown in 1607. By 1610 the intentional extermination of the native population was well underway.America&#8217;s contribution to &#8220;the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world&#8221; continued unabated to 1890. In December of that year the vengeful soldiers of the United States Seventh Cavalry used gattling guns and rifles to slaughter Lakota men, women and children at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. 

And how many millions of Africans died as a result of slavery? *All of them*, actually. If they died _in_ slavery they died _of_ slavery too. Their lives were stolen from them before they were born. The slave trade was &#8220;justified&#8221; by demented, inhuman racism, but it was motivated by material greed. It was a business, like everything else in America&#8217;s bloody, ruthless history. 

A truly evil corporate plutocracy rules this country today , and America&#8217;s modern addiction to plundering the world has its historical roots in the theft of Indian land and the slavery of Africans. America&#8217;s wealth owes its origins in large measure to generations of African blood, sweat and tears, and to the land stolen from its original inhabitants.


----------



## billc (Nov 12, 2010)

The comparison between this country and other countries is interesting.  The socialists in Germany, Russia, and China killed millions of people in modern industrial times, not back in colonial days.  Once and for all, we did not commit genocide against the Indians, diseases spread through contact with a new population is not genocide.  And no, we did not give disease blankets to the indians, that is a myth.  Fighting an oppressive government for human rights makes you a freedom fighter not a terrorist.  The early colonists were freedom fighters and the proof of that comes from our early government, the constitution and the bill of rights.  By the way, this country has been and so far is the last best hope for mankind.  I am not sure how people can compare this country with any other.  Usually, they have to go back to the more primitive time in human history where all humans were cruel and viscious to one another.  The difference comes from the growth our nation has made in just over 200 years compared to countries that have been around since the beginning of recorded history.  We have done bad things, the other countries have done much worse, more recently.  I have never understood self-loathing Americans, or the attempt to put us on an equal footing with 20 million(?) murdered in then modern Germany, 25 to 50 million murdered in the soviet  union, or the 70 million murdered in China.


----------



## billc (Nov 12, 2010)

Slavery was brought to America by the same Europeans you try to compare us to.  We eventually ended slavery at the cost of 500,000 dead Americans.  And remember, slavery would have ended sooner if not for the democrats of that time.  The democrats wanted to re-start the slave trade with Africa, allow slavery in the new states, and went to war on the fear that the first republican president was going to end slavery.  Europe, africa, asia and all  the countries of the world had slavery.  And yes, the gentle native americans had slaves as well, and quite a few tribes were still practicing human sacrifice and cannabalism when the europeans arrived.  Remember, they ate some of crew that Columbus left behind.  Slavery still exists in Africa for heaven's sake.  The real kind, with whips and chains.  Still, in the Sudan and Mouritania.  The muslim north of Sudan takes slaves from the southern animists and christians so please, try not to throw the slavery card at the United States.  We dealt with our inherited from Europe slavery problem back in the 1860's.  And massacres happened on both sides of the indian and U.S. government clashes.


----------



## billc (Nov 12, 2010)

Remember, the Africans sold the slaves.  They are still selling slaves in parts of Africa, so before you blame Europe and America, blame the slave owners in Africa.  That is part of the history of slavery that is just beginning to be pondered over.  Barak Obama's harvard friend, the one from the beer summit just wrote a book on the role of Africa in the perpetuation of the slave trade.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 12, 2010)

billcihak said:


> . I have never understood self-loathing Americans, or the attempt to put us on an equal footing with 20 million(?) murdered in then modern Germany, 25 to 50 million murdered in the soviet union, or the 70 million murdered in China.


 
I'm not a "self-loathing" American at all. :lol:

Well, if estimates of the pre-Columbian population of the Americas range from30 million to 100 million, and there are now 1.9 million natives, then the comparison is just about equal.

And, you're woefully ignorant. Letters exist between British soldiers at the siege of Fort Pitt, in 1763, advocating the use of smallpox infected blankets, and there was a subsequent outbreak of smallpox among the Delaware. That the two can't be completely correlated is only because of the 200+ years that have passed.In Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763: ... _Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort_an early example of biological warfare_which started an epidemic among them_. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. 

So, however the Indians caught smallpox, this was done.

In 2000, our government apologized for the "systematic ethnic cleansing" of Native Americans.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 12, 2010)

*Cough* Wounded Knee *Cough* Trail of Tears *Cough* Bear River *Cough* Washita

Not Uncle Sam's best days. Custer waged war against the Indians. Cost him his life. Others like Sheridan won medals for wholesale slaughter, rape and murder. He was on a mission of genocide, approved of by President US Grant.

If you'd like a list of them though, I can dig up a few hundred US atrocities, rapes, murders, etc, from day one, to oh, about 2 weeks ago. Probably best to do each one as a separate topic though.

If the rebels we refer to as Founding Fathers had lost the war, they would have been executed as traitors. The fact we celebrate the Boston Tea Party to me is a shame, considering it an act of vandalism, theft and destruction. The war was almost lost because half the people didn't want to leave British rule, and in fact after the war thousands left the new country or faced harassment and intimidation.  It's not the 'shiny happy' revolution the average school text makes it out to be.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 12, 2010)

billcihak said:


> The early colonists were freedom fighters and the proof of that comes from our early government, the constitution and the bill of rights.



You mean the very same Constitution that counted a slave as 3/5ths of a person?  The very same that had to be amended to allow blacks and women to vote?  The early colonists were only interested (with some exceptions) for freedom for themselves.  They were humans, not sainted demigods. 

That's one, but the rest of your post is just unsupported jingoism.  I'm having trouble believing you even mean it, it's so over the top.  Americans are human (like the Founding Fathers) just like everyone else, and prone to the same errors and stupidities.  America has seen both shining moments of virtue and long periods of depravity, just like everywhere else.  People are people, no matter where they happen to live.  Pretending it could be otherwise is just stupid.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 12, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Slavery was brought to America by the same Europeans you try to compare us to. We eventually ended slavery at the cost of 500,000 dead Americans.


 

Hmm, the Brits ended slavery with the stroke of a pen, 30 years before the USA.

The war between the states was not fought over slavery, thats a fallacy. I know that and Im not even American.

Im all for patriotism, (no matter what country you live in), pound the drums, beat your chest, but patriotism while being ignorant of your own history, is just arrogance.


----------



## billc (Nov 13, 2010)

To mention another book, by Michael Medved, "The Ten Big Lies about America" he goes into the myth of intentional germ warfare against the indians, and he goes through each of the major massacres and dispels the myths about what happened.  He specifically talks about the Fort Pitt incident, "...In fact, the only evidence of personnel at Fort Pitt actually passing infected garments to Indians ocurred before the infamous written exchanges between Amhurst and Bouquet.  On or around June 24, two traders at the garrison gave blankets and a single handkerchief from the fort's quarantined hospital to two visiting Delaware Indians; one of the dealers made note of the exchange in his journal, declaring, "I hope it will have the desired effect."  Whatever the intent of this interchange, there's no evidence that it led to contagion among the indians besieging the fort: they continued to menace the stronghold in fierce good health for more than six weeks after recieving the blankets."  "...On my radio show I interviewed Elizabeth Fenn, the author of "Pox Americana: The Great Small Pox Epidemic of 1775-82" and the world's leading expert on the American impact of the dread disease, and I asked her directly whether her years of research had turned up any persuasive evidence that "germ warfare tactics" contributed significantly to Indian victimization.  "Frankly, no," she declared.  Remember too, he points out, the guys who wrote the letters were British, not Americans.  He also points out that white traders and soldiers also tried at time to help "reduce rather than intensify its deadly impact." 
  He also points out that the outbreak among the Mandan and other indians  came not from the U.S. army but "...had spread from a steamboat whose crew was infected."  He recounts the letters between Bouquet and Amherst and the account of a Lord Jeffery who sited the "...monstrous cruelty he had observed from his adversaries(indians)(scalping alive for souvenirs, branding, cutting out and occasionally devouring hearts, torture through slow skinning, piercing bodies with as many as a hundred arrows)..."  Medved also points out "...At no point did the British commander issue orders or make a policy declaration regarding extermination of the Indians.
  Medved next discusses the various massacres, the Mystic Massacre,the sand creek massacre,the battle of the washita, what really happened at wounded knee.  The wounded knee massacre is interesting because the mythology that apparently has grown up around it.  Medved sites the book, "The last days of the sioux Nation" " ...As Utely observes, this dark episode would have been avoided "had not a few unthinking young men, incited by a fanatical medicine man, lost control of themselves and created an incident..."  The soldiers "...they did not deliberately killl women and children, although in a few instances more caution might have been excercised..."  Utely concludes, "...It is time that Wounded Knee be viewed for what it was-a regrettable, tragic act of war that neither side intended."  
Medved sites "...most of the white newcomers to the west understood that the bloodthirsty habits that so frightened them unquestionably predated the arrival of the Europeans in North America...The various tribes never lived together in harmony and mutual respect, nor more than the Neolithic cultures of Europe, Asia or Africa coexisted without desperate and punishing conflict."
  Another book to check out, Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, noble Savage.
  Also sited by Medved, an article in the "Missouri Republican" describing the war of extermination waged by the tribes of the upper missouri river.  So please, once again, two cultures collided and ended up killing each other.


----------



## billc (Nov 13, 2010)

the 3/5 thing needs to be dealt with as well.  The 3/5 compromise was a way to weaken the representation of the slave holding colonies when the union was created.Representation in the house of representatives is based on population.  The slave colonies wanted slaves to count toward their total population giving them more representatives than they deserved considering slaves were slaves and not free men.The northern free  states wanted the slaves to not count toward representation because they were slaves and they wanted the practice of slavery ended.  Slaves came to be counted as 3/5 of a person in order to weaken the power of the slave states which helped pass the constitution as we know it and the bill of rights.  These documents and their principals eventually led to the end of slavery here in the States.


----------



## billc (Nov 13, 2010)

A great book that deals with the the 3/5 controversy is called "Vindicating the Founders."   It talks about all the compromises made to get the constitution passed.  And yes, at it's heart the civil war was about ending slavery.  Some will say, No, it was about states rights, but ask yourself, a states right to do what, hmmmm.  Perhaps they wanted to own slaves, hmmm.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 13, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I have been waiting for someone to use that silly quote. The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is what happens after they win. The founding fathers were not terrorists, they created a democracy that has eventually led to the most free country on the planet. There is a peaceful change of power every two years and for the most part the greatest level of equality that you are going to find anywhere. The terrorists want to impose shariah law on the world. This would subjugate women and all non-muslims. It would be a theocracy governed by the muslim religion. They would kill gays and jews, and atheists, and all religions not of the book, hindus, bhudists, wiccans etc. There would be no democracy, there would only be one religion enforced by religous police. Sooo, a terrorist is actually a terrorist, a freedom fighter fights for truth, justice, and the American way, freedom of religion, speech, pretty much the American bill of rights or something similar to it. And yes, the russian government is evil, as is the chinese government. Ask the people suppressed by Putin or the people run over by tanks at Tianeman square.
> 
> The terrorists, also, for example, hate the ruling family of Saudi Arabia. Not because they are a democracy, but because they do not live up to shariah themselves. The terrorists do not want to over throw the Saudi government to create a free democracy but to set up their theocratic dictatorship. So that is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. And yes, America has done bad things in the past as well, but in no way can be compared to the evils of the socialists in russia or china. The socialists in russia murdered 25 million people or more, and the Chinese count is about what, 70 million people murdered, not including all the babies murdered with their one child policy. So please, do not try to compare freedom loving America with russia and china.


 
My, what a smart boy you are. I wasn't comparing American with Russian or China I was pointing out was that what you perceive as one things others will perceive as another. It's not the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist that matters, it's what people think they are. There's a lot of people support Al Queda and the Taliban because they do believe they are freedom fighters. Silly comment? maybe but a true one all the same, you just didn't understand it in thinking it was a comparison, it's not.

If I'd been an American in the days of the War of Independance I would probably have been fighting for freedom too, perhaps not but I'm not passing comment on the rights or wrongs of that, I'm passing comment on how the American were *perceived* by the English at the time. it's all about perception, you can't assume that all Russians and all Chinese do regard their governments as evil and want to be rid of them. there is a big movement in Russia to get the communists back into power, that's coming from the people. Whether they are right to want that or not is a different debate. 

Where's your proof in all this, that the 'terrorists' (which ones btw, there are several groups in the world) want to dislodge the Saudis? do you actually have a point of view thought out by yourself alone or are all your views from books you've read and you like tha sound of?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 13, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Slavery was brought to America by the same Europeans you try to compare us to. We eventually ended slavery at the cost of 500,000 dead Americans. And remember, slavery would have ended sooner if not for the democrats of that time. The democrats wanted to re-start the slave trade with Africa, allow slavery in the new states, and went to war on the fear that the first republican president was going to end slavery. Europe, africa, asia and all the countries of the world had slavery. And yes, the gentle native americans had slaves as well, and quite a few tribes were still practicing human sacrifice and cannabalism when the europeans arrived. Remember, they ate some of crew that Columbus left behind. Slavery still exists in Africa for heaven's sake. The real kind, with whips and chains. Still, in the Sudan and Mouritania. The muslim north of Sudan takes slaves from the southern animists and christians so please, try not to throw the slavery card at the United States. We dealt with our inherited from Europe slavery problem back in the 1860's.


 
And how does any of that make it "right?" Or any less evil?

Or anything less than "*American*?"



billcihak said:


> And massacres happened on both sides of the indian and U.S. government clashes.


 

No. The Indians were usually trying to eliminate invaders-*terrorists* in their homeland.









billcihak said:


> *Remember, the Africans sold the slaves*. They are still selling slaves in parts of Africa, so before you blame Europe and America, blame the slave owners in Africa. That is part of the history of slavery that is just beginning to be pondered over. Barak Obama's harvard friend, the one from the beer summit just wrote a book on the role of Africa in the perpetuation of the slave trade.


 
This statement is typical of the European mindset that viewed the African continent as a vast nation of one people-mostly "savages," when the facts were quite different, and "african" slavery and slave trade was most often a case of one nation preying upon another. Most of the African slaves in early America came from West Africa, where coastal trade-dominated by the Portuguese-was easy.



billcihak said:


> . And yes, the gentle native americans had slaves as well, and quite a few tribes were still practicing human sacrifice and cannabalism when the europeans arrived. Remember, they ate some of crew that Columbus left behind. .


 
While some of  my ancestors occasionally ate the hearts of enemies,and human sacrifice did take place in some nation's  religion, that n no way excuses what was done to the natives of the North and South American continents by invading Europeans, nor does it relieve the present daay United States of the fact that it was born in a continuing genocide of aboriginal people from coast to coast. 

As for your comment about Columbus's crew-I can only assume that you mean the 40 men from the Santa Maria he left behnd on Hispaniola. These men fought among themselves, went off searching for gold, and were killed save 11-according to what remains of Columbus's journals. No convincing evidence exists that the natives of the Caribbean were particularly warlike, fierce, or cannibals, even the legendary Caribs, though they did raid the Taino islands, generally to take &#8220;brides.&#8221;  

Remember, Columbus's journals also mention the mermaid (which was likely a manatee) and the cyclops.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 13, 2010)

The irony of bringing the War of Northern Aggression up is that the person who started that war, Mr. Lincoln, would have stood for war crimes had his side lost and he been captured. Esp. given the delight he took in hearing tales from Sherman and Sheridan of their rapine of the South. The actions of those generals, and the troops under them, as well as the actions of General Butler towards the women of New Orleans, are well documented, through official orders, official correspondence, etc. Detailed discussion on that war is buried here in several threads.

As to the Indian massacres, I disagree with the idea they've been debunked. If anything, my information solidifies the blame for them on US troops who were on an authorized mission of removal and extermination approved of by their commanders all the way up to the White House. There's also the fact that Indian Treaties were only good until something of value was found on the land, then the rules changed. This was a constant.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 13, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> The war between the states was not fought over slavery, thats a fallacy. I know that and Im not even American.



Oh, it certainly was fought over slavery.  Every other aspect of the conflict you could bring up as an explanation (tariffs, state's rights, status of new states/territories, etc.) had slavery as the driving conflict.  Slavery was the driving conflict in all of the Compromises (1850, etc.) that averted war previously.  Slavery was woven into the very fabric of the conflict, a conflict that was present at the start of the Nation, and was only deferred and not prevented by the various Constitutional compromises enacted.  The _Confederates themselves _cited the threat to slavery as their reason for seceding (state decrees of secession, Vice President Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone" speech, etc.).  Every Confederate state seceded after the election of Lincoln, _but before he could even take office._  Why?  Because of his stated opposition to extending slavery to new states and territories.  Everything leading up to the war?  Bleeding Kansas and the like?  Slavery as the driving conflict.  Slavery is the only reason the Civil War happened, and why it threatened to happen many times prior to 1861.

The modern insistence that secession and war had nothing to do with slavery only started after war's end, with a number of previous Confederate high ranking soldiers and politicians who began the "Lost Cause" mythology of the Confederacy.  This effort has been unrelenting and continues to this day, abetted by influential historians at various points.  It crops up in odd places, like "Birth of the Nation" and "Gone With the Wind", and even MartialTalk.com.  This effort to rehabilitate the Confederacy and ignore and alter history is deceitful and wrong, although surprisingly effective.  Every claim of the modern Lost Causers (blacks fought for the Confederacy, the North was worse, etc.) has been disproved by modern scholarship.  You even see it in the names used, like "War of Northern Aggression" which is indefensible by the facts, or in claims like Robert E. Lee was anti-slavery (he wasn't).  This is the twisting of history to suit political ends, and I'm sorry to see it has been influential outside the United States.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 13, 2010)

I've expressed my views on that issue, and presented significant supporting evidence and references in the past. US Civil War Myths and Facts


----------



## elder999 (Nov 13, 2010)

And it's not like it *ever* stopped.

[yt]akm3nYN8aG8[/yt]


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 13, 2010)

Actually there were numorous causes of the civil war. Slavery was just one.

I think, Billcihak, that you are such an american patriot that you blind yourself to actual historical fact, of which people have been telling you here.


----------



## billc (Nov 15, 2010)

Thanks Emptyhands for your explanation about slavery's role in the American Civil war.


----------



## billc (Nov 15, 2010)

I understand U.S. history far better than I can explain it in a forum like this.  I just do not automatically assume that the U.S. is on the dark side of every issue.  I look at the world in general, look at the past history of the U.S., and great tragedy has in fact happened here, but I try to see the real world, not an idealized one that puts the U.S. in a worse position than it deserves.  For a nation just over 200 years old, we have done amazing things that the other nations of the world haven't.  That's all.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 15, 2010)

billcihak said:


> For a nation just over 200 years old, we have done amazing things that the other nations of the world haven't. That's all.


 
This is absolutely true and I don't think anyone is disagreeing with it.  I think many of us are actually vehement about our country not committing immoral actions because we realize the US is a great country not as a result of immoral actions, but despite them.  We are a great country because of our ideals.  When we forget those ideals and give in to actions such as torture, we are basically spitting on those ideals that make us great.


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 15, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I understand U.S. history far better than I can explain it in a forum like this.  I just do not automatically assume that the U.S. is on the dark side of every issue.



Nor do I. I am a history major, thinking about doing my masters in history.  So while I know the us has done nasty stuff, well, so has everyone else. And while the US has done lots of good stuff too, so has many other countries. I just had a problem cause some of your posts seemed to put the US on some golden light, above others. They are not. They've done a lot of good and a lot of bad. That doesn't make them the epitamy of evil, nor does it make them gods either. The US btw did use biological warfare as others pointed out. 



			
				billcihak said:
			
		

> I look at the world in general, look at the past history of the U.S., and great tragedy has in fact happened here, but I try to see the real world, not an idealized one that puts the U.S. in a worse position than it deserves.  For a nation just over 200 years old, we have done amazing things that the other nations of the world haven't.  That's all.



Sure they have. I agree with this too.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 15, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> I just had a problem cause some of your posts seemed to put the US on some golden light, above others.



We Americans may not be better or worse than other countries in our behavior, but we certainly are superior in claiming to be better.


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 15, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> We Americans may not be better or worse than other countries in our behavior, but we certainly are superior in claiming to be better.



Yeah, unfortunately. But that is often what causes a lot of dislike towards you. Also unfortunately. I visited the US in 1992 and when I did have to say, I liked America.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 17, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> *You mean the very same Constitution that counted a slave as 3/5ths of a person?* The very same that had to be amended to allow blacks and women to vote? The early colonists were only interested (with some exceptions) for freedom for themselves. They were humans, not sainted demigods.


 
That's not exactly true.  The text of the Constitution reads:

_Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned__ among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons._

This says nothing about slaves being 3/5ths of a person.  In fact, the word slave is not mentioned in the unamended Constitution at all.  What this was doing was giving the measurement as to how many representatives would be allowed in each state, with free Persons =1, and and all others being 3/5ths.  

In fact, if  you read the wording, *three fifths of all other Persons, *it implys that slaves were people, not 3/5ths human and 2/5ths something else.  

I know that's not the point of the conversation, just gets old hearing that passed around repeatedly.


----------

