Originally Posted By woody I am banking on the truth. Nothing I've read in the mainstream media described torture. If you keep using the term, the word will lose all its impact when the real thing happens. I don't hear anything about Saddam's torture chamber in the media. Why cry about Saddam when badder people like Bush-chimp-hitler is around?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Nothing I've read in the mainstream media described torture. << You must not be looking very hard - there's hundreds more where this came from. BTW, what does "mainstream media" mean to you? <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8769416/site/newsweek/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/87 69416/site/newsweek/</a> Newsweek >> Aug. 8, 2005 - An FBI agent warned superiors in a memo three years ago that U.S. officials who discussed plans to ship terror suspects to foreign nations that practice torture could be prosecuted for conspiring to violate U.S. law, according to a copy of the memo obtained by NEWSWEEK. The strongly worded memo, written by an FBI supervisor then assigned to Guantanamo, is the latest in a series of documents that have recently surfaced reflecting unease among some government lawyers and FBI agents over tactics being used in the war on terror. This memo appears to be the first that directly questions the legal premises of the Bush administration policy of "extraordinary rendition"—a secret program under which terror suspects are transferred to foreign countries that have been widely criticized for practicing torture. In a memo forwarded to a senior FBI lawyer on Nov. 27, 2002, a supervisory special agent from the bureau's behavioral analysis unit offered a legal analysis of interrogation techniques that had been approved by Pentagon officials for use against high-value Qaeda detainees. After objecting to techniques such as exploiting "phobias" like "the fear of dogs" or dripping water "to induce the misperception of drowning," the agent discussed a plan to send the detainee to Jordan, Egypt or an unspecified third country for interrogation. "In as much as the intent of this category is to utilize, outside the U.S., interrogation techniques which would violate [U.S. law] if committed in the U.S., it is a per se violation of the U.S. Torture Statute," the agent wrote. "Discussing any plan which includes this category could be seen as a conspiracy to violate [the Torture Statute]" and "would inculpate" everyone involved. Intel officials estimate that more than 100 terror suspects have been rendered to foreign countries by the CIA under a classified directive signed by President George W. Bush after 9/11. Officials have confirmed that 65 detainees have been transferred from Guantanamo for further detention or prosecution by foreign governments, including 29 to Pakistan, seven to Russia, five to Morocco and four to Saudi Arabia—countries the State Department criticizes for practicing torture. << ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> I don't hear anything about Saddam's torture chamber in the media. Why cry about Saddam when badder people like Bush-chimp-hitler is around? << Because we americans are responsible for the actions of our government. Not so with saddam, or anybody else. This is being done in our name. You may be comfortable with that, but I'm not. I'm even disgusted when this administration, in the visage of VP dick cheney himself, actively and publicly lobbies for the "right" to torture anybody they see fit, and be answerable to no one. We're supposed to "trust them" because they're "keeping us safe". They have no shame.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy We should take a poll. Would you be willing to let the USA use " torture " to get info from a person that knew how and where a massive attack on US soil was going to happen? Any guesses on what the result would be with Americans??? I'm guessing about 75% to 80% YES. Gadzuux, if your going to take this position like many liberals do, you really need to tell us how your going to get the info out of the captured terrorist. Well??? I vote yes in my poll by the way.
Originally Posted By woody gadzuux: That Newsweek article described techniques that are clearly not torture. --------techniques such as exploiting "phobias" like "the fear of dogs" or dripping water "to induce the misperception of drowning,"----------- They are severe techniques, but they are not torture. However, to save yourself the trouble to find another source, I've looked into it some more. There is a story that troubles me. It's about the Canadian who was renditioned. The alledged techniques sound like very bad. -------- <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0208-13.htm" target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/he adlines05/0208-13.htm</a> >>>"en hours after landing in Jordan, Arar said, he was driven to Syria, where interrogators, after a day of threats, “just began beating on me.†They whipped his hands repeatedly with two-inch-thick electrical cables, and kept him in a windowless underground cell that he likened to a grave. “Not even animals could withstand it,†he said. Although he initially tried to assert his innocence, he eventually confessed to anything his tormentors wanted him to say. “You just give up,†he said. “You become like an animal.â€<<< --------- These techniques sound severe (the whipping of hands), but they don't even match Saddam's torture chambers. Of course, the techniques did not succeed with an innocent man. Here's some stories from Saddam's torture chambers. ----------- <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w orld/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm</a> BAGHDAD — Pictures of dead Iraqis, with their necks slashed, their eyes gouged out and their genitals blackened, fill a bookshelf. Jail cells, with dried blood on the floor and rusted shackles bolted to the walls, line the corridors. And the screams of what could be imprisoned men in an underground detention center echo through air shafts and sewer pipes. An Iraqi soldier, who according to the facility's records witnessed the beatings, said interrogators regularly used pliers to remove men's teeth, electric prods to shock men's genitals and drills to cut holes in their ankles. In one instance, the soldier recalled, he witnessed a Kuwaiti soldier, who had been captured during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, being forced to sit on a broken Pepsi bottle. The man was removed from the bottle only after it filled up with his blood, the soldier said. He said the man later died. "I have seen interrogators break the heads of men with baseball bats, pour salt into wounds and rape wives in front of their husbands," said former Iraqi soldier Ali Iyad Kareen, 41.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> That Newsweek article described techniques that are clearly not torture. << The newsweek article goes on to say that after those reprehensihle practices were completed, the 'detainees' were then shippeed off to other nations for the purpose of subjecting them to 'techniques' that would not be performed at guantanamo. And beau, these people that we're torturing are often innocent of any wrongdoing. They have had no trial, no evidence presented - we just snatched them up and took them away. Months later we decide that they are not 'useful' (ie, "innocent") and we quietly release them. Who's in favor of that?
Originally Posted By woody "The newsweek article goes on to say that after those reprehensihle practices were completed, the 'detainees' were then shippeed off to other nations for the purpose of subjecting them to 'techniques' that would not be performed at guantanamo." No, it did not. They offered to send the people to other countries because the techniques are objected to (by the FBI) despite the Pentagon approval of their use. The analysis said those techniques may violate the Torture Statutes so they would not recommend the US do them. The FBI and the Pentagon have different interpretations of torture.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>We should take a poll.<< Talk about moral relativism. Do we get to decide what is ethical and moral based on polls now?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Even if what happened to detainees at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo don't violate the White House's limited definition of "torture", they meet the definitions laid out in international treaties that the US signed.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder I invite anyone who doesn't think these tactics are torture to submit to them themselves and then let us know what they think.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> They offered to send the people to other countries because the techniques are objected to (by the FBI) despite the Pentagon approval of their use. << And what do you think that's about? I hope you would agree that the purpose of "offering" to send them to these 'black sites' is to torture them. The FBIs "senior investigator" certainly thought so, and he issued a warning memo that by doing so, they are opening themselves up to prosecution. I guess he underestimates the level of corruption within the executive branch right now. Not such a risk after all - so lets send 69 of them out for even more diabolical methods of inflicting pain and trauma. 69. Their number - straight from the US government. Add in more than a hundred others who never even made it guantanamo. Some die and are never heard from again. Were they guilty of anything? We'll never know. NO ONE ever assigned this kind of absolute power to this, or any, US administration. No one ever would. They just took it. The bush administration alone immediately set out to corrupt our nation, our "self-government", are values and beliefs as a people, and along with it, our integrity. You see it all the way through their history - from unilateral action against another nation under patently false pretenses, squandering our capital into mountainous debt, gutting our social and domestic programs, all the way up to illegally wire-tapping citizens and circumventing the judicial branch entirely - which by the way is still a federal offense. The torture aspect is horrible enough, and is the topic here, but it's so much bigger than that. It isn't just bush, and isn't just some other opposition candidate or two, it's a conspiracy among powerful people to use the GOP as an access point into the levers of real power within our governemnt, and then corrupting them for their own ends - more power and more money. And our nation is diminished and endangered as a direct result. In some very real ways, bush is a greater danger to our nation than saddam or bin laden ever could be. This danger cannot be fixed by the republican party. Their leadership is complicit in the crimes, and the culprits are well entrenched thoughout the entire party. Remember "Anybody But Bush"? The new mantra for 2006 "Anybody But GOP". Be a true patriot and turn the bums out. And then prosecute them.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I vote yes Beau with but why your Beau? Misprint I hope? For all the people who see red when they see my name, read Beau's poll question carefully. No dancing, just read his question.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Did anyone see the CBS exclusive interview with George last night? He is such a good man who is doing his best to keep the country safe as I think everyone knows is the No. 1 duty of our President. He is not glib as pass and others have emphasized, and that is true but the venom he is taking is embarrassing for me to hear as an American when so many other countries citizens support their horrible leaders. If and unless the Dems, Independents (like I am) or whoever puts forth a better candidate in 08, I think it is best to criticize in a civil tone that at least IMPLIES a little respect for the Presidency of the U.S.A. I have a client who ran for Governor of Mass around 6 years ago or so and he was a U.S Rep for 12 years and he told me horror stories about Ronald Reagan being completely let's just say (not that quick intellectually) and it was scary that he was our President, with his finger on the button etc. He did bring dignity to the office though and people respected him> not me incidentally. George W. is a rocket scientist compared to Reagan and to get this bashing because he isn't a very good public speaker is not fair. I know all the rhetoric will follow about his other faults so go right ahead but his legacy, I feel, will be much better than his detractors think.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Although he initially tried to assert his innocence, he eventually confessed to anything his tormentors wanted him to say. “You just give up,†he said. “You become like an animal.â€<< Did you read what you posted? This is what anyone will eventually do when being tortured. Forget about the toughguy movie heroes who never break -- every human being has a breaking point. And as illustrated in this example, Woody, this man confessed to whatever they wanted him to. Imagine the scenario Beau keeps offering -- using torture to get info about an impending attack on the US. Would the intel be worth anything, would it be valuable in preventing an attack? Or would the person say anything the torturers wanted to hear to make the torture stop? And assuming this key operative knows the whole plan, wouldn't him failing to check in with his co-conspirators result in a Plan B, or C, or ceasing the attack entirly? In other words, would this key person's abscence be enough to thwart an attack without resorting to trying to beat information out of him, info that might be wrong anyway?
Originally Posted By woody "Did you read what you posted?" Kar2oonMan: What? You didn't get it when I said the interrogation was TROUBLING. I would not want witness their techniques. It did prove that when innocent people are interrogated under severe conditions, they will say anything to have it stopped. But it may also be effective towards the guilty. I really think we should not tie up our hands in these cases. Any information we get from the interrogations must be confirmed. That's a fact.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It did prove that when innocent people are interrogated under severe conditions, they will say anything to have it stopped.<< Yes.... >> But it may also be effective towards the guilty.<< Or not.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder I invite anyone who doesn't think these tactics are torture to submit to them themselves and then let us know what they think.
Originally Posted By Nautilus If I were caught by an enemy and withholding vital information, I would expect to be tortured in some way. If the choices were between a stress and duress technique that exploits my innermost fears (e.g. ferocious animals, confined spaces or the continuous playing of Abba’s greatest hits)… OR the infliction of a long form of severe physical agony (e.g. bamboo chutes shoved up the fingernails, snapping and twisting bones with pliers, etc.)… I’ll gladly take the stress and duress method. However, if the information I’m withholding is truly of extreme consequence, then the powers that be may want to provide me with a suicide pill or something, because it really wouldn’t take that much torture to break me. A few days without sleep and I’d probably start talkin’.
