American King George II wants MORE private info ...

[shesulsa]

In the basement conference room in which House Republicans meet each week, Bush was expected to ask for support for two key pieces of legislation he says are crucial to preventing terrorist attacks. One would meet CIA demands that Congress reinterpret the nation’s treaty obligations to allow tougher interrogations of detainees, but it’s snagged in the Senate between the leadership and a trio of powerful Republicans.

At nearly the same time Bush meets with House Republicans, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Thursday was asking his panel to finish an alternative to the White House plan to prosecute terror suspects and redefine acts that constitute war crimes.


Warner believes the administration proposal would lower the standard for the treatment of prisoners, potentially putting U.S. troops at risk should other countries retaliate.

Full Article

Anybody got tea (or something else) we can dump?

 

[crushing]

Full Article

Anybody got tea (or something else) we can dump?

Letters, letters, try a different letter. Don't dump 'T', dump the the letter three after.

 

[mrhnau]

In the basement conference room in which House Republicans meet each week, Bush was expected to ask for support for two key pieces of legislation he says are crucial to preventing terrorist attacks. One would meet CIA demands that Congress reinterpret the nation’s treaty obligations to allow tougher interrogations of detainees, but it’s snagged in the Senate between the leadership and a trio of powerful Republicans.

I'd like to see what those "tougher" interrogations are. How do they compare with interrogations we perform on regular criminals here in the US? Say someone murders a senator. How would they be interrogated? What treaties are they refering to? Does Geneva convention even apply, since they are technically not a militia of a foreign body?

At nearly the same time Bush meets with House Republicans, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Thursday was asking his panel to finish an alternative to the White House plan to prosecute terror suspects and redefine acts that constitute war crimes.

Goes back to first question. Does Geneva apply? We are dealing with something relatively new here, so it stands to reason that new interpretations/laws might be required. We don't have a ton of experience with terrorist flying planes into our buildings or threatening/planning to kill thousands/millions. Relatively unexplored territory.

Warner believes the administration proposal would lower the standard for the treatment of prisoners, potentially putting U.S. troops at risk should other countries retaliate.

Still, I'd like to understand whats being changed before I jump to conclusions. I'd also like a clear definition of what currently defines "torture" vs what is going to define "torture".

Anybody got tea (or something else) we can dump?

I personally like tea. I'll wait until I understand what is happening before I throw my favorite drink overboard.

I'd also like things to change focus some times. This has always ticked me off. We get so excited about some prisoners that have lights turned on, or music played loudly or some other form of "torture". Have we forgotten what these guys have done? Do you still remember 9/11 and other acts that have been prevented by this horrendous "torture" and by tapping international phone calls to/from known terrorist or associates of terrorists? There is a reason we have these changes happening. There are about 3000 of them. I prefer for that number to not get much higher.

Am I advocating barbaric torture? Is Bush? Lets see what he is saying before we jump to those conclusions.

 

[Elayna]

I put forth a question...

If there was a person who had kidnapped a loved one(a daughter, a wife, a mother, a son,) and the police arrested him and he refused to tell you where they were, but you knew they were still alive what methods would you resort to to find your loved one again??

I dont support barbaric behavior in all circumstances. I believe that first we must exhaust all other options before resorting to such "extreme" measures as torture. Such as offering freedom to them and so on. But, if they refused no matter what and they still held the lives of people in their hands I would resort to "extreme" measures.

I have a son and I can gaurentee you, if anyone ever took him from me and they wouldnt tell me where he was or anything like that, after I tried to offer the criminal freedom or whatever...I would rip him to pieces slowly until he told me where my child was. End of story.

If someone is asking for money or whatever I would give it. If they want to be let go and in return they give me my child I would give it. IF they wanted me in return for my child I would give it. But if they refuse to give me back what is mine and they stole from me, my child....I would.....

The same would apply to terrorist who were hurting hundreds of people and they knew something to stop it and knew something that would help not only us but others bring peace to the land. Of course only after all other options had been exhausted.

Soo.....That is my view. Harsh yes, but that of a mother.

 

[shesulsa]

I am also a mother and I have learned to be careful about saying things like ...

"I would rip him to pieces slowly until he told me where my child was. End of story."

Because, you see, it's not the end of the story. It's vigilantism. What would I do if my children were abducted? I would exhaust all possibilities. My mother went missing for a month and my autistic teen for over an hour. I know what it's like to repress every primal urge within me and pursue avenues that actually LED me to them.

When we allow our emotions to rule our actions, we become primal, animalistic, savage ... we don the behaviors that we so desperately and haughtily assign to terrorist organizations and evil regimes. I am of the opinion that in fighting the enemy that one must take care not to become like the enemy.

:asian:

 

[elder999]

I put forth a question...

If there was a person who had kidnapped a loved one(a daughter, a wife, a mother, a son,) and the police arrested him and he refused to tell you where they were, but you knew they were still alive what methods would you resort to to find your loved one again??

I dont support barbaric behavior in all circumstances. I believe that first we must exhaust all other options before resorting to such "extreme" measures as torture. Such as offering freedom to them and so on. But, if they refused no matter what and they still held the lives of people in their hands I would resort to "extreme" measures.

I have a son and I can gaurentee you, if anyone ever took him from me and they wouldnt tell me where he was or anything like that, after I tried to offer the criminal freedom or whatever...I would rip him to pieces slowly until he told me where my child was. End of story.

If someone is asking for money or whatever I would give it. If they want to be let go and in return they give me my child I would give it. IF they wanted me in return for my child I would give it. But if they refuse to give me back what is mine and they stole from me, my child....I would.....

The same would apply to terrorist who were hurting hundreds of people and they knew something to stop it and knew something that would help not only us but others bring peace to the land. Of course only after all other options had been exhausted.

Soo.....That is my view. Harsh yes, but that of a mother.

Harsh and inefficient:according to the CIA director and a host of other authorities, torture does not work.

As for the electronic intelligence-while I despise it, it's been a fait accompli for quite some time now.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Full Article

Anybody got tea (or something else) we can dump?

While this country is used to non-violent revolutions ever four years, this country is headed towards another "Tea" party.

While I support a recent judge who ruled that the phone tapping was not legal for the Homeland Security and other offices, the Judge did not quote proper legal precedence or even the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so it eventually will be overturned based upon poorly written decree.

Yet it was the right thing to do given our current state of the U.S. Constitution. What I believe is the problem is the U.S. Supreme Court which is on teh extended leave from June until the First Monday in October and are appointed for life, so they have lots of power at their hands to use, but in not using it they are indirectly supporting the problems. The reason they are three branches of the Governement was for balance. Over the last few decades the Executive Branch no longer needs the approval of the Congressional Branch to move troops into warfare. Oh we call it warfare year later. It is now called the Iraqi War by many but while it occurred it was called ODS or Operation Desert Shield/Storm.

So, I think someone on the U.S. Supreme Court should stand up state that many of the Freedom Acts are in violation of our current U.S. Constitution. Now this does not mean that these acts cannot stand, it just means that the proper forms and procedures must be followed to modify the Constitution. This means the people get to vote on these actions or that their representatives did do it.

Right now there are laws in place that are against the U.S. Constitution, but most people are willing to accept this because they are not terrorists and do not break the law. Eventually though the terrorists will be gone and the police state will still be rolling, and they will continue to find someone to have the people be afraid of. Keep the people afraid or entertained and feed (* The Barbarians or the Arenas and the daily supplements of bread *) and one can do lots of things the later wonder why or how the people allowed it.

The balance is not there, and it should be restored.

 

[tradrockrat]

You know what's funny? While I am much closer to Elaynas way of thinking here, I think it's high time for another Tea party. This bloated government needs to be taken down a peg or three and while I really don't give **** if they tear each and every prisoner to peices one inch at a time, I do care about our civil liberties and freedoms. Voting out George will not get rid of the phone taps, patriot act, Rico act, etc.

King George? Scary.

Queen Hillary? Terrifying beyond belief.

 

[michaeledward]

I am reading Hubris.

In the book, the authors related how an FBI interrogator was working with a Mr. al-Libi. They tell how the interrogator and Mr. al-Libi discussed religious beliefs. They prayed together. They talked. Over a period of weeks, the interrogator was able to gather quite a bit of useful information.

Then, someone in the CIA thought it might be better, that they might gain more information, if there was a bit more stress in the interrogations. The CIA took custody of Mr. al-Libi. The CIA rendered Mr. al Libi to Egypt. Suddenly, there was more information, about how the Iraqi Government had trained al Qaeda operatives in use of Chemical and Biological weapons.

These claims made it into Presidential speeches. These claims made it into Vice Presidential appearances on Meet the Press.

These claims were made up by Mr. al-Libi to meet the demands of his interrogators. After being released from CIA custody, he recanted on these claims.

Ignore these facts, if they don't fit your paradigm.

* * * * *

I am so very proud that Senators Warner, McCain and Graham. Today, they placed the requirements of the military and the nation above the requirements of the President.

My fear, is that when the two bills reach conference, the demands of these Republican Senators will be swept away. This is why the Filibuster rule must not be tampered with.

But for today, 'A Tip of the Hat' to these Senators with whom I seldom agree.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

"Interrogation" to one political agenda becomes "torture", and vice versa. Label it "torture" and it becomes BAD. Call it "interrogation" and thats not so bad.

Lets hear what these "techniques" are before we throw the terrorists out with the tea water.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/94/3171/2005-12-13.asp?wid=94&nid=3171

Jack Cloonan, former FBI agent and current ABC News commentator, believes that torture is anathema to basic American values and should not be condoned or used under any circumstances. He believes that our Founding Fathers had it right and that freedom and liberty are more important than security. He also believes that torture as a way of getting information does not work because people will say anything just to stop the torture.

Neil Livingston, terrorism expert and another ABC News commentator, believes the opposite. He agrees that while our Founding Fathers were correct in their desire to protect freedom and liberty, today we do not live in those simple times and we must take certain actions to protect ourselves that would be unthinkable 230 years ago. When there are terrorists like al Qaeda that have sworn to destroy our country, our culture, our religion, and our remaining freedoms, and to enslave all non-Muslims into a sub-class as part of their world Islamic caliphate, or at least those unfortunate enough to have survived the sword after the purge. Livingston believes torture does work to obtain time-critical information.

A realistic terror scenario might look something like this: Intelligence reports have identified a dirty bomb target as New York City, always a favorite al Qaeda target, with the bomb scheduled to be detonated in three days. Four terror suspects have been identified and detained for questioning based on USA Patriot Act financial collections and from National Security Agency communications intercepts.

There are two possible approaches to this scenario. Should we use all means possible, to include torture, to identify the location of the nuclear-contaminated dirty bomb and who will detonate it in order to prevent the detonation (the Livingston method)? Or, should we provide legal counsel to the detainees to ensure the terrorists’ rights are not violated and to question them about the bomb, perhaps even offering them a plea bargain if they are willing to testify against their cohorts and to provide the location of the bomb and who will detonate it (the Cloonan method)? Personally, I vote for the method number one. Although method number two may be desirable in some ways, we do not have enough time to prevent bomb detonation and the subsequent loss of life, property, let alone NYC being this nation’s financial capitol.

Then again our governmant had 100's of Taliban leaders in their sights this week but didnt blast em because they were in a cemetary. So this whole topic seems kind of odd put up next to that.

 

[Kacey]

I think that Shesulsa has the right of it:

in fighting the enemy that one must take care not to become like the enemy.

To often, the only justification is that the ends justify the means - but as others have stated, people who are being tortured will say anything if they think it will stop the torture - therefore, anything they say is suspect. If the interrogator makes an emotional connection with the prisoner, and convinces the prisoner to provide meaningful information through coercion rather than pain - like victims of kidnapping who come to identify with their kidnappers, a phenomenon commonly referred to as the Stockholm Syndrome, or Stockholm Effect, prisoners can come to identify with their jailers, and to sympathize with their aim - and therefore can be convinced to provide meaningful information.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Maybe your right, but its still useless in the face of an immediate threat.

A smart interrogator will have background and corroborating intelligence from other interrogations to verify if what he is being told is true. Are CIA aents so poorly trained that they wouldnt be prepared for lies?

 

[elder999]

A realistic terror scenario might look something like this: Intelligence reports have identified a dirty bomb target as New York City, always a favorite al Qaeda target, with the bomb scheduled to be detonated in three days. Four terror suspects have been identified and detained for questioning based on USA Patriot Act financial collections and from National Security Agency communications intercepts.

There are two possible approaches to this scenario. Should we use all means possible, to include torture, to identify the location of the nuclear-contaminated dirty bomb and who will detonate it in order to prevent the detonation (the Livingston method)? Or, should we provide legal counsel to the detainees to ensure the terrorists’ rights are not violated and to question them about the bomb, perhaps even offering them a plea bargain if they are willing to testify against their cohorts and to provide the location of the bomb and who will detonate it (the Cloonan method)? Personally, I vote for the method number one. Although method number two may be desirable in some ways, we do not have enough time to prevent bomb detonation and the subsequent loss of life, property, let alone NYC being this nation’s financial capitol.

Actually, this is a scenario I’m more than a little familiar with-neither approach would work worth a damn, torture or protecting their rights, and there is at the very least a third, more likely to succeed method that I’m not even going to get into here…. although, I guess I could just ask what you think a man is likely to say if he wakes up thinking he's died and gone to heaven, and Allah himself wants to chat with him.....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Interrogation" to one political agenda becomes "torture", and vice versa. Label it "torture" and it becomes BAD. Call it "interrogation" and thats not so bad.

Lets hear what these "techniques" are before we throw the terrorists out with the tea water.

But, they can't tell you this as it might let the "bad guys" train to resist them.

 

[MA-Caver]

When we allow our emotions to rule our actions, we become primal, animalistic, savage ... we don the behaviors that we so desperately and haughtily assign to terrorist organizations and evil regimes. I am of the opinion that in fighting the enemy that one must take care not to become like the enemy.
:asian:

Basically a "good" terrorist isn't going to say squat and hope that you will kill him so he can obtain heaven with Allah and his alloted 70 virgins. He's not going to spoil the "fun" by telling you when and where an attack is going to be made. So really it isn't going to work and you can't always 100% guarantee the accuracy of information gathered under duress, or even chemical pursuasion.
Shesulsa is correct that we must be careful not to become like our enemies when fighting them. We are a civilized nation are we not? We are the envy of the world for our freedoms?
While we should in circumstances met out punishment to match the justice equal to the crime. Torturing someone and leaving them alive to get information that you shouldn't completely trust to begin with ... There's a fine line here.

 

[michaeledward]

First ... we also need to recognize Senator Collins (R-ME) for voting with Senators Warner, McCain and Graham - which is against the leader of the party, President Bush.

I think that the former three senators might have had much more realpolitick concerns when voting the way they did. While it is a nice idea to stick to the moral high ground, to ensure that we do not transfigure into that which we are fight, and to honor the principles on which the country was founded, I think it is far more likely that these veterans understand the true cost of the Presidents legislation.

The true cost would be to endanger any service man or women that might be captured on the battlefield; this is the essence of those little yellow ribbons on the back of your cars; Support the Troops. Guarantee for them the best protections available by law as they undertake the tasks that we, left behind, are unable or unwilling to undertake. Ensure the protections of Geneva to those who serve.

I'm not sure why ... but I guess I just kind of get the sense, that when we are taking about treatment of prisoners of war (enemy combatants - whatever), Senator McCain, for some reason, just has a bit more credibility than either Veep Cheney or President Bush. I wonder why I feel that way.

 

[Don Roley]

The true cost would be to endanger any service man or women that might be captured on the battlefield; this is the essence of those little yellow ribbons on the back of your cars; Support the Troops. Guarantee for them the best protections available by law as they undertake the tasks that we, left behind, are unable or unwilling to undertake. Ensure the protections of Geneva to those who serve.

That thinking was and is valid when dealing with the battles that happend in Europe when the Geneva convention was developed. Every nation signed it, they followed it and were assured that their own soldiers would be treated fairly. Instead of wholesale slaughter fighting to the last man, troops would surrender and be released to help out after the war because they knew they would not be abused.

This is not the situation we face in the battles American soldiers are involved in now.

No matter what we do or what agreements we abide by, they will continue to slowly saw the heads off of people they capture after long periods of torture.

If you go through SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape) training in the military you will probably be subject to many of the things we do not use on enemy prisoners. Because it is a given fact that they will probably be used on you if you are captured- Geneva convention or no.

I think that believing that there is anything we can do to get our soldiers that are captured by Al- Quaeda treated with anything other than torture is very, very hopefull thinking.

 

[Elayna]

Im really sorry that you guys believe that I would resort to violence on a whim. That is why I said over and over, after every avenue was exhausted I would yes resort to physicall violence IF and only IF i knew that they knew where my child was, or any of my family memebers and actually any person in general.
Im not saying if I just had a hunch, but if they say,
Oh Yea I know where they are but Im not telling you even though you have offered me freedom, money or whatever else. Then yes I would do what I had to do to get that person back. Especially if it was my child. I value human life, even that of a criminal. But...I will not hesitate if they are not willing to cooperate.
I think everyone in any country would do the same.
And believe me, I know what it is to resist an animal urge not to kill someone. I have had several stalkers, and I could have killed one of them. I was 4 months pregnant when me and my husband found a stalker watching us through the blinds. My husband chased after him and had the opportunity to kill him, but he didnt. I had the opportunity to kill a man that beat me, but I didnt. So I understand resisting those urges. I am not an animal. I respect life. But if someone is not willing to give it...then something must be done.

I hope that you dont accuse me again of being animalistic, because yes I do take offense.
If I knew one person held the key to saving one or hundred people, and they were not willing to cooperate even when I was willing to give them anything they wanted, even my own life, then yes .....I would do what was needed.
Soo....


As far as taping our phones I dont think the government should be able to do that whenever they want. They should be required to get a warrant and show proof that someone might be a threat to national security. Not just snoop into our buisness whenever they feel like it.
And I do not support amending the Geneva Convention. As our troops would be in danger as well. And until a compromise can be found were our troops would not suffer anymore then they already do I do not support amending it. But making rules for "interrogation" in our own country in another matter.
As far as having a "Tea" party, I do believe that unless people learn to find common ground and some changes are made in our government it will happen again.
I am even afraid that because we can not agree on anything that we will have another civil war. That is not good.
That is what we all need to think about. Not just the "Tea" party, but in the end, the Civil war it might cause.
Anyways..
My apologies to those who found my views animalistic, but...we do what we must when we have no way out.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

That thinking was and is valid when dealing with the battles that happend in Europe when the Geneva convention was developed. Every nation signed it, they followed it and were assured that their own soldiers would be treated fairly. Instead of wholesale slaughter fighting to the last man, troops would surrender and be released to help out after the war because they knew they would not be abused.

This is not the situation we face in the battles American soldiers are involved in now.

Exactly. It's like playing a football game where only one side has to play by the rules and/or take penalties. Look Im not "for" pulling out fingernails, cutting off toes or burning out eyeballs or anything like that, but some of these bleeding hearts are calling leaving lights on, changing feeding times and making people stand/sit uncomfortably for a long time "torture" and thats plain crazy IMO.