Torture memos

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

(probably)

Operative word. Open to what you want to believe about the good work that most of these people did.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

They didn't believe it was torture.

Clinton didnt believe he had sex with that woman.

Nixon didnt believe he was a crook

But Bush/Cheney are pure of heart and honest in their public pronouncements.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Clinton didnt believe he had sex with that woman.

Nixon didnt believe he was a crook

But Bush/Cheney are pure of heart and honest in their public pronouncements.

No shit.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

By the gods! I can't believe some of you actually believe torture is OK.

To believe it, they must lie to themselves. Torture has never proven reliable. But facts get in the way of political agendas be it global warming, economic stimulus, Enron, Saddam's WMDs, and even torture. To be an extremist means one must lie. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". Lie after lie.

Never expect an extremist to admit that the FBI gave up interrogating as soon as torture started. Once tortured, any useful information from a prisoner is lost. Anyone who learned before knowing from 24 would know that. FBI knew it. Once torture started, the FBI left. Torture that wacko extremists first claimed did not exist. How can they be honest when lying is necessary to be an extremist?

[Undertoad]

...reportedly found that the DoJ attorneys who wrote the torture memos may have deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted...

We await this finding. If they just wrote opinions, how could one know whether it was deliberate? It seems to me that proof would require:

A) Word had to be passed from the WH on what conclusions they wanted. "We need you to create an opinion that permits the harshest levels of interrogation possible, although that may be unlawful. We will make sure you aren't held accountable."

or

B) Evidence that the DoJ attorneys had a different opinion before being asked. "Attorney X published an opinion ten years ago that stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture."

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We await this finding. If they just wrote opinions, how could one know whether it was deliberate? It seems to me that proof would require:

A) Word had to be passed from the WH on what conclusions they wanted. "We need you to create an opinion that permits the harshest levels of interrogation possible, although that may be unlawful. We will make sure you aren't held accountable."

or

B) Evidence that the DoJ attorneys had a different opinion before being asked. "Attorney X published an opinion ten years ago that stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture."

Well, since we have prosecuted people in the past for waterboarding, that makes a pretty damn good argument that we think it's illegal. Otherwise, why would we have prosecuted them? OH RIGHT! Because it was OUR MEN who were being tortured. The double standard that people in this country have is sickening.

[sugarpop]

King Abdullah of Jordan said yesterday that they had actually been able to turn some members of al Qaeda and got them to work FOR them. They damn sure didn't get them to do that by torturing them.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

they know they can get more reliable information by other methods.

Who is "they" and how do they "KNOW"?

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Well, since we have prosecuted people in the past for waterboarding,

Please cite a few cases of who "we" have prosecuted.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Who is "they" and how do they "KNOW"?

I said: King Abdullah of Jordan said yesterday that they had actually been able to turn some members of al Qaeda and got them to work FOR them. They damn sure didn't get them to do that by torturing them.

They = Jordanians King Abdullah of Jordan said yesterday that they (Jordan) had actually been able to turn some members of al Qaeda and got them (al qaeda prisoners) to work FOR them (Jordan). They (Jordan) damn sure didn't get them (al qaeda prisoners) to do that by torturing them (al qaeda prisoners).

I guess they know because maybe the people they were able turn supplied them with information that was good? I don't know, he wasn't specific. Go watch Meet the Press from yesterday and see for yourself.

Is my language that hard to understand, or are you just giving me a hard time?

Please cite a few cases of who "we" have prosecuted.

Please don't tell me you didn't already know this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110201170.html
The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

[sugarpop]

Here's another one...

http://pubrecord.org/torture/854.html?task=view
George W. Bush’s Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near-drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn’t even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions.

Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies. But that 1983 case – which would seem to be directly on point for a legal analysis on waterboarding two decades later – was never mentioned in the four Bush administration opinions released last week...

http://washingtonindependent.com/13453/waterboarding
...the U.S. itself prosecuted waterboarding of American soldiers after World War II; waterboarding by American soldiers in the Philippines, and “water torture,” as it’s also been called — most recently by a local sheriff in Texas...

...Evan Wallach, a judge on the U.S. Court of International Trade and expert on the laws of war, wrote: “Not so very long ago, the United States, acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial, and as a participant in the world community, not only condemned the use of water torture, but severely punished as criminals those who applied it.”...

[lookout123]

We once condemned same sex partnerships too. Things change.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by one guy's opinion in the WaPo

Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#World_War_II

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In this [Japanese] version [of waterboarding], interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.

Originally Posted by our smarmy little intelligence expert

Please don't tell me you didn't already know this.

Isn't she so cute! being all smug and pretending to know stuff!

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Of course they knew it was torture. They were warned by more than one source that it was. They just had to try and justify it because that's what Cheney wanted. I think it is all his doing.

12:33am responding to Merc

Originally Posted by classicman
IF waterboarding produced a positive outcome then this administration could be pressured to use it in the future if a key operative were captured. If they did not and something terrible happened, they would be blamed. Right or wrong, for political reasons (among others) this administration does NOT want a credible link.

12:35am responding to the above.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

No, they wouldn't, because they know they can get more reliable information by other methods. Torture is proven to be unreliable. By the gods! I can't believe some of you actually believe torture is OK.

This was not posted till 2:09PM this afternoon.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

King Abdullah of Jordan said yesterday that they had actually been able to turn some members of al Qaeda and got them to work FOR them. They damn sure didn't get them to do that by torturing them.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Is my language that hard to understand, or are you just giving me a hard time?

Yes, no. (Is my answer hard to follow :p)

I'm just trying to follow you. You are all over the place again and your timeline doesn't add up. It would appear that you were referring to the posts you quoted and now you are saying otherwise... hence the confusion.
I think I got ya now, moving along.

[Undertoad]

Using Jordan as an example of an enlightened, non-torturing country is just sad.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/10/0...d-widespread-0

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Yes, no. (Is my answer hard to follow :p)

Hell yes! :p

I'm just trying to follow you. You are all over the place again and your timeline doesn't add up. It would appear that you were referring to the posts you quoted and now you are saying otherwise... hence the confusion.
I think I got ya now, moving along.

Sorry for the confusion. I don't see how my timeline doesn't add up though. Oh well. *sigh*