OK. There are a few pretty damning things in there, especially regarding the treatment of the suspected 20th hijacker.

The section that claims Cheney admitted waterboarding at the facility was wrong, and I have edited that and removed it. (I know, I know!) The article that they cited was missing, but I found the same article on Common Dreams. Cheney admitted that waterboarding was used, but not that it was used at Guantanamo. The CIA later admitted it too, but the subjects were not at Guantanamo. And none of the prisoners mention it, and the Red Cross doesn't mention it. I cannot connect Guantanamo and waterboarding.

Also, though there are some prisoner complaints of sleep deprivation (and it might be the only thing the prisoner complaints have in common), nobody said sleep deprivation "over a period of years". People just seem to make stuff up sometimes.

Yeah also the FBI Freedom of Information document is chock full of "class B" stuff during interrogations.

(but also, no waterboarding mentioned)

eh. not completely heart broken.

We are well beyond needing citations for torture. Documents now define approval for torture in the White House. Recent revelations report that the CIA was so concerned about their own safety for doing torture as to demand written documents from the White House that approved it.

Current questions are specifically who authorized torture. For example, currently under investigation is AG Gonzales. You can argue these silly needs for citations all you want. At this point, America tortured prisoners in Guantanamo. The recently discovered documents from the CIA state that the White House authorized it in writing. Question now is who in the White House authorized it.

What is just a few rogue plumbers bugging the Watergate? Investigators are now asking the same questions about torture in Guantanamo - and elsewhere.

Bad enough we tortured them, kept them in solitary confinement, denied them due process, and even refused to let the Red Cross tell their families where they were. Worse - hundreds (probably all but maybe 16) were completely innocent. This is the moral and religous George Jr? Torture of innocent people happens when only god tells a leader what to do. A damning reality.

So you can't site it. Ok.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...nce-may-be.php

http://talkradionews.com/2008/07/wat...in-guantanamo/

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...es&match=exact

http://cbs5.com/national/hearing.wat....2.563973.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...-_n_87082.html

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...y_deprivation/

While you may have doubts that Guantanamo prisoners have been waterboarded, there is no doubt that prisoners have been tortured.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...guantanamo.usa

I don't get the defense of this behavior. If it's legal to do against POWs how soon will we see it used against citizens? How soon will a citizen be declared a POW so that torture can be used?

One of the objectives of the law is to prohibit abuses of power. This is the sort of thing that should be specifically prohibited.

Well the first link says nothing about waterboarding at GITMO. After that, none of the links are original source documents. I disregard anything written by the Huffington post. So where is the proof that it happened at GITMO. The liberal press have long used a broad definition of "torture" which is not supported by the facts.

I am not defending it as much as I am getting those who believe it to prove their assertions in these discussions. Most of you can't. Did it happen, sure, most likely, but not at GITMO. Was it a standard practice, no I don't believe it. But hell, if I was locked up in GITMO for as long as some of those poor saps I would claim it too. What defense attorney would not tell their defendant in GITMO to make such a claim, I would.

Well it's going to be very hard to get evidence considering how tight they have Guantanamo locked up, isn't it.

In any case, the very fact that the current administration has policy that allows this kind of torture is reprehensible.

And isn't that the point. You choose to believe everything you hear or read. I do not.

No doubt all wisdom will die with you, Merc.

I don't believe everything I read, but I don't close my eyes either.

But you don't question anything that disparages the military, the Bush administration, the military, or people on the front line of fighting terrorism in the world, and that speaks volumes. I question everything. I doubt much, but I do not buy into the reports of the otherwise liberal press. You seem to me to suck it up lock, stock, and barrel in an effort to support your position. I refuse to accept "the first report".

Nonsense. I fully support the invasion of Afghanistan and the continued presence of the military there. I respect and admire the courage of the men in Iraq, but I do not support their presence there. The men are not at fault, the blame lies with the administration (which is not solely Bush).

I respect your opinion but we disagree on much. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes and you are only fed your information from the liberal left-wing web sites. The reality as you see it is not what it seems. You can discount me and ignore my statements as you see fit. I have no problem with it nor do I think you are a lesser person because of it. But give me the same respect.