The effectiveness of the "enhanced" techniques.

[Pyrite]

OK, I may have been a bit harsh. Sorry.

My post was aimed at indicating that, contrary to what President Obama promised his supporters, he has continued the Bush-Cheney policies.

Possibly he is a more skilled politician than I had given him credit for, as he is risking alienating his base on these counts, but can regain same with his Supreme Court pick. We'll see.

As for whether or not his 'military tribunal' changes are cosmetic, I fear that your view of the banning of statements gotten by the enhanced techniques is cosmetic, in that he has gotten you to overlook the fact that he has imposed the tribunals. That was the goal.

But he's extricated the most poisonous thing about them, which does make them fundamentally different. I am still opposed to the tribunals, but the very concept of them no longer threatens to plunge us into a level of injustice not seen since the inquisition.

I don't see how those troop movements indicate Obama has followed the Bush policies. Bush sent a token force to Afghanistan while operating in Iraq with five times as many soldiers. Obama is drawing down the forces in Iraq to 50,000 while refocusing on Afghanistan. Those seem to be rather opposite policies to me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK, I may have been a bit harsh. Sorry.

My post was aimed at indicating that, contrary to what President Obama promised his supporters, he has continued the Bush-Cheney policies.

Possibly he is a more skilled politician than I had given him credit for, as he is risking alienating his base on these counts, but can regain same with his Supreme Court pick. We'll see.

As for whether or not his 'military tribunal' changes are cosmetic, I fear that your view of the banning of statements gotten by the enhanced techniques is cosmetic, in that he has gotten you to overlook the fact that he has imposed the tribunals. That was the goal.

But he's extricated the most poisonous thing about them, which does make them fundamentally different. I am still opposed to the tribunals, but the very concept of them no longer threatens to plunge us into a level of injustice not seen since the inquisition.

Inquisition??? There is a job for you writing soap operas. A caterpillar in the room and the Inquisition?

I'm going to assume that you read "1984," and are familiar with 'room 101.' The objective is to find the subjects weakness, without actually injuring them. Thus, the enhanced techniques.

The only 'Inquisition' that comes close to these techniques is the Monty Python Inquisition.

Did you read the Scheuer quote:
"So if the above worst-case scenario ever comes to pass, Americans will have at least two things from which to take solace, even after the loss of major cities and tens of thousands of countrymen. First, they will know that their president believes that those losses are a small price to pay for stopping interrogations and making foreign peoples like us more. And second, they will see Osama bin Laden's shy smile turn into a calm and beautiful God-is-Great grin."
Bill Bennett: Quotes And Statements

I don't see how those troop movements indicate Obama has followed the Bush policies. Bush sent a token force to Afghanistan while operating in Iraq with five times as many soldiers. Obama is drawing down the forces in Iraq to 50,000 while refocusing on Afghanistan. Those seem to be rather opposite policies to me.

"...he announced that he would withdraw combat forces from Iraq by August 2010 and all remaining troops by December 2011."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washington/28troops.html

Right out of the Wizard of Oz: "Don't look at the man behind the curtain..." And you're buying it?

 

[Pyrite]

Inquisition??? There is a job for you writing soap operas. A caterpillar in the room and the Inquisition?

I'm going to assume that you read "1984," and are familiar with 'room 101.' The objective is to find the subjects weakness, without actually injuring them. Thus, the enhanced techniques.

uhh... have you read 1984? are you seriously using Oceania as a positive role model whose example we should follow?

I was saying it would be like the inquisition because under the old rules you could compel a confession from someone with the use of coercion (Read: torture) and then put them to death based on that confession. You could chain someone's arms up for days and deprive them of sleep until they muttered "I did it, it was me, just let me down" and it would be admissible.

The only 'Inquisition' that comes close to these techniques is the Monty Python Inquisition.

Did you read the Scheuer quote:
"So if the above worst-case scenario ever comes to pass, Americans will have at least two things from which to take solace, even after the loss of major cities and tens of thousands of countrymen. First, they will know that their president believes that those losses are a small price to pay for stopping interrogations and making foreign peoples like us more. And second, they will see Osama bin Laden's shy smile turn into a calm and beautiful God-is-Great grin."
Bill Bennett: Quotes And Statements

I read this and responded to it in the other thread in which you brought it up.

I don't see how those troop movements indicate Obama has followed the Bush policies. Bush sent a token force to Afghanistan while operating in Iraq with five times as many soldiers. Obama is drawing down the forces in Iraq to 50,000 while refocusing on Afghanistan. Those seem to be rather opposite policies to me.

"...he announced that he would withdraw combat forces from Iraq by August 2010 and all remaining troops by December 2011."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washington/28troops.html

Right out of the Wizard of Oz: "Don't look at the man behind the curtain..." And you're buying it?

Do you have evidence that he's lying, or are you just assuming he's being dishonest because you don't like him?

 

[Gunny]

In March of 2003, the Bush administration thought it had a gold-mine of information on Al Qaeda with the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. FBI interrogators extracted a wealth of information from him before the CIA took over and began using "enhanced interrogation techniques". Hereafter EIT will be called by its correct name...torture.

March 2003, the same month Bush invaded Iraq. The same month Khalid Sheik Mohanmmed was water-boarded 183 times. Under this duress, he admitted to everything from the kidnapping of Charles Lindgergh's baby to being the second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas. What he did not confess to, however, and what the Bush administration was seeking, was an operational link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

In April 2003, former UN weapons inspector. Charles Duelfer, received a request to engage in a more aggressive manner, as in water-boarding, with an Iraqi intelligence officer, Muhammed Khudayr, former head of M-14...a branch of Saddam's Mukhabarat...whom he was helping to debrief on Saddam's WMD's. You know the ones that were never there in the first place. According to Mr. Duelfer, this request originated in Washington. This request was problematic in two aspects. First would have been the violation of the Geneva Conventions, as this Iraqi was a lawful combatant. Secondly, this Iraqi intelligence officer was freely co-operating with his interrogators. Saddam was gone and he saw US forces as allies in rebuilding Iraq. Mr. Duelfer put it thus:

“Some in Washington at very senior levels, not in the CIA, were concerned that the debriefing was too gentle. They asked if enhanced measures, such as waterboarding should be used.”

Duelfer found the request "reprehensible" and he and his fellow interrogators refused to comply with this request to commit a war crime. Never mind that the motive behind the request wasn't to acquire intelligence which could be used to stop a further attack on America. It was to obtain information on an operational link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Never mind that as a uniformed member of Iraqi security services Khudayr WAS subject to ALL provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

According to a report by Robert Windrem, this request for the use of water-boarding Khudayr originated in then Vice-President Dick Cheney's office.

But why this focus on links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Perhaps the Bush administration, realizing it's WMD rational for the invasion of Iraq was tenuous, at best, they were seeking to back-fill their justification for what was, essentially, an illegal, ill-conceived war of choice against an enemy which was no threat to anyone beyond its borders.

The point to all of this is that the Bush administration's use of water-boarding, and other forms of torture, went beyond even the flimsy legal justifications offered up by the Yoo and Bybee memos. As we see in this memo from John Bybee

Our advice is based upon the following facts, which you have provided to us. We also understand that you do not have any facts in your possession contrary to the facts outlined here, and this opinion is limited to these facts. If these facts were to change, this advice would not necessarily apply...Specifically, he(Abu Zubaydha) is withholding information regarding terrorist networks in the United States or in Saudi Arabia and information regarding plans to conduct attacks within the United States or against our interests overseas...In 1ight of the information you believe Zubaydah has and the high level of threat you believe now exists, your wish to move the interrogations in to what you have described. as an "increased pressure phase."

The upshot is that the Bush administration exceeded even its own tenuous limits on the use of torture. As indicated above, torture was to be used only in the event of a "ticking time-bomb" scenario. The approval of the torture program by the DOJ was dependent upon the need to stop new attacks on the US and its interests. Securing evidence of an operational link between Al Qaeda and Iraq in order to justify the invasion of Iraq did not fall under even that flimsy rationale. The Bush administration tortured detainees, not to obtain intelligence aimed at preventing further attacks on the US, but to back-fill an illegal war of aggression based on a non-existent operational link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

And there you have it. The torture of detainees, not to prevent further attacks on the US...Even though not even that is justification for torture. Detainees were tortured to cover the political asses of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of the architects of the invasion and botched occupation of Iraq.

Taken as a whole, the continued reluctance of President Obama and Attorney General Holder to pursue the investigation and prosecution of war crimes against the members of the Bush administration who authorized, and those who carried out, torture continues to boggle the mind. Given the evidence that exists, it is clear that an investigation must be undertaken, and the evidence followed wherever...and to whonever...it may lead. US treaty obligations under the UN Conventions Against Torture and the Geneva Convention requires this. Failure to do so is nothing less than complicity in these crimes.

*yawn*

More beating the same dead horse. Fact is, you and your ilk wouldn't be calling it torture if it was some Dem doing it. I guarantee whatever "enhanced techniques" THEY use you'll be swearing on a stack of Bibles is not torture.

Y'all need to move on. You can squeal torture at the top of your lungs from now on and it isn't taking MY eyes off Obama and the CURRENT fucked up administration. It would take a LOT to make Bush look good but damned if your boy and his cronies ain't doing it.

Y'all can't even defend his ass. You've decided to re-live the Bush administration instead.

Losers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Inquisition??? There is a job for you writing soap operas. A caterpillar in the room and the Inquisition?

I'm going to assume that you read "1984," and are familiar with 'room 101.' The objective is to find the subjects weakness, without actually injuring them. Thus, the enhanced techniques.

uhh... have you read 1984? are you seriously using Oceania as a positive role model whose example we should follow?

I was saying it would be like the inquisition because under the old rules you could compel a confession from someone with the use of coercion (Read: torture) and then put them to death based on that confession. You could chain someone's arms up for days and deprive them of sleep until they muttered "I did it, it was me, just let me down" and it would be admissible.

The only 'Inquisition' that comes close to these techniques is the Monty Python Inquisition.

Did you read the Scheuer quote:
"So if the above worst-case scenario ever comes to pass, Americans will have at least two things from which to take solace, even after the loss of major cities and tens of thousands of countrymen. First, they will know that their president believes that those losses are a small price to pay for stopping interrogations and making foreign peoples like us more. And second, they will see Osama bin Laden's shy smile turn into a calm and beautiful God-is-Great grin."
Bill Bennett: Quotes And Statements

I read this and responded to it in the other thread in which you brought it up.

I don't see how those troop movements indicate Obama has followed the Bush policies. Bush sent a token force to Afghanistan while operating in Iraq with five times as many soldiers. Obama is drawing down the forces in Iraq to 50,000 while refocusing on Afghanistan. Those seem to be rather opposite policies to me.

"...he announced that he would withdraw combat forces from Iraq by August 2010 and all remaining troops by December 2011."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washington/28troops.html

Right out of the Wizard of Oz: "Don't look at the man behind the curtain..." And you're buying it?

Do you have evidence that he's lying, or are you just assuming he's being dishonest because you don't like him?

Now, don't obfuscate, I specified the allusion with reference to 'room 101,' and even explained how it applied to interrogation.
And you were doing so well.

The Inquisition involved real torture, and therefore doesn't applly here. The reference is overly melodramatic.

"...evidence that he's lying..."
I rarely use the term lying, as the term is pretty much appropriated by the left, but if you insist...

He ran on a platform of "all troops will be out of Iraq..." and now assumes a policy of 50,000 troops for the foreseeable future. How would you categorize that?

 

[Pyrite]

Now, don't obfuscate, I specified the allusion with reference to 'room 101,' and even explained how it applied to interrogation.
And you were doing so well.

You see, personally I would consider the method used against Winston in 1984 to be torture, but I suppose that's the crux of the argument, isn't it.

The Inquisition involved real torture, and therefore doesn't applly here. The reference is overly melodramatic.

Is it? when since midieval times have confessions compelled by coercion been admissible in any court?

"...evidence that he's lying..."
I rarely use the term lying, as the term is pretty much appropriated by the left, but if you insist...

He ran on a platform of "all troops will be out of Iraq..." and now assumes a policy of 50,000 troops for the foreseeable future. How would you categorize that?

The article you quoted says differently.

The plan will withdraw most of the 142,000 troops now in Iraq by the summer of next year, leaving 35,000 to 50,000 to train and advise Iraqi security forces, hunt terrorist cells and protect American civilian and military personnel. Those “transitional forces” will leave by 2011 in accordance with a strategic agreement negotiated by President George W. Bush before he left office.

2011 is not "the forseeable future", it is three years from now. Withdrawing can take time, especially if you make sure to do it right.

I would categorize what he's actually doing, as opposed to your misinterpretation of what he's doing, as sound strategy.

 

[dilloduck]

Effective or not, torture is illegal and always has been in the United States. General George Washington was the first to ban torture and it has been this high standard which gave America the moral high ground. We will not regain it until those responsible for these heinous acts are brought to justice.

Moral high ground in war? As much as politicians would like you to believe there is one, there really isn't any.

 

[Gunny]

Effective or not, torture is illegal and always has been in the United States. General George Washington was the first to ban torture and it has been this high standard which gave America the moral high ground. We will not regain it until those responsible for these heinous acts are brought to justice.

Moral high ground in war? As much as politicians would like you to believe there is one, there really isn't any.

No, it's the moral high ground the left attempts to hold the right to. They couldn't live up to their own standards they hold for others, that's for damned sure.

Or perhaps I've just missed the moral high ground in murdering unborn human beings, or allowing immoral pedophiles to be covered under hate crime laws.

The only ones required ot play by any set of rules is the right, and/or the US military.

And isn't it the left always squealing that the right is trying to force its morals on them? Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[DiveCon]

I've never heard of "truthout" before. So, until this is picked up by a major news source, I won't trust it.

truthout is Jason Leopold, the guy that had the now infamous "Rove Indicted"

LOL
hes a massive LIAR

 

[DiveCon]

WHen the mainstream media covers this, then it will become news. IMO, Truthout is not a credible source.

when will you guys wake up and realize you CAN NOT depend on msm for all your news!? the big ones are all owned by corporations with agendas they follow, either from the left or from the right. Alternative media is a strong outlet that is only growing stronger because they are only in it for the truth, NO agendas involved, just because the "msm" does not cover something does not make it an unreliable thing...wake up people!

wait, let me find a newsmax or WND link for you

 

[Harry Dresden]

Going back to the beginning of this whole torture shit. Our illustrious John Yu who told the Bush/Cheney that it was okay to torture went to the extent that it was justifiable to torture a terrorist's child (specifically crush his scrotum) in front of the terrorist to get him to give information.

Please tell me if anyone here supports that.

what?...Crushing Scrotums.......i hear Nancy Pelosi has done more than even Hillary....and so is in first place up on the hill....

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pogo, we as a nation said waterboarding was torture when we tried and executed Japanese soldiers for using it on our troops.

I guess if you use it on a terrorist, it isn't torture. If you torture the terrorists child, it is morally right. We can do whatever we want to our enemies, they can't?

Fucking bunch of cognitive dissonant twits.

Pogue.. TORTURE is a term of relevance... That the JAPANESE used torture, doesn't mean that we do so, and there is ABSOLUTELY NO CORRELATING the technique we refer to as 'waterboarding' with what the Japanese used... that you 'feel strongly that such is the case, does not make it so...'

For starters, many men died as a result of pnumonia which resulted from their having ingested water into their lungs and the prisoner being denied medical care and accomodations suitable to the treatment of such.

No detainee has been reported to have died from US application of water-boarding... PERIOD; no detainee is known to have contracted pnumonia...from the US application of water-boarding... Your comparing apples to ANVILS... DUMBASS.

If you can't bring up your intellectual game, please feel free to just keep this idiocy to yourself.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Not to get off topic, but who the hell decides to move/and or consolidate threads? It can really shoot the hell out of a discussion, and is unwarranted unless you're more worried about bandwidth and memory on the server that the quality and continuity of the discussions.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Anyone hear that? It's as if some dark idiocy is trying to say something to obscure common sense and lead us from reason... Pure evil... of the intellectually sub-par variety.

 

[Gunny]

Not to get off topic, but who the hell decides to move/and or consolidate threads? It can really shoot the hell out of a discussion, and is unwarranted unless you're more worried about bandwidth and memory on the server that the quality and continuity of the discussions.

I think clogging up whole pages in subforums with threads on the same damned topic kind of distracts from the quality of discussion. Gee, which partisan hack "torture" thread do I want to post in today? Only 20+ to choose from.

I guess you thought you had something to say no one else has that you needed your very own spotlight with your name as thread-starter, huh?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not to get off topic, but who the hell decides to move/and or consolidate threads? It can really shoot the hell out of a discussion, and is unwarranted unless you're more worried about bandwidth and memory on the server that the quality and continuity of the discussions.

I think clogging up whole pages in subforums with threads on the same damned topic kind of distracts from the quality of discussion. Gee, which partisan hack "torture" thread do I want to post in today? Only 20+ to choose from.

I guess you thought you had something to say no one else has that you needed your very own spotlight with your name as thread-starter, huh?

are you this mean in real life?

 

[Gunny]

Not to get off topic, but who the hell decides to move/and or consolidate threads? It can really shoot the hell out of a discussion, and is unwarranted unless you're more worried about bandwidth and memory on the server that the quality and continuity of the discussions.

I think clogging up whole pages in subforums with threads on the same damned topic kind of distracts from the quality of discussion. Gee, which partisan hack "torture" thread do I want to post in today? Only 20+ to choose from.

I guess you thought you had something to say no one else has that you needed your very own spotlight with your name as thread-starter, huh?

are you this mean in real life?

Pretty-much.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Not to get off topic, but who the hell decides to move/and or consolidate threads? It can really shoot the hell out of a discussion, and is unwarranted unless you're more worried about bandwidth and memory on the server that the quality and continuity of the discussions.

I think clogging up whole pages in subforums with threads on the same damned topic kind of distracts from the quality of discussion. Gee, which partisan hack "torture" thread do I want to post in today? Only 20+ to choose from.

I guess you thought you had something to say no one else has that you needed your very own spotlight with your name as thread-starter, huh?

Jeezus...! Who shit in your Cheerios? Do you do the same with "partisan hack" threads that happen to coincide with your point of view? Or are you just being more of an ass than usual?

 

[DiveCon]

Not to get off topic, but who the hell decides to move/and or consolidate threads? It can really shoot the hell out of a discussion, and is unwarranted unless you're more worried about bandwidth and memory on the server that the quality and continuity of the discussions.

I think clogging up whole pages in subforums with threads on the same damned topic kind of distracts from the quality of discussion. Gee, which partisan hack "torture" thread do I want to post in today? Only 20+ to choose from.

I guess you thought you had something to say no one else has that you needed your very own spotlight with your name as thread-starter, huh?

Jeezus...! Who shit in your Cheerios? Do you do the same with "partisan hack" threads that happen to coincide with your point of view? Or are you just being more of an ass than usual?

actually, he does

 

[Bullypulpit]

I think clogging up whole pages in subforums with threads on the same damned topic kind of distracts from the quality of discussion. Gee, which partisan hack "torture" thread do I want to post in today? Only 20+ to choose from.

I guess you thought you had something to say no one else has that you needed your very own spotlight with your name as thread-starter, huh?

Jeezus...! Who shit in your Cheerios? Do you do the same with "partisan hack" threads that happen to coincide with your point of view? Or are you just being more of an ass than usual?

actually, he does

If he does, then good on him.