# Obama Team Feared Coup If He Prosecuted War Crmes



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2011)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Obama-Team-Feared-Coup-If-by-Andrew-Kreig-110907-156.html



> President-Elect Obama's advisers feared in 2008 that authorities would oust him in a coup and that Republicans would block his policy agenda if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a law school dean who served as one of Obama's top transition advisers.
> 
> 
> University of California at Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley, Jr., above, the sixth highest-ranking member of the 2008 post-election transition team preparing Obama's administration, revealed the team's thinking on Sept. 2 in moderating a forum on 9/11 held by his law school (also known as Boalt Hall). Edley was seeking to explain Obama's "look forward" policy on suspected Bush-era law-breaking that the president-elect announced on a TV talk show in January 2009.
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2011)

If this is true, who is in charge of the US?


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 7, 2011)

this is not true, this is a classic piece of mis-information released to try and win back the far left that has turned its back on obama


IMO


----------



## granfire (Sep 7, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If this is true, who is in charge of the US?



Not the President...


----------



## David43515 (Sep 7, 2011)

It seems a pretty unrealistic fear if you ask me. We Americans rant and rave when our government does something unpopular, but we have rule of law. And to suggest that our military would forcibly oust a sitting president is not only "out there", but dammned insulting IMO.
Nice to know what kind of people we put in charge.


----------



## granfire (Sep 7, 2011)

David43515 said:


> It seems a pretty unrealistic fear if you ask me. We Americans rant and rave when our government does something unpopular, but we have rule of law. And to suggest that our military would forcibly oust a sitting president is not only "out there", but dammned insulting IMO.
> Nice to know what kind of people we put in charge.



then again, they are sworn to combat any enemy, foreign or domestic....


----------



## David43515 (Sep 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> then again, they are sworn to combat any enemy, foreign or domestic....



And some of the politicions we`ve had on both sides of the aisle in the last few years might qualify....but like I said, we follow the rule of law. We`ve always had a legal meathod in place to remove someone who isn`t doing their job or is doing it in ways most of us don`t agree with. No matter how bad our political disagreements have gotten, you don`t see tanks in the streets in the US. We either vote them out, ***** and moan until they stop, or prosecute them for doing what we hate. I`ve known alot of military personel who didn`t like their commander in cheif, but I`ve never met one who would gve serious thought to trying to remove him from power. (Thank heaven for a system of checks and balances. I just wish they`d stop chipping away at it.)


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 8, 2011)

cant you see? this is the obama team saying "we wanted to, but we didnt cause we were afraid of like...riots and stuff....."

its crap (since it could never happen here)
and it is a weak *** lie (which is ok, the far far left falls for weak lies all the time, IE the "truthers")


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 8, 2011)

While I don't think this would have happened, think for a minute.  Obama was the first "black" president.  A large percentage of the right wing believed him to be not American, Muslim, and/or militant anti-white. Any prosecution of previous administration members for war crimes would have fed those misconceptions greatly.  Is it such a stretch to think that even in the US there would have been people in the military and government that would have acted to stop Obama in an unlawful fashion?  While I think our laws and cooler heads would have prevailed, look around at the animousity in politics and tell me there isn't a possibility of the scenario playing out.  Now also understand that the transition team was also super sensitive to all of this and were working to diminish any upheaval.  It isn't a stretch by any means to think they honestly believed what Edley has stated.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 8, 2011)

I guess more importantly would have been what "war crimes" are they talking about and if they really existed than the general public would probably back the decision as well.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> I guess more importantly would have been what "war crimes" are they talking about and if they really existed than the general public would probably back the decision as well.



Sadly, the war crimes we are talking about haven't created much of a stir with the public.  Unlawful torture sanctioned at the highest levels of government, unlawful warrantless surveillance.  The public knows, and the public doesn't much care.

So much for the "rule of law nation."


----------



## granfire (Sep 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Sadly, the war crimes we are talking about haven't created much of a stir with the public.  Unlawful torture sanctioned at the highest levels of government, unlawful warrantless surveillance.  The public knows, and the public doesn't much care.
> 
> So much for the "rule of law nation."



I guess it's different when the other side is the bad guy....


----------



## Buka (Sep 8, 2011)

The other guy is always the Infidel.


----------



## granfire (Sep 8, 2011)

Buka said:


> The other guy is always the Infidel.



no, I mean my war crimes are not as bad as yours.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 8, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If this is true, who is in charge of the US?


The voters.


----------



## granfire (Sep 8, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> The voters.



:lfao:


----------



## MPC1257 (Sep 8, 2011)

I guess "war crimes" would apply if we were fighting a conventional war where both sides adhered to the "rules of engagement".  Since this is a war on terror that was brought to a much higher level on 9/11, I have no problem with our "war crimes".  That's my opinion and possibly many other people's opinions also.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

Mpc1257, I agree with you.  Too many people are stretching the definition of war crimes to the point where it does a disservice to the victims of real "War Crimes."

I have to say the guy who said they were afraid of a coup should never have been near any administration.  He is obviously desperately in need of counseling for paranoid delusions.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> :lfao:


I see you think we don't matter, but the guy with the majority vote generally wins. Sure the electoral college can over ride it, but we had a Reagan Era because the voter's were voting for him and not Carter.
sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Mpc1257, I agree with you.  Too many people are stretching the definition of war crimes to the point where it does a disservice to the victims of real "War Crimes."
> 
> I have to say the guy who said they were afraid of a coup should never have been near any administration.  He is obviously desperately in need of counseling for paranoid delusions.


Thinking a coup will never happen is a sure way to get coup-ed. LOL


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

Americans who suffered under real war crimes:

http://olotliny.wordpress.com/2009/...-of-honor-recipient-prisoner-of-war-survivor/

http://www.looktruenorth.com/securi...orsness-torture-thoughts-on-memorial-day.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 8, 2011)

Americans probably won't need a coup to give up our right to a military dictatorship. If another attack happens, people will beg for it. 

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

You know, this country has been through a few "problems," in its time and I have to say that fear of the military assuming power is not something we have to worry about.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Mpc1257, I agree with you.  Too many people are stretching the definition of war crimes to the point where it does a disservice to the victims of real "War Crimes."



If you (and MPC1257) don't think torture counts as a war crime, then you are an immoral and degenerate human being.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

Memorandum to senior supervisor:

As concerns the project of monitoring civillian entertainment/hobby sites on the internet, apparently it is beginning to pay off.  Several members of my target site, Martialtalk.com, which I have been monitoring under the ficitonal name "Bill CIhak" have begun to probe too closely to our current activities.  It seems the threat of assuming control of governmental operations if the new president failed to dismiss any attempt to pursue war crimes against our operatives has leaked.  I am forewarding the identities and backgrounds of all the sources of this information from the site "Martialtalk.com."  This memo is to be labeled "ABOVE TOP SECRET"  when it is passed on to the higher command structure.  

Agent 123
Hugs and kisses


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

Waterboarding is fine by me, real, actual torture is not.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

I'll be in the same camp as Leo Thorseness and Bud Day on waterboarding any day of the week.  those two guys know what they are talking about when it comes to the difference between real torture and waterboarding.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

And for the record,  http://theacru.org/pdfs/TheInterrogationMemos.pdf



> The Interrogation Memos:
> Shall We Be Clueless on Terrorism?
> By
> Peter Ferrara, John Armor, Ken Klukowski, and Carlos Ramirez
> ...





> We have reviewed the four challenged legal memos. As we will
> discuss below, they add up to 124 single spaced pages of careful legal
> reasoning reviewing all applicable statutes, treaties, cases, and word
> definitions, and applying that law to a thorough discussion of the CIA&#8217;s
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2011)

I went and read the original article carefully.  This was not easy to do, because quite honestly, it's not well-written.  And it's simply being quoted over and over again from one blog to another; a true echo chamber.  It gets worse each time it's repeated.  Now it is mostly _"Obama Feared Coup,"_ with absolutely was not said by anyone but the blog writers themselves.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Team-Feared-Coup-If-by-Andrew-Kreig-110907-156.html



> Edley responded to my request for additional information by providing a description of the transition team's fears. Edley said that transition officials, not Obama, agreed that he faced the possibility of a "revolt."



Note the use of the word 'revolt' and not 'coup'.  They are very different words, and mean very different things.  A coup is a revolt, of course, but it means that the government it toppled by illegal means.  A 'revolt' is:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revolt



> re·volt  (r-vlt)
> v. re·volt·ed, re·volt·ing, re·volts
> v.intr.
> 1. To attempt to overthrow the authority of the state; rebel.
> ...



Note that definition #1 above is the same as an attempt at a coup.  But none of the other definitions are anything like that.  One meaning I find most likely in Edley's response to the author is #2 above, _"To oppose or refuse to accept something."_

Note also that it was the transition team that feared this revolt; not Obama.  Yet many of the echo-chamber blogs now headline that Obama himself feared a 'coup'.

Not often quoted in the various blogs is this bit:

http://www.justice-integrity.org/in...h-if-he-prosecuted-war-crimes&catid=44:myblog



> Edley responded that Obama&#8217;s team feared that leadership in the U.S. armed forces, the CIA and NSA might &#8220;revolt&#8221; if the new Obama administration prosecuted war crimes by U.S. authorities and lower-ranking personnel. Also, Edley told Harman that his fellow decision-makers on Obama's team feared that a prosecution inquiry could lead to Republican efforts to thwart the Obama agenda in Congress.



OK, so what I'm reading here is that Edley (and the transition team, NOT OBAMA) feared that the military leadership (not the troops), the CIA, and the NSA might 'revolt' AND he adds that there was a fear that a prosecution might thwart the Obama agenda in Congress.

Now, tell me this. If you fear a COUP, meaning your government has been utterly overthrown and the president is no longer president, in what way do you ALSO fear that your president's AGENDA is going to be thwarted in Congress?  If you are ousted in a COUP, you haven't GOT an AGENDA anymore, do you?

So I am satisfied that what Edley was saying was that the transition team feared that if they instigated war crimes investigations, they'd have huge problems with angry military leaders and the heads of the CIA and NSA (and not surprising, since it would be their asses on the chopping block).  And the backlash of an investigation in Congress would harm the Obama agenda right off the bat.  Revolt?  Yes, in the sense that some senior generals and admirals and the head of the CIA and NSA would say _"Shove it up your butt, Mister President,"_ forcing them to be fired and causing all kinds of bad will with Congress right off the bat.

At no point did Edley say or imply that the transition team feared a coup - and definitely not that Obama feared one.

I wish people had better reading skills.  It is pretty clear to me that the first person to blog this read 'revolt' as 'coup' and it was off to the races.

It's really kind of sad.

And both sides do this; this is not a slam on the left or the right.  Idiots with agendas abound. Nobody gives a crap about facts, it's all about attacks.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Waterboarding is fine by me, real, actual torture is not.



You know perfectly well what it is.  If I believed in God like you do, I might be afraid that he was actually watching me and wanted me to take his commands seriously.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

Yes, I do know what waterboarding is.  I know how the Japanese used it, how the Kmer Rouge used it and how the inquisition used it.  I also know the actual technique that was used on the three terrorists leaders.  It was nothing like what the Japanes, or the others did.  As Leo thorseness and Bud day say, it is rough treatment but it is not torture.  Anything that allows you to towel off, prey to Mecca and then go have a nice religously regulated dinner afterward, is not torture.

The actual procedure used to interrogate the prisoners, and what was allowed is in that memo I posted.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

From the linked memo on the interrogations:




> We also discuss below the enhanced interrogation techniques utilized and their results. The most
> controversial of these techniques, waterboarding, was used on just three of the most high level
> detainees who were all senior terrorist leaders involved in high level attacks on Americans and
> U.S. targets, and who had information regarding planned future attacks. Contrary to some
> ...


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

I am definitely against the practices in the following video:






the activity starting at 53 seconds is tough to watch.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 8, 2011)

Revolt or coup?  Consider that some of the highest ranking people in the military believe that a coup is possible.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml



> Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United  States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large  casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a  military form of government.
> 
> Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate  Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the  men&#8217;s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.
> 
> ...



Is that a coup or a revolt or did we simply let our freedoms go?  Perhaps this could be called a propaganda coup?

The original article reminds me of the Bill Hicks bit where the newly elected president is shown the secret angle from the JFK assassination and it become clear who exactly blew his head off.  THAT was a coup, btw.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2011)

And, of course, the authorized torture extends far beyond waterboarding, which is what senior officials were willing to admit to.  Read the Taguba Report by Major General Antonio Taguba.  Read about the extraordinary rendition of suspects to Syria or other friendly dictatorships for torture, or the black sites outside the country where we did the torture ourselves.

For the sensibilities of the forum, I won't post pictures or details.  I will leave you this exchange with John Yoo, who provided legal cover for the Administration's torture policies: 
*
"Cassel: *If the President deems that he&#8217;s got to  			torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the  			person&#8217;s child, there is no law that can stop him?
*Yoo: *No treaty.
*Cassel: *Also no law by Congress. That is what you  			wrote in the August 2002 memo.
*Yoo: *I think it depends on why the President thinks  			he needs to do that."

Vile, inhuman, and illegal.  Unfortunately President Obama by his inaction has legitimated their actions.  Torture still remains on the table for future Presidents, and it wouldn't surprise me if the current one was using it too.  Anyone who claims for themselves a shred of morality or decency should desire to see these lawbreakers punished, and for the United States to forswear all uses of torture in the future.

Sadly, the defenders and the public at large have revealed their character.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

Everyone knows that the fashion industry is behind all of the  major political assasinations throughout history.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

A quick search on the Taguba Report:

http://www.caci.com/iraq/truth_error.shtml



> *Error*The Taguba report is based on an in-depth and
> detailed investigation into the intelligence gathering and interrogation
> practices at Abu Ghraib. *FALSE**Truth*The Taguba report was *not* based on an
> investigation of interrogators, interrogation practices, or intelligence
> ...


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 8, 2011)

There is no justification for torture.  Just because the other side does it, does not mean we should.  We say we are the god guys.  There are things we would never do because we are the good guys.  However, we then proceed to do the things that we said we would never do.  Either we are a nation of laws or we are not.  There is no in between.

As far as water boarding, we as a nation have agreed that it is torture.  We signed treaties to that effect and have prosecuted both foreign nationals and our own citizens in the past for it.  Now we say it is legal if the president says it is?  BS.  People are afraid and justifying behaviour we woud never condone otherwise.

_*"Cassel: *If the President deems that he&#8217;s got to  			torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the  			person&#8217;s child, there is no law that can stop him?
*Yoo: *No treaty.
*Cassel: *Also no law by Congress. That is what you  			wrote in the August 2002 memo.
*Yoo: *I think it depends on why the President thinks  			he needs to do that."

_This is disgusting on so many levels.  Thereare some things you just do not do, being amoral human being.  Otherwise you become the darkness you pretend to fight.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

From congressional medal of honor winner Leo Thorsness on being tortured, and how he would use waterboarding to save lives:

*



			Having been there, it is fact to me. While in torture I had the sickening feeling deep within my soul that maybe I would tell the truth as that horrendous pain increased. It is unpleasant, but I can still dredge up the memory of that window of truth feeling as the pain level intensified.
		
Click to expand...

*


> *Our world is not completely good or evil. To proclaim we will never use any form of enhanced interrogations causes our friends to think we are naïve and eases our enemies' recruitment of radical terrorists to plot attacks on innocent kids, men and women - or any infidel. If I were to catch a "mad bomber" running away from an explosive I would not hesitate a second to use "enhanced interrogation," including waterboarding, if it would save lives of innocent people. *
> *Our naïveté does not impress radical terrorists like those who slit the throat of Daniel Pearl in 2002 simply because he was Jewish, and broadcast the sight and sound of his dying gurgling. Publicizing our enhanced interrogation techniques only emboldens those who will hurt us.
> *


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 8, 2011)

Your tax dollars at work...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/busted-pentagon-why-the-p_b_209046.html



> Obama is refusing to release of detainee abuse depict, among other  sexual tortures,  an American soldier raping a female detainee and a  male translator raping a  male prisoner. The paper claims the photos  also show *anal rape of prisoners with foreign objects such as wires and  lightsticks*.





> As I wrote last year in my piece on sex crime against detainees, 'Sex Crimes in the White House,"  *highly perverse, systematic sexual torture and sexual humiliation* was,  original documents reveal, directed from the top; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld  and Rice were present in meetings where sexual humiliation was * discussed as policy*;





> And scores of detainees who have told their stories to rights  organizations have told independently confirming accounts of a highly  consistent practice of sexual torture at US-held prisons, including  having their *genitals slashed with razors; electrodes placed on  genitals; and being told US military would find and rape their mothers.*





> But what is far scarier about these images Obama refuses to release and  that the Pentagon is likely to be lying about now is that it is not the  evidence of  lower-level soldiers being corrupted by power - it is proof  of the fact that  the most senior leadership - Bush, Rumsfeld and  Cheney, with Rice's collusion - *were running a global sex crime  trafficking ring with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Baghram as the  holding  sites*.





> Probably dozens of prisoners were sodomized with lightsticks. In the  highly credible and very fully documented Physicians for Human Rights  report, Broken Bodies, Broken Lives,  doctors investigated the wounds and scars of former prisoners, did  analysis of the injuries, assessed the independent verification of their  stories, and reported that indeed many detainees had in fact been  *savagely raped with lightsticks and by other objects inserted into their  rectums, many sustaining internal injuries*.





> This same report confirms that female military or other unidentified  US-affiliated personnel were used to sexually abuse detainees by  *smearing menstrual blood on their faces, seizing their genitals  violently, or rubbing them against their will in a sexual manner.*



These are documented war crimes and official policy.  So, lets please STOP talking about waterboarding.  THAT is just a political diversion from the stuff that everyone would recognize as torture.

Here's what the top lawyers in the White House say they can legally do...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2006/01/12/alito_bush



> "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by  *crushing the testicles of the person's child*, there is no law that can  stop him?"


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> We say we are the god guys.  There are things we would never do because we are the good guys.  However, we then proceed to do the things that we said we would never do.  Either we are a nation of laws or we are not.  There is no in between.



Most people in this country don't really believe it.  Their actions belie the assertion.  "The Good Guys" and "liberty" and "freedom" and "nation of laws" have become just another tribal marker, a _brand_ by which some define themselves without ever engaging in the hard work of actually living it.  They don't believe in being Good, at least when their atavistic impulses go against what being good would require, and they certainly don't believe in freedom and liberty.  And there can be no finger pointing at a discrete group.  The American people as a whole are fully complicit.  We could demand change, we could demand that our government live up to the hype, but we prefer the empty and easy words to the difficult reality.  Truly, we have inherited the situation and the government we deserve.  Shame on us.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

From another victim of actual war crimes, Congressional medal of honor winner Bud Day:



> I just talked to MOH holder Leo Thorsness http://www.pbs.org/weta/americanvalor/stories/thorsness.html who was also in my sq in jail&#8230;. as was John McCain &#8230; *and we agree that McCain does not speak for the POW group when he claims that Al Gharib was torture&#8230; or that &#8220;water boarding&#8221; is torture.
> *
> Point out the stupidity of the claims that water boarding &#8230;which has no after effect&#8230; is torture.  If it got the Arab to cough up the story about how he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC &#8230; hurrah for the guy who poured the water.
> BUD DAY, MOH


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Vile, inhuman, and illegal. .



and your legal credentials would be............................................?


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 8, 2011)

everyone in this thread who have just talked about america, and how bad we are these days can get the **** out if they really feel that way. 

hey, i dont stay in a movie i dont like

i dont watch shows i disagree with

you think america is a bad place? quit yapping and start packing

nut up or shut up


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 8, 2011)

Would be nice, but the islands I keep landing on get gobbled up by the Empire.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> and your legal credentials would be............................................?



Genius.  Would you believe me if I said theft and murder were illegal too, or would you solicit a lawyer's opinion first?


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> you think america is a bad place? quit yapping and start packing



No.

A perfect demonstration of my point how some would rather simply call themselves Good rather than struggling to actually be that way.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

You could live on one of these Islands:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html



> Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

Here is a scenario:

An unlawful enemy combatant, a known leader of a terrorist network, is captured on the battle field, in a foreign country.  It is determined that this terrorist leader is involved in planning attacks around the world.  Intelligence sources have information that this terrorist leader has launched an attack that will occur in the next two weeks and the target will be a civillian transportation site in either the U.S. or Great Britain.  If successful, the attack may kill or injure hundreds of people.  How many people on this site would okay waterboarding, as performed by the U.S. and detailed in the above linked memo?  It is not the waterboarding done by the Japanese, the Inquisition or the Kmer rouge or any other type of waterboarding, but is the type described in the memo.

To add a little to the debate, in the attack at least one, innocent human being will be killed or horribly maimed in the attack, with the possibility that hundreds more will suffer the same fate.  I would Okay the waterboarding of that terrorist in those circumstances.  Would you?


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I would Okay the waterboarding of that terrorist in those circumstances.  Would you?



Only if I wanted to increase the chances of false information and dead civilians.

Even if it worked though - again, are you actually interested in following the law and being good at all times, or only when it is expedient?  The law is _for _times of crisis and emergency when the impulse to ignore everything that makes us good and civilized is at its highest.  What good is the law or our morality if we throw it out the window every time circumstances get tough?  Of course, law ignored during crisis tends to become normalized and ignored during the non-crisis times too.  Civilization is a fragile structure that must be built up and defended with hard work at all times.  It is all too easy to come crumbling down.

We could probably decrease dead innocents if we turned the US into a fully militarized police state.  Or decrease crime with intrusive surveillance in our homes.  Or decrease strife and discord by outlawing political speech.  I'm sure you wouldn't be too hard to convince.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 8, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> everyone in this thread who have just talked about america, and how bad we are these days can get the **** out if they really feel that way.
> 
> hey, i dont stay in a movie i dont like
> 
> ...


This is not an argument. Its ok to disagree with what is going on. That is what being American is about, and if you want a third world torturing dictatorship, perhaps you should move to one, and let us get back to bitching about how things are being run. 
Sean


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I would Okay the waterboarding of that terrorist in those circumstances.  Would you?



Oh, and if for some reason I did decide that breaking the law and torturing unarmed prisoners was necessary, I wouldn't be a pants-******** coward about it like Bush and his lackeys.  He and they hid and lied about their actions to the fullest extent possible in an attempt to avoid accountability.  If it was me, Bill my boy, I would not have lied and hid like a criminal coward.  The moment the crisis was over, I would have addressed the nation and told them exactly what I did and why.  Then I would have resigned, and pled guilty to the charges that I would insist be brought against me so that the entire nation could see that not even a President is above the law.

Why would i do all that?  Because despite the stupid assumptions of the "love it or leave it" crowd, I actually care very deeply about my homeland, and want to see it become a better place in actuality, not in empty words.  My responsibility as a leader and my own beliefs would demand that I live in a nation that does not normalize torture and law breaking by the powerful.  Being accountable for my unlawful actions would be the only way to prevent that.

If Bush had acted like a true leader in that fashion, then I could respect, if not agree with, what he had done and believe he had the best interests of the country at heart.  Instead he lied, his followers have gone all in on defending a regime of torture and contempt for the rule of law, and we are now left with the consequences for many years to come.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

On SERE training, using waterboarding on our special forces candidates and the success rate of getting the toughest of the tough to cooperate:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/sere_training_and_torture/



> > However, that wasnt the point, as psychologically the waterboard produced capitulation and compliance with instructor demands 100 percent of the time. During debriefings following training, students who had experienced the waterboard expressed extreme avoidance attitudes such as a likelihood to further comply with any demands made of them if brought near the waterboard again.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

From the passion of the response to waterboarding, the least harmful of almost all of the enhanced interrogation techniques, I have to assume that everyone who would prohibit waterboarding is also a pacifist who is completely against the use of armed force to defend the country from enemies as well.  That is if they want to be consistent in their moral stance.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 8, 2011)

Why is this thread still going? Bill Mattocks killed the idiotic, loony, conspiracy theory, two friggin pages ago. Shut up! 





Bill Mattocks said:


> I went and read the original article carefully.  This was not easy to do, because quite honestly, it's not well-written.  And it's simply being quoted over and over again from one blog to another; a true echo chamber.  It gets worse each time it's repeated.  Now it is mostly _"Obama Feared Coup,"_ with absolutely was not said by anyone but the blog writers themselves.
> 
> http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Team-Feared-Coup-If-by-Andrew-Kreig-110907-156.html
> 
> ...


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

Other issues were brought up and as long as Makalakumu doesn't mind, we'll keep exploring them.  So, stay if you want, otherwise, leave us to our little discussion.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

Also, for those interested, Dick Cheney's new book:

http://www.amazon.com/My-Time-Perso...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315529419&sr=1-1



> [h=3]Product DescriptionIn his unmistakable voice and with an
> insider's eye on history, former Vice President Dick Cheney tells the story of
> his life and the nearly four decades he has spent at the center of American
> politics and power.
> ...


[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

Honestly, I don't get it.  Some people are discussing something and a third party doesn't like it...and feels the need to comment on it rather than go to a different thread.  Where does that come from?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Why is this thread still going? Bill Mattocks killed the idiotic, loony, conspiracy theory, two friggin pages ago. Shut up!



This thread actually ended for *you *before it even started.  LOL!  "Revolt" can mean many things, duh...

If people want to discuss whether the Bush administration and their anal raping, kiddo testicle crushing ways are war crimes, by all means discuss.  It should be obvious though.  And it should also be obvious that people who would do this, would do anything, including an outright coup.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 8, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Would be nice, but the islands I keep landing on get gobbled up by the Empire.




try cuba, no one tries to GET there


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 8, 2011)

on an issues with nebulous (at best) legality, some legal experience would lend one's opinion some clout.




Empty Hands said:


> Genius.  Would you believe me if I said theft and murder were illegal too, or would you solicit a lawyer's opinion first?


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 8, 2011)

no, seriously, if you think we are so bad, and it is soooo bad here

leave

i woulnt live in an area I didnt like.

I mean, if i dont like the smell of cheesesteak, i wouldnt move to philly

if you dislike americas actions so much, leave

it is very simple





Empty Hands said:


> No.
> 
> A perfect demonstration of my point how some would rather simply call themselves Good rather than struggling to actually be that way.


----------



## billc (Sep 8, 2011)

I first heard about the following case on Dennis Prager's radio show.  He was interviewing the author of Black Hawk Down and the author brought up this case.  In Frankfurt Germany, they had a child killer in custody.  He refused to tell the police where he was keeping an 11 year old boy.  After a questioning the guy, the deputy police chief authorized a subordinate to threaten the suspect with torture if he didn't tell them where the boy was.  The guy gave up the location on just the threat of torture, unfortunately, he had already killed the boy.  Here is the article:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1119490,00.html



> Daschner allegedly ordered officers to threaten the suspected kidnapper of 11-year-old Jakob von Metzler, Magnus Gäfgen, with "intense pain" during questioning in October 2002. Gäfgen, who had given the police a number of false locations for the boy's whereabouts, immediately told officers where he had hid Jakob's body and belongings after the threats. A Frankfurt judge sentenced Gäfgen, who had kidnapped the boy Sept. 27, 2002 and received &#8364;1 million ($1.26 million) in ransom money, to 15 years to life in prison on July 29, 2003





> *Deputy chief says threats were crucial to finding boy*
> The 50-year-old police veteran has defended his actions. He said his threats to employ a martial arts expert to hurt Gäfgen were necessary to locate Jakob, who police believed was still alive. Gäfgen told them after his confession that he had killed the boy four days before police found the body on Oct. 2, 2002.
> He was backed initially by Frankfurt Police Chief Harald Weiss-Bollandt. But Weiss-Bollandt dropped his support as prosecutors began gathering evidence.
> International human rights organizations, like Amnesty International, as well as the police union, have greeted the decision by Frankfurt's chief prosecutor.
> "We hope that the decision will also make clear that torture, in any case and without restraint, is not allowed and will continue not to be allowed," said Wolfgang Genz of Amnesty International Germany, according to wire reports.



This case is a real life ticking bomb case, with the life of an 11 year old boy hanging in the balance.  The boy was already murdered, but the police did not know that at the time of the questioning of the suspect.  What would you do?  Remember, there was just the threat of pain, no real pain was ever inflicted.  Since this is a civillian case, I could not condone waterboarding, but  I also would not have punished the men involved since no real torture happened.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 8, 2011)

its always different when it is thier kid on the line


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> on an issues with nebulous (at best) legality, some legal experience would lend one's opinion some clout.



If there is any legal doubt about anally raping people with flashlights or crushing testicles, then there is something seriously wrong with the legal system of that country.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I first heard about the following case on Dennis Prager's radio show.  He was interviewing the author of Black Hawk Down and the author brought up this case.  In Frankfurt Germany, they had a child killer in custody.  He refused to tell the police where he was keeping an 11 year old boy.  After a questioning the guy, the deputy police chief authorized a subordinate to threaten the suspect with torture if he didn't tell them where the boy was.  The guy gave up the location on just the threat of torture, unfortunately, he had already killed the boy.  Here is the article:
> 
> http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1119490,00.html
> 
> ...



Waterboarding is the least of the tortures the Bush Administration approved, but it is the one that gets the most attention.

Regardless, about your argument, the Rule of Law protects everyone equally.  It even protects the bad guys sometimes.  The reason why is because societies without the Rule of Law turn into complete hell holes.  If we can make one excuse to torture, we can make another.  For example, it used to just be okay to torture the terrorists.  Now, according to your example, it's okay to torture kidnappers.  Next it will be whoever else society rationalizes.  It's a slippery slope that has proven itself again and again.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> no, seriously, if you think we are so bad, and it is soooo bad here
> 
> leave
> 
> ...



It's not so easy for the sheeple to leave their tax farms.  If you haven't tried, then you don't know what kind of barriers are erected when it comes to emigration.  Essentially, another country has to want you there.  Americans are, on the average, dumb.  We speak one language and do it poorly.  Our general education system sucks and most of our professional licenses don't transfer.  We are hated abroad.  People hear an American accent and assume you are a warmongering fool with medieval attitudes in regards to people, religion, and science.  Americans are swimming in debt and most countries don't want to take someone in who might have to be economically supported later.  Lastly, the American government sinks deep claws into it's tax slaves.  In order to pay for the rampant warfare and wellfare they make it very difficult to simply pay taxes in the new country in which you are living.  

Leaving for most people is just not an option and is very daunting for the people who can.  It takes time and planning and more time and more planning and you still might not be successful.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> no, seriously, if you think we are so bad, and it is soooo bad here
> 
> leave
> 
> ...



Sorry, this advice is pure crap.  If you don't like what your country is doing, say something!  Work to change it!  It is the patriot that sees lacking in his home and works to change it.  In fact, that is built into our form of government.  Telling people to leave if they don't like what America is doing is...well un-American.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Sorry, this advice is pure crap.  If you don't like what your country is doing, say something!  Work to change it!  It is the patriot that sees lacking in his home and works to change it.  In fact, that is built into our form of government.  Telling people to leave if they don't like what America is doing is...well un-American.



The spirit in which this advice was given is not productive.  Is essentially like saying, "if you don't like it, get the **** out."  Yeah, that's being a responsible citizen...

On the other hand, eventually people do have to make a decision.  When the society has moved to a point where the social contract is broken, what is the point of living in that society anymore?  Moving is a valid and valuable option.  It's something that people should consider if they look around and completely disagree with the direction the society is going and have no political outlets to change anything.

That said, moving is not as easy as it sounds.  The roadblocks to getting out are enormous, so if you are even considering this, start planning now.  You won't be able to simply pull up the stakes and run when the society really turns to ****.  Another country will send you back if you haven't done the work.  People always say, "oh yeah, well I'm just going to move to Canada."  And I have to laugh.  These people don't have a clue.

Moving is an option, but it is not an option that people can exercise spontaneously.


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

In the police case this is what I said in my post:



> Since this is a civillian case, I could not condone waterboarding, but I also would not have punished the men involved since no real torture happened.



And by "no real torture happened..." I mean they never touched the child killer, they just threatened that they would begin to beat him up, but they never laid a hand on him.

Where exactly did you get the info. on the rape and testicle crushing being U.S. interrogation policy?  I've seen a bit about what they were allowed to do and those two items were not on the list.


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

I believe the unlawful enemy combatant is only recently covered by the Geneva convention protections.  We always treat all prisoners of war according to Geneva, but the unlawful enemy combatants were not supposed to be covered in order to protect our soldiers and the civilians in war zones from war crimes.  By protecting the unlawful combatant, you are degrading the protections offered by Geneva.  Soldiers need to understand that if they violate the laws of war, then they are outside the protections offered by the conventions, in that way, you might reduce the possibility of soldiers abusing civilians in war zones.  By allowing unlawful combatants the same protections as the soldiers of nations, you allow them to commit atrocities and still be covered by the conventions.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

did that happen?

cus if it didnt happen, than you are blowing meaningless smoke. If all this ******** is just over some lawyer giving an opinion, then either prove him wrong, if he is, or do something about it. 



Makalakumu said:


> If there is any legal doubt about anally raping people with flashlights or crushing testicles, then there is something seriously wrong with the legal system of that country.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

my larger point is the constant "gripe gripe moan moan complain" is a waste of air.

DO SOMETHING

lots of options

file charges against that guy that offended you

call your congressman and ask why they having filed charges

make noise, get involved, move, but just DO SOMETHING

or just gripe on a message board

guess which one accomplishes more?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2011)

Read the thread. It's reported and verified by doctors.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

i would love to see any proof that it was US policy that rape was ok


not an accusation, PROOF


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2011)

The guy who interpreted the law for the White House, says that crushing the testicles of children in front of there parents is okay. If its not against the law, its fair game.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

did it happen or not?


----------



## cdunn (Sep 9, 2011)

For what it's worth: Some available medical evidence about what was actually done, not authorized or unauthorized, at Guantanamo.


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

From an article about the exams:



> [h=2]Health of detainees prior to detention not known[/h]Physicians for Human Rights' medical examiners did not have access to the 11 patients' medical histories prior to their imprisonment, so it was not possible to know whether any of the prisoners' ailments, disabilities and scars pre-dated their confinement. The U.S. military says an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members, if captured, to assert they were tortured during interrogation.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

and the only evidence of any of those 11, ELEVEN, not 1100, not 11,000, ELEVEN accusations is the accusations themselves, but hey, the enemy NEVER lies about how they are treated............................from that report


"He denied having been beaten during the lengthy interrogations or while being held in the interrogation room. Youssef described these episodes as some of his most painful experiences at Guantánamo. "


so...NOT being beaten was the most painfull thing? yeah, ok. my give a **** is starting towear thin......but it gets better

"He was chained and forced to assume stressful positions; at times, ice-water was poured on him and, at 
other times, loud music was played. He was deprived 
of access to the toilet and time for prayer"

not allowed to pray?


THOSE BASTARDS


give me a ****ing BREAK. I was treated worse in bootcamp


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

A quick search, well, you have to go pretty far into the google search to get past all the alleged torture links, and here is a book on Gitmo:

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Gitmo-Story-Behind-Guantanamo/dp/006176230X

[h=1]Inside Gitmo: The True Story Behind the Myths of Guantanamo Bay[/h]



> The U.S. military detention center at GuantÁnamo Bay&#8212;known to the public as Gitmo&#8212;has been called the American Gulag, a scene of medieval horrors where innocent farmers and goat herders swept up in Afghanistan and Iraq have been sequestered, tortured, and abused for years on end without access to legal counsel or basic medical services.
> Gordon Cucullu, a retired army colonel, was so appalled by these reports that he decided to see for himself. In a series of visits he inspected every corner of the camp and interviewed dozens of personnel, from guards and interrogators to cooks and nurses. The result&#8212;coming just as the Obama administration wants to close the facility&#8212;is a riveting description of daily life for both prisoners and guards. Cucullu describes the six camps reserved for different levels of compliance, details the treatment of prisoners, and examines their experiences in detail, including the techniques used to interrogate them, the food they eat, their medical care, how they communicate with one another, and the many ingenious ways they contrive to assault and injure their guards.
> While some prisoners were indeed treated harshly in the early days, when the hastily built camp was flooded with battlefield captures and fears ran high of another 9/11-style attack, Cucullu finds that these excesses were quickly corrected.
> Despite what the public has heard, these are not innocent goatherds but dedicated jihadists whose overriding goal&#8212;as they themselves candidly say&#8212;is to kill Americans. Should they now be released to return to the fight, perhaps on American soil? Read this book and decide for yourself.


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

And here, a story of the female guards at Gitmo:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/may/04/day_life_guantanamo_guard/




> "Good morning sir, Chief Simmons Camp 6. We have 112 assigned, 112 present. Last night detainee 765 requested onions and parsley on his salad and requested to see the camp commander regarding his request. 844 wants a better detainee newsletter and 632 has requested a Bowflex machine because he says he is not getting enough of an upper body work out.
> "We had 3 significant activities last night: 601 balled up feces and threw it at the guard hitting him in the chest saying next time he would hit him in the mouth. Next, as 155 was being taken to rec, he bit a guard on the arm until it bled. Detainee was not allowed rec and had comfort items removed. When asked why he did it, 155 just laughed. The guard was sent to medical where he is being evaluated. Finally, 767 yelled at female guard saying, 'I am going to rape you. I am going to rape you. And when I get out of here I am going to kill you and your family.' Sir, barring any questions, that concludes my report."
> Many may believe the above BUB report is exaggerated or hyperbole. It is not. It could have just as easily been a detainee demanding a lighter gray shirt because the dark gray shirt "hurts his gall bladder." Or a detainee smearing feces on the walls of his cell. The guards refer to these detainees as "painters" or "poo-cassos."
> What occurs daily inside the wire is a bizarre mixture of the dangerous, the disgusting, and the absurd. And, despite urban legends and misperceptions, any mistreatment or abuse that goes on inside the camps is that of detainee-on-guard, not the reverse.
> ...





> _- Brig. Gen. Gregory Zanetti is deputy commander of the Joint Task Force-GTMO._




Favorite


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

More stories from Gitmo, and they are from the militaries side of the equation:

http://spectator.org/archives/2005/07/18/the-gitmo-varsity/print



> TO ANYONE WITH OPEN eyes, it must be clear that we are treating these hard-core terrorists humanely, and that our interrogators -- men and women, military and civilian -- should be praised, not scorned. Investigation after investigation has showed that there is no torture at Gitmo. But the outrageous and disgusting characterizations of what we are doing at Gitmo continue.





> A large bunch of the detainees, about 100 of them, are smarter, better trained, and very knowledgeable of what their pals want to do to. They are the terrorist varsity, the high-value detainees. Up against them, and their ilk, are some of America's finest.
> I DON'T KNOW THE NAMES of the soldiers: I didn't ask, and they didn't volunteer. No one -- other than the few top guys, including [URL="http://spectator.org/archives/2005/07/18/the-gitmo-varsity/print#"]General Hood





> , his deputy, and the command sergeant major -- wears nametags. If the others' names were visible to inmates, they and their families would be at risk. That goes double for the intel crew. Like every soldier I've ever met, they had to ***** a little. The two enlisted guys I lunched with at the "Cafe Caribe" -- a chow hall that will never be mistaken for The Ritz -- were from towns in Texas and Washington state. The Texan wanted to be home with his infant son. His pal from Washington wondered why the hell was so much detail about the camp on the Internet. "How can you have OPSEC" -- operational security -- "when the whole world can see so much?" he asked.
> They tried to do what every soldier is expected to do: shrug off the political floggings inflicted on them and their commanders every day. They meant well, but they couldn't b.s. this old b.s.'er. When someone compares Gitmo to a Nazi death camp, they take it personally. They know it's idiocy, but it still hurts. Their motto is, "honor bound to defend freedom," and they take that personally, too. There are no prisoner abuses at Gitmo. It's a matter of pride among them. The chow is okay, they said, but mail is really slow. It takes almost three weeks for mail to get to them. The Texan -- who is assigned to the psycho ward -- had another concern. "These guys have hepatitis, TB and who knows what other diseases. When they throw feces on us they can give us a disease we can't get over." The medical crew looks after them, and the terrorists, very well. The terrorists can't seem to make up their minds about it, though. Some, like a man who's had surgery for a serious cardiac condition, refuse further treatment.


[/URL]


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2011)

I posted another article earlier. Nothing can be proven because all of it can be denied, except for the cases of waterboarding that were admitted. Other worse cases of torture have been documented by human rights organizations.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 9, 2011)

I have to admit that I was (maybe still am) quite ready to believe that the US government used torture in it's interrogation of certain prisoners at Gitmo (or elsewhere off American soil).  

I think it's morally wrong that they {allegedly} did so but am not some primping prima donna who does not understand that real politik is often rather unpleasant for my civilian palate.

The cynical side of me says that publications like the ones BillC linked to are propaganda for the domestic market but the realist in me says that they are more than likely nontheless true for all my cynicism :nods:.


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

Here is an article on Gitmo and torture from the American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_torture_fraud_of_the_left.html


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 9, 2011)

I came across some interesting comments below the "Day In The Life" article.  One of the commenters made a few points that caused me to sit back for a moment and apply a different 'filter' of context than we normally do when speaking about the War on Terror.  These were, on the whole, things I already knew but, for some reason, have never connected them with these issues as, I fear, I have never seen the War on Terror as a 'real' war.  I'll quote them here (the poster is *bkgarner*) with a bit of reformatting for greater readability:

*I am amazed at the ignorance of so many as regards to both history, particularly that of past wars, and as to the Laws of War. As I have stated here before, for a "combatant" to enjoy the full protections of the Laws of War they must operate as a cohesive unit, wear some kind of distinctive garb so that they are distinguishable from noncombatants, and they must represent a legal state, although there is also some provision for those engaged in civil war. It is highly doubtful that any of those held at GITMO meet any of the above qualifications. 

In fact, if these individuals had engaged in these actions during say WW2, they would have been executed almost immediately. 

They are being treated far better than any requirement can level. Further, there is no requirement in the Laws of War to "charge" an individual with a crime. Those who engage in combat can be held for as long as the conflict lasts. There were numerous prisoners of European militaries, i.e., Holland, Belgium, France, etc., held by the Germans from 1940 until the war ended in 1945. Had the Germans not been defeated in 1945, those individuals could have still been held until that conflict was resolved.

I would also further note that during my training while I was a member of the US Armed Forces we were told that should we be captured we were bound by certain rules. One of those rules, which I am sure that many will find odd, is that attacking a guard at any facility we were being held at or during any transport would remove any protections that the Laws of War afforded us and we could be tried in any court or criminal proceeding that the detaining power wished to convene. 

Therefore, even if we afford those held at GITMO the status of POW, which they are not entitled to as they have not complied with the provisions of the Laws of War concerning combatants, then they have still violated the Laws of War by throwing feces, urine, and other objects at the guards, and by verbally threatening them. 

Additionally, you may find of interest, if a "combatant" is paroled (released) that individual, under the Laws of War, is not supposed to again engage in combat against the authority that had detained him/her and released him/her. Thus, in WW2, any parolees from Europe, and there were a few, were not returned to combat in Europe, but were transferred to the Pacific theater. This also often was applied to any POWs who managed to escape and return to Allied control. 

There have been individuals who have been released from GITMO who have subsequently again been detained on the battlefield operating against US forces. These individuals have lost any and all protections afforded by the Laws of War.*


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 9, 2011)

Where did this come from?  Bloody nose?







You know there is plenty of picture evidence, right?  Injured detainees, mock executions, the whole shebang.  To blindly assert that no abuse or torture happened is willfully blind, even if you quote some soldiers words to do it.

Soldiers went to jail for this, remember?  What was their offense, too many unpaid parking tickets?

Also, if you want to argue that "anything goes" because the detainees don't fit the technical criteria for the Geneva Conventions, then there is something deeply wrong with you.  You don't get to torture someone just because they don't wear a uniform.  Which is also against our own domestic laws, by the way, and should be a basic point of agreement for anyone who wants to call themselves human.  Apparently not.  

I hope you at least would have the guts to do it yourself rather than supporting others to do your inhumane, illegal and immoral dirty work.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> You know there is plenty of picture evidence, right?  Injured detainees, mock executions, the whole shebang.  To blindly assert that no abuse or torture happened is willfully blind, even if you quote some soldiers words to do it.



I would hope that noone is actually alleging that - after all, as you infer, there was a case that all too clearly involved such things.  For the record, touching on earlier discussions, I consider 'water-boarding' to be torture.




Empty Hands said:


> Also, if you want to argue that "anything goes" because the detainees don't fit the technical criteria for the Geneva Conventions, then there is something deeply wrong with you.  You don't get to torture someone just because they don't wear a uniform.  Which is also against our own domestic laws, by the way, and should be a basic point of agreement for anyone who wants to call themselves human.  Apparently not.


 
Speaking just for myself, all I can say is that when a state of war has been declared, those who engage in 'military' activities, who are not covered by the protections of the Geneva convention (recall that America did not sign this accord by the way), are subject to summary execution.  Even in those wars considered more 'noble', however, torture was used as a tool of operational advantage.  None of us want to acknowledge it, which says good things about our moral sensibilities and the protections our society affords us but reveals, in most cases, a certain 'obliviousness' or self-deception with regard to grim realities.



Empty Hands said:


> I hope you at least would have the guts to do it yourself rather than supporting others to do your inhumane, illegal and immoral dirty work.


.  

Good lord, no!  Again speaking only for myself, I don't condone or support such things going on.  I'm not even sure that I could, in cold blood at least, shoot someone guilty of such atrocities as the attack on the WTC. But I have the luxury of such self-serving two-facedness because 'rough-handed' men (physically and politically} will do it without asking for my approval in order to pursue their aims.  The only salve to my tattered sense of respect for my culture is that without such horrible actions going on then things might (no certainties here) be much worse.  I can't see how but we will not know for some time what terrorist actions were prevented or interrupted by the intelligence gathered by such reprehensible means.



Moving this into the field of the theoretical for a moment to move the discussion on, ask yourself these questions:

1)  If by the use of torture on a terrorist suspect, your life would be saved, would you sign off on the order to carry out the torture?

My answer is an unequivocal "No".  My life would not be worth living if it was bought at such a price.

2)  If by the use of torture on a terrorist suspect, your sisters life would be saved, would you sign off on the order to carry out the torture?

My answer is, I think, a troubled "Yes", as long as she did not know that someone was tortured so that she might live.  I would wish that I was morally stronger and could say "No!", consoling myself with the fact that she would understand that for me to sign such an order would torture me for the rest of my days.  But I think that my love for my family would win out over my repugnance of the methodology.


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

Yes, soldiers went to jail for abusing prisoners.  It seems that the military punished the people who did it, and they were investigating the abuse long before the media jumped in.  The guilty were punished, and before anyone says the higher ups weren't punished, in any situation, other than the people actually involved in the action or giving the actual order for it to be done, prosecuting people way up the chain of command is difficult to do.  It is just the reality of a large command structure.


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

Abu Graib and air force survival training:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/05/saving_lt_sevakis.html



> All the mea culpas, especially those voiced by Bush to the Arabs, were overwrought and, in the long run, irrelevant.  The Abu Ghraib follies took place during and prior to October of 2003.  At the beginning of January this year the Pentagon publicly announced that the allegations of abuse were being formally investigated.  Prior to the point when the media frenzy took over, even the International Committee of the Red Cross was fairly pleased with the cooperation they were receiving from the U.S. military in Iraq.  The pictures get published, the sky falls, the Earth opens up, the deluge inundates, and all is lost.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 9, 2011)

I did a quick Net research and found that whether the USA signed the Geneva Convention or not is a little more complicated than I thought:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_US_ratify_the_Geneva_Conventions


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2011)

Okay, I really don't think the issue is going to be resolved here.  Did Bush commit war crimes?  I think so.  A lot of people vehemently disagree.

Now, imagine if Obama would have prosecuted for war crimes.  What kind of rift do you think that would have caused?  Look at all that has been posted.  Is there enough acrimony that it would actually cause a revolt or a coup?  At the very least, I can see every Republican shutting off like a light switch the moment he pressed charges.

Personally, I don't think Obama ever had any intention of prosecuting.  Therefore, I think this debate is all hypothetical.


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

Some consider waterboarding torture, I do not.  It is a technique that leaves no permanent physical or mental harm, other than a deep aversion to more waterboarding, and it produces results 100 percent of the time.  

Would you condone the use of a non-lethal, non-permanent damage technique, that is so mild that Christopher Hitchens, an overweight smoker, can undergo the process and not be harmed by it?  Who probably used a towel to dry off, had a smoke and a nice dinner afterward.   I do not condone torture, even for terrorist leaders.  I do condone waterboarding terrorist leaders who may have vital information that may save the lives of say, 3000 American citizens and foreign nationals.


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

Sukerkin, have you looked at the actual method used to waterboard the three terrorists?  To say it is mild in comparison to real, honest to goodness torture is an understatement.  Keep in mind, it was used after other methods had failed, and actual usable information on the terrorist plans and organizations was obtained.  Not one of these monsters was actually harmed.  As soon as they cooperated, the waterboarding stopped.  I think too many people think they know what technique was used in the waterboarding process and don't actually know what was done.  It has been built up in peoples minds to a degree that is not fair to the interrogators or to the innocent people who will not be saved now that waterboarding is no longer allowed.


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

No, Bush did not commit war crimes, and if Obama had pressed to have these people tried for war crimes I think the push back would have been deserved.  I think he would love to prosecute but doesn't have the courage of his convictions.  They have scared a lot of C.I.A. people into being less aggressive in pursuing leads and this puts everyone at risk.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 9, 2011)

I confess that I do not know in detail how such a technique was actually carried out (beyond the blindingly obvious) or how it actually feels.  But, for me, the solitary fact that it induces such a terrified state of mind in otherwise hardened men makes it torture.  There being no physical damage does not make it not so in my mind, for psychological harm is just as much torture as physical.

You have to bear in mind that to a degree I am highly sensitive and biased on this as I nearly drowned when I was very young and even now just sitting in a dentists chair having work done, with water building up at the back of my throat, severely challenges my self discipline.


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

Some of the enhanced interrogation techniques from the link above:

http://theacru.org/pdfs/TheInterrogationMemos.pdf

The Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
The following are the techniques involved in the CIA enhanced interrogation program.
1. _Dietary Manipulation. _The detainee is supplied only with commercial liquid meals in place of normal food, resulting in a bland, unappetizing diet. However, the diet is nutritionally compete in terms of calories, vitamins, nutrition and liquidation.
2. _Nudity_. The detainee is kept naked throughout the interrogation. Articles of clothing are provided as an instant reward for cooperation. Temperature is required to be maintained at least at 68 degrees F.
3. _Attention Grasp_. The interrogator grasps the detainee by the collar with both hands, and pulls the detainee towards him. Gets the detainee&#8217;s focused attention.
4. _Walling. _The detainee is stood with his back to a flexible, false wall. The interrogator grabs the detainee and pushes him into the wall, which gives but emits a loud, disturbing sound. The detainee&#8217;s head and neck are supported with a rolled hood in a C-collar around the back of the neck, which prevents whiplash.
5. _Facial Hold_. The interrogator grabs the detainee by either side of the face and holds the head immobile while speaking to him.
6. _Facial Insult Slap. _The interrogator slaps the side of the detainee&#8217;s face with an open hand. The purpose here is not to inflict physical pain, but to induce shock, surprise and humiliation.
7. _Abdominal Slap_. The interrogator strikes the abdomen of the detainee with the back of his open hand between the navel and the sternum. The interrogator may not punch the detainee with a closed fist. The purpose of this technique is again not to inflict physical pain, but to focus the detainee on the need to answer the interrogator&#8217;s questions and to dislodge detainee expectations that he will not be touched.
8. _Cramped Confinement. _The detainee is placed in a dark, confined space, small enough to restrict his movement. In a space where the detainee can stand up or sit down, the confinement is limited to no more than 8 hours at a time, and 18 hours total in a 24 hour period. In a space only big enough for the detainee to sit down, confinement is limited to 2 hours at a time.
9. _Wall Standing. _The detainee is forced to stand near a wall with his feet spread at shoulder width, and his arms outstretched with fingers resting on the wall and supporting his_The Interrogation Memos
10. Stress Positions. The detainee is forced to remain standing or seated in various positions for periods of time which, again, produces temporary muscle fatigue.
11. Water Dousing. Cold water is poured on the detainee to create discomfort. The minimum water temperature is 41 degrees and the minimum room temperature is 64 degrees. The maximum exposure is 20 minutes at these temperatures before drying and rewarming, though exposure can last up until one hour at warmer temperatures. The procedure is designed and monitored to avoid hypothermia or other negative health results.
12. Sleep Deprivation. The detainee is deprived of sleep for a number of days. To achieve this, the detainee is shackled in a standing position with hands in front handcuffed to a chain attached to the ceiling, and feet shackled to a bolt on the floor. The detainee can move in a 2-3 foot diameter. The detainee is hand fed by interrogators, and wears an adult diaper which is changed when soiled. About a dozen detainees have been subjected to sleep deprivation in this way for more than 48 hours, 3 for more than 96 hours, and one for the maximum of 180 hours, or about a week. The detainee is continuously monitored for any adverse physical or health reactions, and no detainee has suffered any physical harm or injury due to this technique. Both the medical literature and experience establish that the detainee quickly recovers from the effects of this sleep deprivation after 8 hours of sleep.
_


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 9, 2011)

The Bush Administration is guilty of war crimes. They are guilty of violating international treaties, as well as US law by ordering torture in violation of those laws. Waterboarding IS torture, by every definition, and only apologists and the blind willfully overlook that and justify it. All that was argued in depth to death here previously.  Bush, Cheney and the rest should face trial, and if found guilty suffer the same fate as their victims. 
Just because many of those victims are pieces of ****, doesn't change the fact that the law was broken, torture happened and the act was wrong.
The results do not justify it. The effectiveness (which was debunked in depth) does not excuse it.

Bush and Cheney should if found guilty, be punished appropriately.

That said, I'm out of here, let the justifications continue.


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

And now, Waterboarding as conducted on Three terrorists:

13. _Waterboarding. _The detainee lies on a gurney inclined downward at a 15 degree angle, on his back with his head on the lower end. A cloth is placed over the detainee&#8217;s face, and cold water is poured on the cloth from a few inches above. This must be stopped and the cloth removed after a maximum of 40 seconds. The body naturally reacts to this procedure with feelings of drowning and panic, even if the detainee can still physically breathe and knows it. But the waterboarding does not produce actual physical pain. Such applications of waterboarding may be done no more than 6 times in a maximum of 2 hours. A physician and a psychologist are present at all times during such waterboarding to monitor the detainee and stop the procedure if there is any sign of a severe reaction or severe physical distress.
Such waterboarding may only be used if (1) the CIA has credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent, (2) there are substantial and credible indicators the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or delay this attack, and (3) other interrogation methods have failed or are unlikely to yield actionable intelligence in time to prevent the attack. As a result, this technique was used on only three terrorist detainees during the Bush Administration, as discussed above. Despite uninformed public statements to the contrary with no basis or foundation, this technique has a long history of being very effective in obtaining the sought after information. It was in the three cases it was used during the Bush Administration, stopping actual planned terrorist attacks that would have killed thousands of innocent Americans, and yielding reams of additional information, as discussed further below._The Interrogation Memos: Shall We Be Clueless on Terrorism?    _page 12 The American Civil Rights Union
The U.S. government has applied waterboarding to thousands of American military personal during SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training over many years. Yet, there has not been one case of serious physical harm or prolonged mental harm.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 9, 2011)

*Edited: **** it, I'm not getting into an argument for whether or not the sky is blue.  Everyone can see the justifiers and defenders for what they are.  What Good Germans they would have made.*


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

And then he had a nice dinner and a smoke.  As if an overweight journalist would know the differnce and a shock jock would know the difference.  Anything that allows you to enjoy a nice meal afterwards is not torture, unpleasant and not something you would want to do again, but not torture.


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

The actual technique used is described in more detail in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Courting-Disaster-America-Barack-Inviting/dp/1596986034/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315620238&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Courting-Disaster-America-Barack-Inviting/dp/1596986034/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315620238&sr=1-2


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

It would help if people actually knew what was really done when these monsters were waterboarded rather than reacting to the hype generated by the media and other anti-bush outlets.  Real torture should never be done to prisoners held by U.S. forces.  Waterboarding should be reserved for the leadership of unlawful enemy combatant groups captured on the battlefield with the belief that they may have vital intelligence that may save lives.  I know that people will ignore that last bit and focus on the words torture and waterboarding, but it is the same thing when ILLEGAL immigration is discussed. If you say you are against ILLEGAL immigration and are all for LEGAL immigration, the ILLEGAL AND LEGAL words are ignored and then you are called a racist, even if you are against ILLEGAL immigration from Norway, Sweden, Russia or even, parish the thought, Great Britain.


Remember, we used to do this to our own soldiers and sailors for training.  They weren't harmed and went on to be pilots and the toughest of the tough Special Forces, Navy Seals and Marine Recon and Army Rangers.  They stopped doing it, except I think the seals may still do it, because all of the candidates failed to resist it and it became counter productive to building up the confidence of our guys in resisting coercive techniques.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ser...g_and_torture/




> However, that wasn&#8217;t the point, as psychologically the waterboard produced capitulation and compliance with instructor demands 100 percent of the time. During debriefings following training, students who had experienced the waterboard expressed extreme avoidance attitudes such as a likelihood to further comply with any demands made of them if brought near the waterboard again.



And this was in training, when our guys, at some pschological level, knew they were not going to be killed or have this treatment go on indefinetly, unlike Leo Thoprsness and Bud Day did when they were held by the Vietnamese monsters.

More info. that waterboarding has been stopped by everyone except the Seals, because it worked...

http://my.firedoglake.com/valtin/2010/03/05/waterboarding-too-dangerous-internal-dod-memo-reveals/



> The Clare memo stated, in part:3. Area of Concern: The JPRA official stance is that the water board should not be used as a physical pressure during Level C SERE training. This position is based on factors that have the potential to affect not only students but also the whole DoD SERE program. The way the water board is most often employed, it leaves students psychologically defeated with no ability to resist under pressure. Once a student is taught that they can be beaten, and there is no way to resist, it is difficult to develop psychological hardiness. None of the other schools use the water board that leaves the San Diego school as a standout.
> ​In an attachment to Colonel Clare&#8217;s memo, "Observations and Recommendations," JPRA indicates that the waterboard technique as used in the SERE schools is "inconsistent" with the JPRA philosophy that its training and procedures be "safe, effective" and provides "a positive learning experience."The water board has always been the most extreme pressure that required intense supervision and oversight because of the inherent risks associated with its employment&#8230;. Forcing answers under the extreme duress of the water board does not teach resistance or resilience, but teaches that you can be beaten. When a student&#8217;s ability to develop psychological resiliency is compromised&#8230; it may create unintended consequences regarding their perception of survivability during a real world SERE event. Based on these concerns and the risks associated with using the water board, we strongly recommend that you discontinue using it [underlined in the original].
> ​




And these guys still went on to graduate from the SERE course and continued to be pilots and Super Soldiers.  They also probably went on to have a nice dinner after the course was over.

​


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

I'm a free market captialist, so there wouldn't be anyway that I would participate in socialist methods of torture.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

nut up or shut up

dont claim it, PROVE IT




Empty Hands said:


> Where did this come from?  Bloody nose?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

actual lawyers, not photographers disagree. now do lawyers tell you how to take better pictures? no

why? they know that that isnt thier line of work.

not everyone does..




Bob Hubbard said:


> The Bush Administration is guilty of war crimes. They are guilty of violating international treaties, as well as US law by ordering torture in violation of those laws. Waterboarding IS torture, by every definition, and only apologists and the blind willfully overlook that and justify it. All that was argued in depth to death here previously.  Bush, Cheney and the rest should face trial, and if found guilty suffer the same fate as their victims.
> Just because many of those victims are pieces of ****, doesn't change the fact that the law was broken, torture happened and the act was wrong.
> The results do not justify it. The effectiveness (which was debunked in depth) does not excuse it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> actual lawyers, not photographers disagree. now do lawyers tell you how to take better pictures? no
> 
> why? they know that that isnt thier line of work.
> 
> not everyone does..



Debunked previously in older discussions.:deadhorse:s425::s424:


----------



## billc (Sep 9, 2011)

Oh, and I'll take your Christopher Hitchens and Mancow Mullen and raise you Leo thorseness and Bud Day.  An overweight Journalist who probably smokes too much and a shock Jock vs. two congressional medal of honor winners who were waterboarded during SERE training and then relentlessly tortured by the vietnamese socialists when they were actual P.O.W.s.
They both support the use of waterboarding against terrorist murderers.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

and that carries some weight, but more importanty, real actual lawyers, not just keyboard commandos did the research and made the judgement, I will take their word for it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 9, 2011)

Again, Debunked previously in older discussions.:deadhorse:s425::s424:


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

declaring it debunked doesnt make it so. Seems like it is one politically motivated lawyer on one side, and another politically motivated lawyer on the other, and since none of us are lawyers, we dont really know


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 9, 2011)

People here have short memories.

mmmm, Torture, er I mean "enhanced interrogation techniques"
Cookies, not torture, convinced al Qaeda suspect to talk, FBI interrogator 
Mancow Waterboarded - says "it's torture"
Dubai police use enhanced interrogation on NYer.
The real question: Did waterboarding work?
what exactly is waterboarding?
Bush's book
There's a few links. 
The debunk, including comments from those who were tortured, who said what the US did was torture, are in there somewhere.
There are more links.
Search.
Or don't. I don't really care past this point.  But if I want a repeat, I got Netflix and my STTOS collection.

Like I said, dead horse debate, the 'it was ok' argument was defeated. The 'wasnt really torture', same. The 'we got good intel', same.
All smacked down, pulverized, dusted, atomized, and then the atoms split.
All the laws, treaties, insiders, from the guy who jammed the dildo in Akmed, right up to Senator McCain.
All there, under the pile of atomized horse flesh.

*yawn*


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2011)

if i cared what a diskjockey said,i would have said so, so thats irrelevant, cookies working doesnt exclude other things from working, waterboarding DOES work and it did on KSM, denial of that fact is retarded, and so on and so on

in your own way Bob, you are every bit the close minded partisan hack you accuse me of being.

so you are again, just up and declaring victory when there was no such thing.

you think what you think, facts you dont like be damned

just like everyone else


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2011)

John, denial of the experts, the guys with the experience, the inside story, etc, is rather dumb, imo. 
Links I posted to previous discussions here refuted -every- point being made now.
Right down to the insiders who said that it didn't work on KSM, that it was torture, and so on.
John McCain said it was torture. I think he's qualified to make that call.
Guys who ran the program called it so.
Dick Cheney even said it was so. 

But keep explaining how it does, keep citing whatever it is that makes you feel good about it. 
Keep ignoring the law when convenient. 

I base my position off law, fact, and the experiences of others, and the views of experts.
I highly doubt you or Bill are experts in waterboarding.
Unless you've been through it.
So, some lame *** diskjockey here is more of an expert than you smart guy.

So cite all the apologists you want. The facts, as clearly cited in the links I posted, say you are wrong.

I could, yet again for what, the 12th time?, go through and cite, post, link, but why?  You aren't interested in the reality, the truth.
Just the fantasy that it wasn't torture, that we're the good guys, that it worked, and no one got hurt.
Sorry, don't have time for that anymore.  It's boring.

Links are there. Read them, or stick your head back in the hot Texas sand.
I don't care.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 10, 2011)

I do agree there is no point in retracing those arguments we have had before and I do have to say that I concur with the conclusions Bob highlights with regard to water-boarding.

But what this thread is about, at least to me, is recognising that, along some shameful incidents (which we hope are vanishingly rare and for which (some) of the guilty parties were punished), there are many members of the US military doing a 'warders' job for some pretty nasty people.  Tarring all of them with the same "Baby killers" brush is not only unhelpful but deeply unfair to those people.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/is_there_waterboarding_in_hell.html



> As I understand it, he was one of only three people we waterboarded.  (I cannot be sure because the CIA does not keep me informed on these matters.  Ask Nancy Pelosi for real details -- she was briefed .)
> In KSM's case he gave up the "names and addresses of people who were involved with al Qaeda in this country and in Europe" as well as a plot to run an airliner into the Library Tower in Los Angeles In all, more than "a dozen al Qaeda plots to kill people were stopped because of the information they got from coerced interrogation."
> 
> Senator McCain is against waterboarding.  He says it is torture and thus a war crime.  And thanks to him, "there will no such thing as waterboarding" any more.  It doesn't kill.  It doesn't injure.  It doesn't leave a mark.  It's all over in a minute in most cases.  It has been shown to provide information that has saved lives.  And Congress, where Senator McCain serves, has never outlawed it, despite at least some members receiving classified briefings on it.



http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/water_boarding_the_view_from_t.html




> Whatever you think, I believe two points can safely be stated on this subject -





> The use of the word "torture" as a catch-all phrase which makes no distinction to severity, intent, or other context is a smokescreen meant to end the conversation and stifle any meaningful dissent or perception of legitimate moral ambiguity.
> [FONT=times new roman,times]Even if you decide that water boarding is torture, it's much closer to a scene from Law and Order than an Al Qaeda snuff film.  In short - if it's torture - it's barely over the line, and the minimum amount of non-lethal force necessary to achieve success.[/FONT]


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

From the above article, I gave it a seperate post because it goes to the heart of the differnces here:



> Water boarding -- whether torture or not -- is the infliction of psychological pain on someone to get them to give you information you need to prevent a much greater infliction of pain on innocent civilians.  Pacifism, by definition, is morally relative and adamantly opposes drawing distinctions between innocent and guilty, victim and perpetrator. etc.  If you're a doctrinaire Pacifist, the guy who sucker punched some bystander in a pub and the bystander fighting back in self-defense are both essentially the same - just two misguided people trying to solve their problems with violence instead of dialogue This explains the crazy quotes Gandhi made during WWII about the "most heroic" course of action for European Jews being mass suicide to illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the Nazis.  Come again?  This is the Alice and Wonderland world of orthodox pacifism.  This is the world of people who would rather see a nuclear bomb detonated in Cleveland than KSM water boarded.





> [FONT=times new roman,times]At this point in the conversation the pacifist usually says something like, "No - I don't support either thing.  They're both bad!"  This statement reveals the ultimately narcissistic nature of extreme pacifism - If I believe something strongly, I define the rules.  In reality any interaction with another, by definition, is not unilateral.  Even if you don't believe in mugging people, the mugger defines your relationship, (usually at the point of knife), and you are confronted with the choice of accepting or rejecting this definition.  His knife makes your "perfect world" irrelevant.[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=times new roman,times]This is the context that the use of force which is water boarding must be viewed.  Would you rather be "morally pure" and have thousand die in the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Library Tower Attack in Los Angeles[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] sometime in 2002, or would you rather inflict a little pain on a hardened mass murderer and prevent this loss of innocent life?  Those are the choices - and viewing it any other way is naïve at best, or more likely, cynical, short-sighted and extremely disingenuous.[/FONT]


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2011)

"Congress ... has never outlawed it".
Wrong.
Previously cited, and debunked.
Waterboarding is torture, and torture is illegal.

"It works and saves lives"
Wrong.
Previously cited, and debunked.

"  It doesn't kill.  It doesn't injure.  It doesn't leave a mark.  It's all over in a minute in most cases."
Wrong.
Previously cited, and debunked.


Ah geeze, it's another guy in a mask. 1,000 episodes of the same show, you think there'd be a different villain.
Just another repeat.  *yawn*


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

On the constitutionality of waterboarding:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/waterboarding_is_not_unconstit.html




> The Constitution does _not _forbid the infliction of physical pain on another person to force his compliance with certain courses of action. The Bill of Rights says specifically that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and it also bans cruel and unusual punishments. It is therefore unconstitutional to use torture to (1) force somebody to confess to a crime, or (2) as a punishment


.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

From another article:




> [FONT=times new roman,times]"Waterboarding" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during his detention in an overseas prison was crucial to Sunday's operation, according to Rep. Peter King (R-New York), appearing on Fox News _O'Reilly Factor_ on Monday night.  King linked his comments to his briefing by the White House Sunday night. The _Freedom's Lighthouse_ website summarizes[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]:[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=times new roman,times]"The intelligence that led the United States to find the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden came through the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed (KSM). The nickname for a courier of Bin Laden's was obtained from KSM through waterboarding, later confirmed by another detainee that was interrogated in 2007, according to King. It took U.S. Intelligence four years to identify who the courier actually was and follow him to the compound where Bin Laden was hiding."
> [/FONT]​


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

From the interrogation memo linked on the second page of this thread:  http://theacru.org/pdfs/TheInterrogationMemos.pdf



> *Results of the Enhanced Interrogation Program
> *The CIA has stated in writing that it believes that the intelligence acquired through such
> 
> enhanced interrogations &#8220;has been a key reason why al-Qai&#8217;da has failed to launch a spectacular
> ...


IV,



> provide their analysis and speculation about the capabilities, methodologies, and mindsets of
> terrorists.&#8221;
> 15
> The CIA explained how it builds intelligence from various sources, saying that it
> ...


Id.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

The F.B.I. agent Ali Soufan who claimed the interrogation methods didn't work is discussed in "Courting Disaster."  The C.I.A. interrogators did not believe that standard criminal interrogation techniques would work against the hardened terrorist leaders.  They weren't criminals in the regular sense of the word but dedicated jihadis.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2011)

"Courting Disaster." has been debunked previously.
Constitutionality, etc, all previously covered. Your own wording shows waterboarding which is torture to be illegal, as does numerous other Federal, State and local statutes as well as international treaty, and law.
All discussed as far back as 2008.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2011)

The more I read this denialism, the more convinced I am that the Obama advisor was justified. Imagine a black man "lynching" some WASPS for saving America from "his own kind." We'd have a right wing million man march for torture on the Capital Mall. What a sight that would be. God Bless...

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999 (Sep 10, 2011)

Torture is illegal-a war crime, punishable by death, funnily enough, by virtue of the U.S. being signatory to the War Crimes Act of 1996 , and the 1986 Convention Against Torture. In 2001, Bush asked attorneys what consituted torture, where the limits actually lay, and the U.S. acted in accordance with the legal advice that the President had received-answers that have divided the country, often across party lines, for a decade now.

The mechanism of waterboarding described up thread by billi is exactly the mechanism described by the victims of the Khmer Rouge-when the Khmer Rouge did it, it was called *torture.*

The 1986 Convention Against Torture defines torture thusly:



> |Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.



Furthermore:



> A presidential memorandum of September 7, 2002 authorized U.S. interrogators of prisoners captured in Afghanistan to deny the prisoners basic protections required by the Geneva Conventions, and thus according to Jordan J. Paust, professor of law and formerly a member of the faculty of the Judge Advocate General's School, "necessarily authorized and ordered violations of the Geneva Conventions, which are war crimes."[SUP][30][/SUP] Based on the president's memorandum, U.S. personnel carried out cruel and inhumane treatment on the prisoners,[SUP][31][/SUP] which necessarily means that the president's memorandum was a plan to violate the Geneva Convention, and such a plan constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, according to Professor Paust



In short, waterboarding is torture, and torture is a war crime.

The President ordered violations of the Geneva Convention-also a war crime.

George Bush recently canceled a trip to Switzerland, becuase activists there were going to bring charges against him of committiting war crimes.



Makalakumu said:


> If this is true, who is in charge of the US?



I've been telling you, but no one seems to listen: Halliburton, GE, Exxon, Raytheon..........

I mean, these aren't the only war crimes the U.S. has committed, and the bottom line is that they're not crimes if _our _side commits them. U.S. troops committed war crimes in the Spanish American war,World War I(his one interesting because it was poison gas, per the Hague Codification of 1907, but everyone did it was a wash) World War II, and most notably, because there were prosecutions and extensive documentation, Vietnam. We've bombed civilians in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Why split hairs over whether or not waterboarding is or is not torture? People have been tortured and illegally detained in the "war on terror" in all of our names-and no one, beyond the knucklehead scapegoats of Abu Ghraib, is ever going to be prosecutred for those war crimes.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

To say that the methods used by the Kmer Rouge were the same as those used by the C.I.A. is not factually correct.   

From Courting Disaster:



> In this technique, the detainee is lying on a gurney that is inclined at an angle of 10 to 15 degrees to the horizontal, with the detainee on his back and his head toward the lower end of the gurney.  A cloth is placed over the detainee's face, and cold water is poured on the cloth from a height of approximately 6 to 18 inches.  The wet cloth creates a barrier through which it is difficult-or in some cases not possible-to breathe.
> A single "application" of water may not last for more than 40 seconds, with the duration of an "application" measured from the moment when water-of whatever quantity-is first poured onto the cloth until the moment the cloth is removed from the subject's face...When the time limit is reached, the pouring of the water is immediately discontinued and the cloth is removed.  We understand that if the detainee makes an effort to defeat the technique (e.g., by twisting his head to the side and breathing out of the corner of his mouth) the interrogator may cup his hands around the detainees nose and mouth to dam the runoff, in which case it would not be possible for the detainee to breathe during the application of water.  In addition, you have informed us that the technique may be applied in a manner to defeat efforts by the detainee to hold his breath by, for example, beginning an application of water as the detainee is exhaling.  Either in the normal application,or where countermeasures are used, we understand that water may enter-and may accumulate in,the detainees mouth and nasal cavity, preventing him from breathing.
> In addition, you have indicated that the detainee as a countermeasure may swallow water, possibly in significant quantities.  For that reason, based on the advise of medical personel, the CIA requires that saline solution be used instead of plain water to reduce the possibility of hyopnatermina if the detainee drinks the water.
> We understand that the effect of the waterboard is to induce the sensation of drowning...
> ...



To try and compare, that is silence the argurment, the U.S. method used on three terrorist leaders to the Khmer Rouge who tortured and murdered 1/3 of the population of cambodia is just wrong.  The only thing in common between the Kmer Rouge and the U.S. is that they both used water.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2011)

"Courting Disaster." has been debunked previously.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

The water torture used by the U.S. during the spanish american war and the Phillipine inserrection is not the technique used on the three terrorists who brought down the world trade center and killed 3000 people.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> To say that the methods used by the Kmer Rouge were the same as those used by the C.I.A. is not factually correct.
> 
> From Courting Disaster:



I said the _mechanism_ was precisely the same-if you want to believe that they were given breaks every 40 seconds, fine, the *method* was not the same, but that's not what I said.

More to the point, this painting:





Was done by Vann Nath, an artist and victim of the Khmer Rouge. The mechanism is precisely that used by the CIA, though the gurney that the Khmer Rouge used was actually a wooden table, hence the name "water*boarding*."


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 10, 2011)

It's a difference that doesn't really make a difference, BillC.  Torture is torture - there's not an awful lot of wiggle-room on that.

I really think you are barking up the wrong tree with this approach.  It appears clear that torture was used and that those who over-stepped the bounds of what was legal were punished for it.  

I don't like the fact that our closest ally used such tactics in intelligence gathering (and I like it even less that it appears that my own country made use of the 'services' available) but I'm not daft enough to think that governments don't do things that are morally outrageous.  

All we can do with elected officials is try to get them to behave in ways we can live with whilst still having them protect our interests ...

... well, actually, they generally protect corporate interests but we can dream .

Generally public pressure will just cause governments to get really good at keeping secrets but there's a limit to what we can do about what we are unaware of.  At the end of the day, we can only hope that there is enough moral fibre in our society to stop those with the power from doing things we wouldn't as individuals condone.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

From Courting Disaster:  On the Khmer Rouge methods of torture...



> Duch took great pride in his work at s-21, and he was not about to let Pol Pot tarnish his legacy.  As he put it in the courtroom:"I could not bear what Pol Pot said so I had to show my face...For s-21, I was the chairman of that office.  The crimes committed at s-21 were under my responsiblilty.  During Dutch's reign of terror at s-21 more than 14,000 men, women and children were tortured there.  Only seven people survived


.


Yes, that really sounds like what the CIA did to the three, yes, three terrorist leaders who murdered 3000 innocent people.  All three of the terrorists eventually cooperated and the information gathered helped stop attacks, saving innocent lives, and helped locate bin laden.  And they had nice dinners and then engaged in their prayers and read the Koran.  Apparently, KSM, really enjoys Kentucky Fried chicken, that was his choice of food when he decided to cooperate.  

Yes, 14000 murdered cambodians versus three terrorists who went on to enjoy Kentucky Fried chicken.  Quite the comparison.

(The information about ksm's dining habit was heard in an interview with the author of his biography)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2011)

Bill, cite a credible source. "Courting Disaster." has been debunked previously.
It's not credible, continuing to cite it is not going to validate anything you seek.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

Hmmm...then for those who do not support the mild form of CIA waterboarding, I guess drone attacks, bombing cities with civillian populations, engaging in close combat in urban terrain, with civillians present and staging raids where the target (bin laden) is actually killed are also forbidden by your code of ethics and morality?  So to would be giving the police firearms, and probably mace as well since chemical warfare was used in  world war 1 and we wouldn't want to be seen using chemical weapons, of any kind, on civillians whose only crime is resisting arrest or protesting their government.  I guess it would be a nicer world if the tactics you believe in were the only ones we used.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

And I would merely point out that those who disagree with Courting Disaster have an agenda of their own.   Much like any issue, I will discredit your sources as eagerly as you try to discredit mine.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

So Sukerkin, a police officer who shoots a man about to shoot another, innocent, unarmed man is no different?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2011)

http://thescienceofsecurity.org/blog//2011/05/enhanced_interrogation_techniq-print.html



> KSM's interrogators, too, have reported to New York Times journalist Scott Shane  that the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks served as a virtual Al  Qaeda consultant to the CIA (offering them blackboard lectures on the  operations and ideological underpinnings of bin Laden's group) not  because his ego and self-concept were broken by sleep-deprivation,  water-boarding, or other EITs, but because it was flattered and  manipulated by lead interrogator Deuce Martinez for whom KSM developed a  close admiration.
> 
> Many others in the security establishment with access to the unredacted  transcripts of Zubaydah's and KSM's interrogations have also rejected  claims that EITs provided life saving intelligence. CIA Inspector  General John Helgerson, after an extensive review, reported in 2004 that  he found no evidence that EITs had foiled imminent plots as had been  claimed by Bush, Cheney, Hayden, and others. FBI Director Robert Mueller   told Vanity Fair's David Rose the same thing  in December 2008. And Peter Clarke, former head of Scotland Yard,  reacting to Thiessen's claims that information attained from KSM had  prevented the Heathrow bombing plot, squarely rejected his analysis, calling it "completely and utterly wrong."
> More recently, as Shane and Savage report  "Glenn L. Carle, a retired C.I.A. officer who oversaw the interrogation  of a high-level detainee in 2002, said that coercive techniques 'didn't  provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information.' Even the CIA's own interrogation manuals   - formulated in the mid-20th century at a time when the agency was  deeply researching interrogation techniques - warns agents that "Use of  force is a poor technique, yields unreliable results, may damage  subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he  thinks the interrogator wants to hear."
> Still, former administration officials who participated in or abetted the development of the EIT program (architected by a pair of enterprising retired military personnel with a flawed and reductive understanding of human psychology)  have not ceased making their claims that EITs saved American lives.  Thiessen, more than anyone in or close to the previous administration,  has mastered the art of conflating 'information gained from detainees  who underwent EITs' with information gained thanks to interrogators'  rapport-based approaches to (and cunning psychological manipulation of)  subjects who also underwent EITs at some other point during their  detainment. (See Thiessen's most recent book, Courting Disaster, for a skillful deployment of this and several other logical/rhetorical fallacies.)



The continued attempts to try to explain waterboarding as not being torture, is a sign of not living in reality, where US Federal, State and local law, as well as international treaty and law, and the laws of other civilized nations classify it as such.

Continuing to cite a well debunked source such as Thiessen's Courting Disaster is a sign of a weak argument.

I don't have to go point by point here. Did that previously over the last 2 years. All in the previously posted links to our discussions here, which contain hundreds of other citations and links that dispute and debunk every "I love the waterboarding" argument being given.

My -ONLY- agenda here Bill, is to insist that my government obey it's OWN laws, operate within them, and live up to the expectation of it's citizens that the US is the "Good Guys".  I am very consistent in this view, even when doing so argues against a personal desire.
Members of the US government broke the law. The President, regardless of who he is, is not above the law.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> So Sukerkin, a police officer who shoots a man about to shoot another, innocent, unarmed man is no different?



Your argument here is invalid as the example has little to nothing to do with torturing a prisoner.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...then for those who do not support the mild form of CIA waterboarding,.



Dude. It was torture. I show again, the legal definition of torture:



> *Any act* by which severe pain or suffering, *whether physical or mental*, is *intentionally inflicted *on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

Then killing bin laden was murder.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...aden_is_ok_why_cant_you_do_waterboarding.html



> *Wallace*: We'll stipulate -- I think we'll all stipulate -- that bin Laden was a monster, but why is shooting an unarmed man in the face legal and proper while enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding of a detainee under very strict controls and limits -- why is that over the line?
> *Donilon*: Well, let me talk first about the first half of the statement that you made. Again, the president met with the operators yesterday at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and here are the facts. We are at war with al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is the emir or commander, indeed the only leader of al-Qaeda in its 22 year history. This was his residence and operational compound. Our forces entered that compound and were fired upon in the pitch black. It's an organization that uses IEDs and suicide vests and booby traps and all manner of other kinds of destructive capabilities.
> *Wallace:* Mr. Donilon, let me just make my point. I&#8217;m not asking you why it was  OK to shoot Osama bin Laden. I fully understand the threat. And I&#8217;m not   second-guessing the SEALs. What I am second guessing is, if that&#8217;s OK,  why can&#8217;t you do waterboarding? Why can&#8217;t you do enhanced  interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was just as bad an operator  as Osama bin Laden?
> *Donilon:* Because, well, our judgment is that it&#8217;s   not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in   terms of getting the kind of intelligence that we need.
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...then for those who do not support the mild form of CIA waterboarding, I guess drone attacks, bombing cities with civillian populations, engaging in close combat in urban terrain, with civillians present and staging raids where the target (bin laden) is actually killed are also forbidden by your code of ethics and morality?  So to would be giving the police firearms, and probably mace as well since chemical warfare was used in  world war 1 and we wouldn't want to be seen using chemical weapons, of any kind, on civillians whose only crime is resisting arrest or protesting their government.  I guess it would be a nicer world if the tactics you believe in were the only ones we used.



Bill, lets find a CIA op to waterboard you.  You can then be an expert and let us know first hand how effective and harmless it was.

Torture of prisioners is not the same as warfare, which " drone attacks, bombing cities with civillian populations, engaging in  close combat in urban terrain, with civillians present and staging raids  where the target (bin laden) is actually killed" are.
However, blind targeting of civilian populations IS illegal and violation of treaty.

A can of mace is about as close to chemical warfare as a fart.  There is a vast difference between a personal can and what Saddam used on the Kurds.

Again, all of these have nothing, nada, zippo, ziltch, not a bob damned thing, to do with torture as you very well know.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

So, giving your child a swat on the butt for running into the street is the same as killing 14000 people in a Khmer Rouge prison camp.  You are




> punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed



And since the public officials will not arrest you for it, are you not engaging in torture of the worst kind when you swat you kid?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Then killing bin laden was murder.
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...aden_is_ok_why_cant_you_do_waterboarding.html



Yes, it possibly was. If he was in fact unarmed, in the process of surrendering, or just outright executed.
You'd be quite surprised how often that happens.
Just recently a photographer was murdered by US troops. 
But as in the case of this photographer, confusion of battle (which in both cases was ongoing) mitigates that.
A significant difference here between these 2 examples and say the Malmedy massacre.

You're purposefully muddying the discussion seeking to legitimize and vindicate a disgraced and debunked position.I doubt anyone here fails to see this.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> So Sukerkin, a police officer who shoots a man about to shoot another, innocent, unarmed man is no different?



Isn't the policeman following his legally defined duty if he does such a thing?  

The whole point, so I thought, of this thread was to show that those performing their duties under adverse conditions in prison facilities such as Gitmo are not the second incarnation of the Waffen SS.  Also, it should not be forgotten that those who illegally tortured prisoners {putting aside the very important issue of whether they were prisoners of war or not} were punished for it.  Now whether all that were punished were all that should have been is a whole other matter.

It's a moral minefield we walk into when we touch on these matters, I know.  I keep saying that the real world, that we cosy citizens usually don't see, is a very dark and dirty place.  We should not ignore it and should not think that there's nothing we can do about it - that's what we have an electoral system for at the end of the day - but neither should we pretend that vile things are not done in our name out of our sight.  All we can do is try to make sure that the old aphorism, about people getting the government they deserve, doesn't show us up to be poor examples of a citizenry.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> So, giving your child a swat on the butt for running into the street is the same as killing 14000 people in a Khmer Rouge prison camp.  You are
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Show me where in US Federal law, any state law, or local law where "giving your child a swat on the butt" is listed as murder, torture or a violation of human rights.

You can't.

Because as always, your example is so far off course, it was charted by someone named Earhart.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

I once again submitt my proposal to do a demonstration.  I will be waterboarded, using the CIA method, if another debater will allow their front two teeth knocked out with a chisel and hammer.  According to the rules of our demo,  we will wait 24 hours for pain medication to be applied in both of our cases.  During the 24 hour period, certain tasks must be completed.  A nice steak dinner must be eaten.  A nice period of restful sleep must be completed.  Other tasks will be thought about but that is the idea.  Heck, I would be waterboarded for charity.  Let's say, a certain amount of money will be donated to a charity of either mine or the trained CIA interrogator who would conduct the waterboarding according to the above mentioned criteria.  A certain time period could be set for my resistance, if I passed that time, my charity would get the cash, if he got me to break in under that time, his charity would get the money.  How about that?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2011)

nope. Go be waterboarded, then tell us how it wasn't so bad. 
I'd like to be there though.  Lord Vader wants to know where the Rebel Base is and I'm sure you'll tell us before it's over.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

I used the legal definition of torture as supplied by Elder.



> *Any act* by which severe pain or suffering, *whether physical or mental*, is *intentionally inflicted *on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.




I believe that if you are not arrested for it that would be





> acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.


	[/QUOTE]





> and that *Any act* by which severe pain or suffering, *whether physical or mental*, is *intentionally inflicted *on a person for such purposes as...  punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

I have no doubt I would break.  Three hardened Jihadi Terrorist leaders, responsible for well over 3000 deaths around the world, and who know how much maiming and grief of other innocent victims, broke under waterboarding and gave information that saved lives.   I'm sure that the death star would be on it's way to the rebel base in short order.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2011)

I'll disagree on a few points, but we can discuss that more over some BBQ Ewok.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

The native Ewok needs to be carefully prepared though, due to it's overly Saccharine flavor.


----------



## billc (Sep 10, 2011)

Have nice weekends everyone.  I'll argue again later.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 10, 2011)

mmmmmm,,,,,,,,,ewok brisket



Bob Hubbard said:


> I'll disagree on a few points, but we can discuss that more over some BBQ Ewok.


----------

