MGB: did cheneys torture program work?

apparently not, by reviewing the memo's he said would show they did

http://www.slate.com/id/2226276/

Of course torture worked Joe... .we got those evil doers to admit to bombing banks, before the banks even existed.. One claimed to be Micheal Jordan, and one thought he was Mrs. Claus...

He kept us safe.. its a shame you America hating terrorist loving dolts dont appreciate Dick... .

Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots
Waterboarding, Rough Interrogation of Abu Zubaida Produced False Leads, Officials Say


By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 29, 2009

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

[size=large]In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations.[/size][/b] Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. [b][size=large]None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed[/size].


Maybe in Cheneys mind torture worked, just as a battered wife doesnt believe her husband abuses her...??

In four years of researching and writing about Guantánamo, I have become used to uncovering shocking information. But for sheer cynicism, I am struggling to think of anything that compares to the revelations contained in the unclassified ruling in the habeas corpus petition of Fouad al-Rabiah, a Kuwaiti prisoner whose release was ordered last week by U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

In the ruling, to put it bluntly, [size=x-large]it was revealed that the US government tortured an innocent man to extract false confessions and then threatened him until he obligingly repeated those lies as though they were the truth.[/size]

The background: Lies hidden in plain sight for five years

To establish the background to this story, it is necessary for me to return to my initial response to the ruling a week last Friday, before these revelations had been made public, when, based on what I knew of the case from the publicly available documents, I explained that I was disappointed that the Obama administration had pursued a case against al-Rabiah, alleging that he was a fundraiser for Osama bin Laden and had run a supply depot for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan’s Tora Bora mountains, for two particular reasons.

The first was because a CIA analyst had interviewed al-Rabiah at Guantánamo in the summer of 2002 and had concluded that he was an innocent man caught at the wrong time and in the wrong place; and the second was because, although al-Rabiah had said that he had met bin Laden and had been present in the Tora Bora mountains, he had provided an innocent explanation for both occurrences. He had, he said, been introduced to bin Laden on a trip to Afghanistan to investigate proposals for a humanitarian aid mission, and he had been at Tora Bora — and compelled to man a supply depot — because he was one of numerous civilians caught up with soldiers of al-Qaeda and the Taliban as he tried to flee the chaos of Afghanistan for Pakistan, and had been compelled to run the depot by a senior figure in al-Qaeda.

These appeared to be valid explanations, especially as al-Rabiah, a 42-year old father of four children, had no history of any involvement with militancy or terrorism, and had, instead, spent 20 years at a management desk job at Kuwait Airways, and had an ownership interest in some health clubs. Moreover, he had a history of legitimate refugee relief work, having taken a six-month approved leave of absence from work in 1994-95 to do relief work in Bosnia, having visited Kosovo with the Kuwaiti Red Crescent in 1998, and having made a trip to Bangladesh in 2000 to delivery kidney dialysis fluid to a hospital in the capital, Dhaka.

So... did the war criminals who engineered the Iraq War, ginned up false intelligence to justify their war, and authorized torture, use their torture program to try to establish a false link between Iraq and al Qaeda?

Looks like it.

Somebody want to take a stab at why this isn't a big deal and why there is no need for investigations and prosecutions?

Don't forget these are the same cowards who prosecuted the guards at Abu Ghraib and feigned a morally righteous tone about that whole scandal.

Of course torture it works...duh! Always has, always will not matter how much you believe your president when he’s lying to you (and trust me, you will believe anything).

That’s why Obie has change nothing....nothing except to keep your so called illegal wire tapping (FISA) legal…another broken promise…sigh…

Call the ACLU.

Big day tomorrow…Obie’s referendum,

Be sure to vote conservative!

Palin/Bachmann in 2012

Robert Baer, a former official at the Central Intelligence Agency, said Mohammed's rambling testimony raised suspicions about his treatment by CIA interrogators.

He cited the alleged practice of "waterboarding", a technique to extract confession by submerging a prisoner and making him think he is about to drown.

"Once you rough up a witness with waterboarding, they figure out what narrative you want and that's the narrative they tell. And that suspicion is always going to be out there. That's what we're left with," Baer said.

[quote=don4975]
Of course torture it works...duh! Always has, always will not matter how much you believe your president when he’s lying to you (and trust me, you will believe anything).

That’s why Obie has change nothing....nothing except to keep your so called illegal wire tapping (FISA) legal…another broken promise…sigh…

Call the ACLU.

Big day tomorrow…Obie’s referendum,

Be sure to vote conservative!

Palin/Bachmann in 2012[/quote]

never ever would I pull the lever for that ticket.. not even while I was being waterboarded by Dick Cheney himself..
You would want Obama to listen in on Americans?

Confessions, which range from unlikely to demonstrably false, only serve to demonstrate why torture is as ineffective as it is inhumane. It is a sad testimony to what fear of terrorism has done to our government when officials can capture someone, stick him in a secret prison and torture him for four years until he says what the administration believes the American people want to hear, and tout this as a sign of progress....

Hey.. nobody freakin cares, thats back burner shit...I post real stuff that is happening to real American citizens in the here and now and you two clowns ignore it ( no surprise there). Real issues about real down to earth examples of outright theft of a persons wealth and labors and constitutional rights and you idiots want to talk Bush/Cheney... The whole forum knows we have a Marxists Government in power that is consuming/flat out stealing upwards of 40 per cent of this nations private wealth and dictating unconstitutional policies and you two clowns want to divert the subject to Bush/Cheney....what F-ing planet did you guys come from...and more importantly ...why are you here. Read your history....if I have to live with the policies instituted under that Communist sympathizer FDR and his administration and most other Democrats since then...then lets get real about the threats to the United States...and quite harboring terrorists under the guise of simple criminals with US Constitutional rights......you SOBs care not about our rights, your sole interest is in amassing uncontested leftist power in this country....... I believe that is the enemy within.......

IMHO ............. heh heh heh..........

[quote=wyatt]
Hey.. nobody freakin cares, thats back burner shit...I post real stuff that is happening to real American citizens in the here and now and you two clowns ignore it ( no surprise there). Real issues about real down to earth examples of outright theft of a persons wealth and labors and constitutional rights and you idiots want to talk Bush/Cheney... The whole forum knows we have a Marxists Government in power that is consuming/flat out stealing upwards of 40 per cent of this nations private wealth and dictating unconstitutional policies and you two clowns want to divert the subject to Bush/Cheney....what F-ing planet did you guys come from...and more importantly ...why are you here. Read your history....if I have to live with the policies instituted under that Communist sympathizer FDR and his administration and most other Democrats since then...then lets get real about the threats to the United States...and quite harboring terrorists under the guise of simple criminals with US Constitutional rights......you SOBs care not about our rights, your sole interest is in amassing uncontested leftist power in this country....... I believe that is the enemy within.......

IMHO ............. heh heh heh..........[/quote]


Hey TOOL.... I voted for W in 2000... what dont you get? Leftist? Hardly, another assumption that makes you look foolish..

Unconstitutional policies? Like Torture Wyatt? So if we are to move on, then I guess you can move on from 911 and the terrorists, since that happened in 2001?

We are a nation of laws... Bush set a slippery slope of breaking them... obviously you didnt care then, so you dont care now, you only want to look at what Obama does. Bush set the benchmark, if its not corrected, than you shouldnt be upset about Obama doing anything, anything he wishes too.

Move on.. Didnt Bush use the Saddam invaded his neighbors as a reason to launch a war? That was in 1990 Wyatt... why didnt Bush move on??? Using weapons sold from us on his people happened in the 80s, and that was used as a justification.. again, why didnt Bush move on with present issues?

See Wyatt, as much as you would like to forget about the embarrassing past actions of our nation, it wont go away as mush as you would like to ignore it and sweep it under the rug.

Don and Wyatt...you guys are interrupting the liberal love fest here...these guys can sit here and talk back and forth all day...you're just interuptin' (kind of like a friend who does not go away when you and your date are hangin' out). Let them nestle up to each other and froth and foam without conservative disruption!

:-)

Much of the media storm around torture these days focuses on the moral compromise the U.S. made under the Bush administration to break international codes of conduct and on whether good intelligence came from these brutal interrogations. I think the problem is even worse than a dearth of good intelligence. Torture produces bad, incorrect intelligence, and criminal cases in the U.S. are irrefutable evidence of this.

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee heard from a former FBI agent that harsh interrogations techniques used on suspected al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah were "ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al- Qaeda." Back in January we learned that much of the information in the 9/11 Commission Report came from confessions obtained using "enhanced interrogation techniques." Center on Constitutional Rights told NBC that he was shocked the commission hadn't asked about the techniques used to obtain crucial information.

TOny...my dog passed away years ago....I just feel like being a prick today.......and kickin somethin in the teeth....I kinda like torture....I might pull the wings offin those two dung flys and put a teeny weeny tire around their necks filled with gas soaked rags and " come on baby..lite my fire"

I believe in total war...I think Bush is an asshole too....he fkd up.


but OK...just for you......I'll go get the kitten out of the dryer.............

[quote=wyatt]
I just feel like being a prick today.......

I believe in total war...I think Bush is an asshole too....he fkd up.


quote]

Just today? I thought that was your schtick everyday?

Total war Wyatt? Its not like the video games you play on your computer or Playstation while mommy cooks you dinner.

[quote=wyatt]



but OK...just for you......I'll go get the kitten out of the dryer.............[/quote]

Be sure to carry the little kitty around in this helpful device...

Haaaaaa

I don't understand the the problem. They have not released the documents he requested. He specifically requested that the redacted copies be released and they be declassified. That means unredacted. Then you have an article that says they have intrerpreted the redacted parts. Not sure I would put much to this until we see the unredacted memos. Everyone should call in and demand that Obama make Cheney a liar. Cheney is the only one who has read them and somehow he is the liar.

[quote=6863m]
I don't understand the the problem. They have not released the documents he requested. He specifically requested that the redacted copies be released and they be declassified. That means unredacted. Then you have an article that says they have intrerpreted the redacted parts. Not sure I would put much to this until we see the unredacted memos. Everyone should call in and demand that Obama make Cheney a liar. Cheney is the only one who has read them and somehow he is the liar.[/quote]


No Dick, your man Dick is not a liar, everything he says is 100% accurate in his head. Torture is not effective.. ask John McCain, he will tell you that. Torture produces nothing other than what the torturer wants to hear. If we subjected you to the 'enhanced interogation techniques' you would be claiming to be the tooth fairy just for the pain to stop..

What difference does it make, John McCain and you have won. We won't use enhanced techniques and will revert to the Army manual for enemy combantants. It is a moot arguement. We will never know whether they work or not. We will just pay the price. We will have our sense that we put that ideal above our personal safety. Us little people will pay the price and that is how it should be. Obama just gets a free OOPS. But he will never release the document.

[quote=6863m]
What difference does it make, John McCain and you have won. We won't use enhanced techniques and will revert to the Army manual for enemy combantants. It is a moot arguement. We will never know whether they work or not. We will just pay the price. We will have our sense that we put that ideal above our personal safety. Us little people will pay the price and that is how it should be. Obama just gets a free OOPS. But he will never release the document.[/quote]


Whats the difference? We have lost our moral compass... we have reverted to 14th century tactics. Enemy combatants? You mean anyone in a country we invade that fights back?

How would you feel Dick, if lets say 50 of our soldiers werre captured in Iraq, and the Iraqis used the same techniques on them as we do. I am sure you will be for dragging them to the Hague for war crimes..

Just like the Saddam tortures argument used as justification to topple him.. .he tortured it was bad, we torture it is good... You are seriously confused on the issue..

Its ok, listen to Dick Cheney.. he will keep you safe..

Actually, I would hope they used the same techniques we used. Unfortunately they did not use them and were worse. And no I would not go to the Hague because I don't give them Geneva Convention rights. I would just take them to Gitmo. They are just terrorists and should be treated as criminals and not much more.

If you think we have reverted to the 14th century or lost our compass then you have not read the memos and you have not given it much real thought. But that for sure is not inconsistent with most of your arguments..

[quote=6863m]
Actually, I would hope they used the same techniques we used. Unfortunately they did not use them and were worse. And no I would not go to the Hague because I don't give them Geneva Convention rights. I would just take them to Gitmo. They are just terrorists and should be treated as criminals and not much more.

If you think we have reverted to the 14th century or lost our compass then you have not read the memos and you have not given it much real thought. But that for sure is not inconsistent with most of your arguments..[/quote]

Really Richard the same techniques? Anal rape, electrodes to the nads, waterboarding, shackled positions for days, freezing room where you totally naked....

Richard.. you would be the first to complain...

The Memo.. I know more than you know, and all state the same, we tortured, we got no actionable intel..

Terrorists are people whose country we invaded that fight us Richard? Man your logic is ass backwards... carry the NEOCON mantra proud.

Why would you make a statement about techniques that did not happen. The only thing that happened was waterboarding to three people, shackles and cold floors amongst the approved techniques. Where did you find the other reference. I would assume we have read the same memos and we both know the same. Unless you have some rumor mill you are connected with but that would seem to make some sense based on your thought process and conspiracy mish mash.

[quote=6863m]
Why would you make a statement about techniques that did not happen. The only thing that happened was waterboarding to three people, shackles and cold floors amongst the approved techniques. Where did you find the other reference. I would assume we have read the same memos and we both know the same. Unless you have some rumor mill you are connected with but that would seem to make some sense based on your thought process and conspiracy mish mash.[/quote]

Richard, you did see the hooded photo of the man with electrodes in Abu Garib? Or did Fox not show this to you?

You havent seen the stress shackling Richard? Where have you been?

Huntington Woods, Michigan; Sept. 23, 2004 – American legal investigators have discovered evidence of [size=x-large]abuse, torture and rape[/size] throughout the US-run prison system in Iraq. A Michigan legal team meeting with former detainees in Baghdad during an August fact-finding mission gathered evidence supporting claims of prisoner abuse at some 25 US-run detention centers, most of them so far not publicly mentioned as being embroiled in the Iraq torture scandal.





"That list was something that we came back with -- we only knew of three prisons going there," investigator Mohammed Alomari told The NewStandard, referring to the few detention centers in Iraq where concerns over treatment of prisoners have already been raised publicly.

The list includes some actual prisons, such as Al-Salihiya Prison in Baghdad, the notorious prison in Abu Ghraib, and a prison at Camp Bucca, a Coalition-built POW camp in the southern port city of Um-Qasr. Other detention centers have been established at military bases, such as the US Military compound at Al-Dhiloeia, north of Baghdad; a US base outside Fallujah; and the Hilla military compound, a joint US-Polish base where Alomari said he has recently been informed of allegations against US and Polish personnel.

"Nobody talks about it. All everyone talks about is Abu Ghraib because of the pictures," said Alomari. "But in these other places, there’s tons of acts of torture, abuse, rape."

While many of the detention centers where Akeel’s clients say abuses took place were established under Saddam Hussein, most appear to be facilities put to use as prisons during the US-led occupation.During an interview with Alomari and attorney Shereef Akeel, TNS reviewed documentation the men accumulated covering 53 separate cases of former detainees alleging gross mistreatment at the US-run prisons in Iraq. All of the witnesses have been vetted, said Akeel, their presence at various detention centers corroborated by official, US military-issued paperwork and identification information.

Some of the plaintiffs allege US captors committed severe abuses against them as recently as this summer, challenging the widely-held assumption that the military has put an end to the violations.

A steady stream of reports from a contact in Iraq has kept new cases crossing Akeel’s desk almost daily since the team returned from Iraq over a month ago. Cases raised since the team’s return stateside will be verified and investigated in the future.

Akeel says he learned of the horrible conditions and practices at Abu Ghraib almost a month before the rest of the American public, when a man he calls "Saleh" came into his Huntington Woods, Michigan office with an ID bracelet from Abu Ghraib and a horrific story of his rape and abuse at the infamous US-run prison.

"I said, ‘Abu what?’" recalled Akeel. "I didn’t even know about Abu Ghraib. I couldn’t believe it. I mean, I didn’t -- it was so outlandish.

"Then the pictures came out," Akeel said.

While many of the detention centers where Akeel’s clients say abuses took place were established under Saddam Hussein, most appear to be facilities put to use as prisons during the US-led occupation.

A group called the Committee for the Release of Hostages and Detainees in Iraq (CROHDI), a Saddam-era human rights group based in Scotland, counted over 50 known prisons and detention centers in Iraq. CROHDI’s list includes the airport near the Al-Habbaniya Resort Island and various places now used as military bases where the American investigative team uncovered cases of prisoner abuse last month.

Shortly after the invasion in 2003, the US Army established Camp Cropper, a massive, mostly outdoor facility located at Baghdad International Airport. Camp Cropper was mentioned in a Red Cross report leaked to the press last spring and received some press attention after the US military banned Amnesty International from visiting prisoners there last summer.

During their trip, the American investigators heard accounts of abuse from former Camp Cropper and Abu Ghraib detainees, but also from released inmates held at another airport camp in Baqouba, an hour Northeast of Baghdad.

Since returning, Alomari says that they have learned of prison abuse at the airport at Al-Habbaniya Resort Island located an hour west of the city, and at an airport camp in the Northern city of Mosul.

The majority of detention centers where former inmates allege American soldiers and contractors committed acts of abuse were found in and around Baghdad, most of them buildings that had been converted into prisons. Students living at Mustansiriya University Student Housing were "kicked out," said Alomari, and US troops reportedly turned the dorms into a detention center. Other such facilities were reported on the grounds of the Akai Pharmaceutical Company Compound, the Palace of Conferences located across from the Al-Rasheed hotel, the Scania transportation depot and the Al-Sijood Palace in Baghdad.

Tikrit is the only other city listed with multiple prisons where former inmates have so far reported abuses to the American investigators. First enclosed with barbed wire at the end of the war, Tikrit’s neighboring villages were similarly imprisoned in the weeks leading up to Hussein’s capture, when residents say they woke one morning to find that the US military had enveloped their villages in barbed wire and set up checkpoints during the night.

Detention centers in Tikrit reportedly include one of Saddam Hussein’s Presidential Palaces, Uday Hussein’s former horse stables, and the US-confiscated Tikrit Elementary School. All of these appear to be newly established prisons, as none appear on CRODHI’s list of known centers of incarceration.

As the vice president and media director for the non-profit Focus on American & Arab Interests & Relations (FAAIR), Alomari had been traveling in and out of Iraq since December, giving seminars on American democracy to Iraq’s academic and political leaders. "I came back about mid-June and about a week later Shereef [Akeel] called me," said Alomari. "He told me he wanted to go to Iraq; he wanted to investigate these cases."

Akeel had teamed up with attorneys in Philadelphia and New York to work with the Center for Constitutional Rights in bringing a lawsuit against private security firms Titan Corp and CACI International. The class action suit accuses the US firms of violating the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by engaging in illegal abuse and torture of detainees with the goal of securing lucrative government contracts.

In fact, despite a recent military report recommending criminal charges be filed against at least two Titan employees contracted as translators at Abu Ghraib prison, the US Army has awarded a six month "bridging contract" to the San Diego-based security firm to continue providing translators and interpreters after its current contract ends this month. The Associated Press reports that the new contract could bring Titan as much as $400 million.

Both Titan and CACI have repeatedly denied allegations that their personnel have been involved in any illegal activity or wrongdoing. They have said the lawsuit against them is unfounded and have stood by specific employees accused of abuses in Iraq.


Akeel says the discovery of gross mistreatment at over two dozen prisons controlled by the US military is "another piece of the puzzle," and could strengthen the legal team’s case. Pieces have been put into place with the declassified sections of three military reports investigating prison abuse in Iraq. Though the findings have been limited to activities at Abu Ghraib, Akeel says they still provide evidence of private contractors at both firms engaging in crimes against former detainees.

The legal team’s next move is to fit former detainees’ descriptions of assailants and prison release papers with names and photographs of Titan and CACI employees contracted to the prisons. It is not yet known if Titan or CACI workers were contracted to the majority of the prisons where detainees allege abuse took place.
© 2004 The NewStandard. All rights reserved. The NewStandard is a non-profit publisher that encourages noncommercial reproduction of its content. Reprints must prominently attribute the author and The NewStandard, hyperlink to http://newstandardnews.net (online) or display newstandardnews.net (print), and carry this notice. For more information or commercial reprint rights, please see the TNS reprint policy.

The NewStandard ceased publishing on April 27, 2007.

Dick, some HUMANE photos for you

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560

RICAHRD here is the Rape stories... I know you can choose to ignore these facts if you like and then pretend it didnt happen... its ok, really


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.


Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.

Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.

Allegations of rape and abuse were included in his 2004 report but the fact there were photographs was never revealed. He has now confirmed their existence in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.



Obama needs to investigate this or he is just as complicit.... see Richard, I can be critical of the person I voted for..

Ignore, deny, rinse repeat.. ignore deny rinse, then condition..

The Richard way of brushing off facts.

This happened Richard... maybe Hannity didnt tell you this so you were unaware, but it happened.

Mr Grothen sir... here is more pertaining to the raping of detainees... and its a young boy... sick... but it didnt happen, or it did happen and created actionable intel.. right?

Maj Gen Taguba’s internal inquiry into the abuse at Abu Ghraib, included sworn statements by 13 detainees, which, he said in the report, he found “credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses.”

Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: “I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid’s ***…. and the female soldier was taking pictures.”



Dont deny the atrocities we commited... blinders must come off, eyes must have the stitches removed, ears must be unclogged.

I am not as smart as Joe and 911 so when you mix the subjects I have trouble staying with you. We were talking about Cheney, CIA and FBI enhanced interrogation techniques and the information produced. And you use the Army illegal activities for which they were held to task and court martialed.

The telegraph would not load so I am assuming that it was about the same subject and not what we are talking about.

So lets get back on point where is the claim that the CIA or FBI did what you claimed. We were talking about what Cheney was talking about. If it is in the Telegraph maybe you have a better cite.

this subject matter, should not be,. a liberal vs. conservative issue,.
as it is NOT,.,.,.
some will try to make it such,.
My concern, from the start of this torture activity, has been the possibility of torture becoming acceptable. and at some point, being used here
in the States, as normal routine, on us,.!!!
those photos from antiwar.com, at least 2 of the guards, are now in prison,.
which they should be,.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/bovard/bovard63.html

here is a fine example of Obama covering and protecting those events.,. as Obama`s replacement will also cover for Obama.
Abu Ghraib abuse photos 'show rape'
Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, it has emerged.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

here is Sy Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact

thats Seymour hersh, covering this ,. and there are many news stories, covering this,.
Sy Hersh is the journalist that brought us,. the story,. the event called the
"My Lai" massacre,.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=1479

Seymour Hersh breaks My Lai story

Richard... why not research it yourself? I clearly showed you that torture and rapes were committed.. You said it didnt occur I showed you proof, what else do you need? Stick figure drawings?

These techniques were authorized by W and Dick... surely you know how to research a topic right?

Blues, I don't think we should or can connect the two issues. The prison issues were dealt with. They were an Army problem and were dealt with by the Army. It was not approved by anyone in the General Command and the one Star General took responsibility and was punished. The soldiers involved were also punished. As Commander in Chief Bush had no idea what they had done.

We are talking about a completly different subject and not connected at all to the Prison abuse. This is only about Cheney, CIA, FBI and the memos.

The issue you bring up as to whether this could ever be used on Americans is valid. There is however a great deal of law and policy that is in place to ensure it does not. But any rule can be broken. I have confidence that it would be dealt with and a price would be paid by the ones who break the law or policy.

Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, June 18, 2008; 12:44 PM


The two-star general who led an Army investigation into the horrific detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of war crimes and is calling for accountability.

In his 2004 report on Abu Ghraib, then-Major General Anthony Taguba concluded that “numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees.” He called the abuse “systemic and illegal.” And, as Seymour M. Hersh reported in the New Yorker, he was rewarded for his honesty by being forced into retirement.

Now, in a preface to a Physicians for Human Rights report based on medical examinations of former detainees, Taguba adds an epilogue to his own investigation.

The new report, he writes, “tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individual’s lives on their bodies and minds. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors.

How many detainees are guilty of anything? How many have been charged? Richard?

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the highest-ranking officer punished in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, fired back Tuesday against the Army inspector general who demoted her last week, saying the Army relied on an old shoplifting charge to prosecute her.

The Army revealed no evidence that she was responsible for the abuses of Iraqi prisoners, said Karpinski, whose Army Reserve unit was in charge of the prison during the abuse of Iraqi inmates.

"The punishment may look like it's in response to Abu Ghraib, but it is not," Karpinski said in an e-mail interview with the Associated Press. "They had nothing to use against me, so they exploited this so-called charge of shoplifting and made mention of it in conjunction with the final report, making it appear this demotion was about Abu Ghraib."

Karpinski noted that the last line of the report states, "[size=x-large]Actions General Karpinski took or failed to take in no way contributed to the abuses at Abu Ghraib."[/size]

The Army's inspector general investigated four allegations against Karpinski: dereliction of duty, making a "material misrepresentation" to investigators, failure to obey a lawful order and shoplifting. Only the shoplifting and dereliction of duty allegations were substantiated.

The AP, quoting a U.S. government official who spoke last week on condition of anonymity, reported that Karpinski was accused of shoplifting a cosmetic item from a shop at a domestic Air Force base while she was a colonel. Karpinski didn't report her arrest for this misdemeanor on a later background check, the official said.

Karpinski called it the "so-called" charge in her e-mail to AP, but didn't address it further. In an interview with CBS News last year, she denied shoplifting.


Richard? Richard?

I would agree with Taguba's point that the reporting structure was wrong. I also agree with his assessment that it was a failure of leadership from the Brigade Commander on down. They were dealt with. I would also agree with his being retired. He was not in the command at all and wrote the report from the outside. He was retired not for the subject of the report but because it was leaked. Then he was used by the likes of Kennedy and others. But it is a seprate issue.

[quote=6863m]
I would agree with Taguba's point that the reporting structure was wrong. I also agree with his assessment that it was a failure of leadership from the Brigade Commander on down. They were dealt with. I would also agree with his being retired. He was not in the command at all and wrote the report from the outside. He was retired not for the subject of the report but because it was leaked. Then he was used by the likes of Kennedy and others. But it is a seprate issue.[/quote]

So your OK with him being forced to retire due to the 'leak'... will you address the subject matter now?

Wait, we didnt torture right? afterall when we used those $25 spray bottles with the fans on them, you know think Disney, middle august, your hot you want to cool down, to mist the detainees held with no charges we actually were comforting them.. we didnt rape, beat, shackle, kick, punch tie electrodes to any of them...

What we did was more like a 4th grade play day... fun for everyone.. .

I don't care about the subject matter of the prison. The subject was Cheney, CIA and FBI EIT and he memos. If you can find rape and abuse outside the EIT by them that would be appropriate and germain.

[quote=6863m]
I don't care about the subject matter of the prison. The subject was Cheney, CIA and FBI EIT and he memos. If you can find rape and abuse outside the EIT by them that would be appropriate and germain.[/quote]



Bush sanctions CIA torture program
By Jerry White
23 July 2007
President Bush signed an executive order Friday clearing the way for the Central Intelligence Agency to resume the use of “enhanced interrogation measures” against alleged terror suspects held in US facilities around the world.

The order, which was issued in conjunction with a classified list of approved interrogation techniques, is designed to provide a legal sanction for physical and psychological torture, and protect CIA operatives from being charged with war crimes for violating US and international laws against inhumane treatment.

The CIA reportedly suspended its program last year as the Bush administration’s legal justifications for abusing detainees was dealt a blow by the US Supreme Court ruling in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which stated that all prisoners in US custody—of any nationality, being held in any country—were granted minimal protections by the Geneva Conventions.

Last fall, in order to deflect growing international and domestic criticism, Congress passed, with substantial bipartisan support, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The Act instructed the administration to issue an executive order stating that any further interrogations would comply with US and international law. The Act also established, in law, a procedure of drumhead military commissions, after Hamdan invalidated the Bush administration’s previous procedure.

The order publicly prohibits “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” as well as acts of sexual humiliation and those intended to denigrate religious beliefs—two widely used methods whose exposure provoked an international outcry. However, the order places no restrictions on such notorious techniques as the use of stress positions, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and so-called water boarding, which simulates the sensation of drowning. These techniques are expressly prohibited by the US military. Moreover, administration officials admit there are no provisions for allowing the Red Cross to visit CIA facilities or for prisoners to be in contact with their families.

While the list of approved methods remains secret, the Bush administration has not ruled out any technique. Administration officials have said that the new order will allow the CIA to continue with the same program that was in place before.

Noting that the written policies governing the CIA interrogation program remained classified and independent organizations such as the Red Cross were barred from monitoring the CIA’s compliance with its guidelines, Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch told the Washington Post, “All the order really does is to have the president say, ‘Everything in that other document that I’m not going showing you is legal—trust me.’”

Moreover, as Human Rights Watch notes, the order seeks to sanction what is an explicitly illegal operation: the CIA’s detention and interrogation program, which included the kidnapping and “disappearing” of dozens of terror suspects and their imprisonment for years inside secret facilities. Some prisoners, including those “renditioned” to third countries where they are tortured under CIA supervision, remain “disappeared.” In June, Human Rights Watch and five other human rights groups listed 39 people who remain missing, including one detainee, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, who recently reappeared in Pakistan.

The new order, the Human Rights Watch says, claims that the program “fully complies” with US obligations under the Geneva Conventions as long as the CIA follows a series of requirements in carrying out the program. “But enforced disappearance—the hallmark of the CIA program, involving secret, incommunicado detention—is itself inconsistent with the requirement under [Geneva Conventions] Common Article 3 that detainees be treated humanely,” the organization said in a statement on the new order.

“By international human rights and humanitarian law standards, the CIA program is illegal to its core,” said, Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counter-terrorism director at Human Rights Watch. “Although the new executive order bars torture and other abuse, the order still can’t purport to legalize a program that violates basic rights.”

With the new order in hand, Bush administration officials have told the Washington Post that suspects in US custody could be moved immediately into the “enhanced interrogation” program and subjected to techniques that go beyond those allowed by the US military. CIA detainees have alleged that they were left naked in cells for prolonged periods, subjected to sensory and sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and sexually taunted. In a briefing with reporters senior administration officials said that any future use of “extremes of hot and cold” would be subject to a ‘reasonable interpretation ... we’re not talking about forcibly induced hypothermia.’

According to the Post the secret list of CIA techniques has been the subject of intense debate within the highest levels of the US government over the last several months, with the State Department seeking to deflect criticism of US torture and the Defense Department concerned that CIA methods could subject captured US soldiers to similar abuses. At the same time, Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with CIA Director Michael Hayden have defended the brutal methods, saying the CIA program was one of the most effective tools in the so-called war on terror.

Referring to the secret list of approved torture techniques one intelligence official told the Post that, while Hayden did not get “everything [he] might have wanted” in the guidelines, they contained everything the CIA needed and “more than was asked for.”

The Bush administration is doing an end-run around the Supreme Court decision upholding the application of the Geneva Conventions to CIA prisoners, as well as widespread public and international opposition to torture. In doing so, the administration is counting on the acquiescence and complicity of the Democratic Party, which played a key role in the passage of the Military Commissions Act that sanctioned military tribunals and the indefinite detentions of prisoners, while giving the president explicit authority to “interpret” the Geneva Conventions.

The Democrats response to Bush’s executive order was predictable cowardice, with their central concern being that the continued torture program be given an adequate legal and political fig leaf.

Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said it was difficult to “determine what the Executive Order really means and how it will translate into actual conduct by the CIA.” The CIA, he said, had to come before the Intelligence Committee “to explain in detail how it intends to apply the Executive Order” and the Department of Justice had to provide a “full legal analysis” of the interrogation guidelines.

“The stakes are too high and the issue too important to provide any comment until the Committee has been given the opportunity to fully evaluate the President’s action,” Rockefeller claimed about an administration that has consistently defended the use of torture methods. “This careful review,” the senator concluded, “will be part of the Committee’s continuing effort to determine whether the CIA detention and interrogation program is necessary, lawful and in the best interests of the United States.”
New Today

[quote=6863m]
I don't care about the subject matter of the prison. The subject was Cheney, CIA and FBI EIT and he memos. If you can find rape and abuse outside the EIT by them that would be appropriate and germain.[/quote]

There is quite a bit of info regarding the CIA and its torture and abuse programs... you can easily find them with your computer.. if you need to learn how to research, just ask, I will be more than happy to assist.

The memos were clear, Bush authorized the CIA and FBI to use the EIT as did the Senate and congress. That met the supreme court issue. The EIT also meet the UN requirements. Obama has changed the American position and will not authorize the EIT. It is his perogative he gets to chose. I don't agree with him and I think he will hurt someone. But I also agree that he does not care nor do you. You have the higher calling and you get to choose. I don't consider the EIT to be torture.

[quote=6863m]
The memos were clear, Bush authorized the CIA and FBI to use the EIT as did the Senate and congress. That met the supreme court issue. The EIT also meet the UN requirements. Obama has changed the American position and will not authorize the EIT. It is his perogative he gets to chose. I don't agree with him and I think he will hurt someone. But I also agree that he does not care nor do you. You have the higher calling and you get to choose. I don't consider the EIT to be torture.[/quote]


Maybe if you or a family member was being EIT'd you would feel differently... Its torture whether you would like to accept it or not. we tortured, we waterboarded raped etc...its torture.. the same thing we tried other nations for we did... I dont know why that is so hard for you to accept.

it's hard for him to accept, because Dick was a 911 lemming, he followed, believed, and supported everything the administration told him to do.

accepting the facts now would mean he was duped, made a fool, and would be responsible for everything that happened

I feel tortured everytime I hear that prick speak. I don't why they are so concerned about his heart because I'm pretty sure he doesn't have one.

[quote=LaVerne]
I feel tortured everytime I hear that prick speak. I don't why they are so concerned about his heart because I'm pretty sure he doesn't have one.[/quote]


Easy LaVerne... Dick and Kirk will come after you with insults..... you just committed blasphemy to their hero... the one who saved them from wearing a burca... save me Cheney, save me!!

[quote=6863m]
I don't care about the subject matter of the prison. The subject was Cheney, CIA and FBI EIT and he memos. If you can find rape and abuse outside the EIT by them that would be appropriate and germain.[/quote]

Abuse like KSM being waterboarded 186 times? Oh no thats not abuse in your mind.. .thats nothing but pure blissful enjoyment... I say we should make waterboarding an attraction at theme parks its so much fun for everyone...

The only comparison I have and it may be the same you have is when you read the EIT memos and think about what they are talking about and then we relate it to the training we received at Fort Benning it all seems pretty much the same. No question the environment is different and I would hope that the CIA interrogator was able to create the belief that it was much more final. In our training we knew we would be given a break about lunch time. So it is degrees and reasonableness. But it does not reach the torture level you want to keep thowing out there.

Of course you read the memos so you understand how they count the waterboarding and arrived at the number of 186. But for accuracy you might want to use the number four. After about 6 times even I might figure out they really did not mean they were going to drown me.

Why would we attack LaVerne. It is his opinion. He has a bunch of them and they are diverse and not a broken record. At least you can talk to him. He is wrong but so am I in his opinion.

[quote=6863m]
The only comparison I have and it may be the same you have is when you read the EIT memos and think about what they are talking about and then we relate it to the training we received at Fort Benning it all seems pretty much the same. No question the environment is different and I would hope that the CIA interrogator was able to create the belief that it was much more final. In our training we knew we would be given a break about lunch time. So it is degrees and reasonableness. But it does not reach the torture level you want to keep thowing out there.

Of course you read the memos so you understand how they count the waterboarding and arrived at the number of 186. But for accuracy you might want to use the number four. After about 6 times even I might figure out they really did not mean they were going to drown me.

Why would we attack LaVerne. It is his opinion. He has a bunch of them and they are diverse and not a broken record. At least you can talk to him. He is wrong but so am I in his opinion.[/quote]

I know Richard, your training is exactly the same as the detainees received.. exactly. But, you knew who was doing it, you knew it would stop... waterboarding is torture, we tried the Japanese for it... it hasnt changed as much as you wish it would.. its torture bottom line Richard. You sound like Dick Cheney making waterboarding out to be a fun exercise.
What exactly was the point of waterboarding Richard if it was harmless and fun?


I doubt you could figure out anything.. you would tell them you were guilty of whatever they told you. You would claim to be Elvis if they told you.


Richard, you have the broken record here spinning around over and over again with the same NEOCON talking points that served this country so well, ignoring anything that counters your FOX 'News' clay like molded mind.

Did you look up the Japanese waterboarding methods and torture they were tried for. If you did and now believe they are remotely the same then I can't help you. I did not say it was exactly the same. It was just the same that we understood we would be subjected to by a Geneva convention country and because it was 1971 it was a little biased towards what was going on in Viet Nam by those who did not seem to agree with the Geneva Convention. On that score it was more that it was going to be really unpleasant.

But there is a goal to get information and it is not going to be fun or pleasant. It is not meant to be.

How does FOX news come into it.

[quote=6863m]
Did you look up the Japanese waterboarding methods and torture they were tried for. If you did and now believe they are remotely the same then I can't help you. I did not say it was exactly the same. It was just the same that we understood we would be subjected to by a Geneva convention country and because it was 1971 it was a little biased towards what was going on in Viet Nam by those who did not seem to agree with the Geneva Convention. On that score it was more that it was going to be really unpleasant.

But there is a goal to get information and it is not going to be fun or pleasant. It is not meant to be.

How does FOX news come into it.[/quote]

Richard what is being shackled in stress positions? Fun? How about being thrown in a freezer for hours at a time naked? Fun?

How is gaining info, which by all accounts is flawed through pain compliance not considered torture.

And Richard the Japanese waterboarding is the same technique we used...


" ... following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."

John McCain on Thursday, November 29th, 2007 in a campaign event in St. Petersburg [3]

But Mark Hemingway of The National Review Online disputed this fact thinking the reference was to the case of Yukio Asano in 1947. It was not.[4]

Politifact had this to say:


"McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning."



(AP) Republican presidential candidate John McCain reminded people Thursday that some Japanese were tried and hanged for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding.

"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans," McCain said during a news conference.

He said he forgot to mention that piece of history during Wednesday night's Republican debate, during which he criticized former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney after Romney declined to publicly say what interrogation techniques he would rule out.

"I would also hope that he would not want to be associated with a technique which was invented in the Spanish Inquisition, was used by Pol Pot in one of the great eras of genocide in history and is being used on Burmese monks as we speak," the Arizona senator said. "America is a better nation than that."

Waterboarding generally makes breathing difficult and can cause the subject to think he's drowning. It's banned by domestic law and international treaties, but those policies don't cover CIA personnel and President Bush's administration won't say whether it has been allowed against terrorism detainees.


Explain how simulated drowning is different from simulated drowning.



FOX comes into play because you parrot exactly the same crap Hannity says... .your like a mockingbird.

The waterboarding the Japanese were doing that was considered violent torture was the water forced injection techniques that had been aroung the far east for a long time. Also McCain was actually wrong when he said that the Japanese had been executed for water boarding. It was really just lumped in with the more evil injection techniques and true phisical arm breaking and killing of prisoners. It is just not comparable.

The memos talked about stress positions where did you get the freezer comment. Is that just an adder for effect. I don't recall anyone saying the CIA or FBI put someone in a freezer. Did I miss that in the memo.

From the Red Cross Richard..

Listed by name, they were arrested in four different countries (Pakistan, Thailand, Dubai and Djibouti) between March 2002 and May 2005, reportedly by their police or security forces, sometimes in the presence of US agents. They were initially held by the arresting country, then transferred elsewhere (reportedly Afghanistan), then on to other nations. US and/or national authorities interrogated them, but America controlled the process. They were in up to 10 locations prior to Guantanamo.

Transfer procedure was as follows:

-- detainees were photographed clothed and naked prior to and after transfer;

-- body cavity checks were conducted;

-- in some cases suppositories were administered;

-- diapers and tracksuits were worn;

-- earphones were used through which loud music was sometimes played;

-- blindfolds and black goggles were applied and, in some cases, cotton was taped over their eyes; in one case, the head gear was so tight it caused wounds to the nose and ears;

-- hands and feet were shackled;

-- sitting positions were reclined with hands shackled in front;

-- trips lasted for one to 30 hours;

-- toilet visits were denied for their entirety so necessary urination and defecation were into diapers;

-- some transport placed detainees flat on the plane's floor with their hands cuffed behind their backs; it caused severe pain and discomfort; and

-- the entire experience was disorienting and created feelings of futility, isolation, and helplessness "making them more vulnerable" to the torture described.

Continuous Solitary Confinement and Incommunicado Detention

Throughout their incarceration (lasting 16 months to four and a half years), all 14 were in solitary confinement. "They had no knowledge of where they were (and had) no contact with persons other than their interrogators or guards." They had no legal or family contacts or access to news from outside, except for some later on. They were effectively disappeared.

Other Ill-Treatment Methods

It was especially harsh during the first few days or months and included:

-- waterboarding "suffocation by water poured over a cloth placed over the nose and mouth, alleged by three of the fourteen;"

-- prolonged stressed standing, naked, with arms extended and chained above their heads, alleged by 10 of the 14, continuously for two or three days, and intermittently up to three months;

-- beatings by use of a collar around their necks used to forcefully bang their heads and bodies against the wall, alleged by six of the 14;

-- beating, kicking, slapping, punching to the body and face, alleged by nine of the 14;

-- confinement in a severely restricting box, alleged by one detainee;

-- prolonged nudity from several weeks to several months, alleged by 11 of the 14;

-- sleep deprivation lasting days, alleged by 11 of the 14;

-- forced stress positions, standing or sitting, [size=x-large]cold water[/size][/b], and use of repetitive loud noise or music, alleged by 11 or the 14;

-- [b][size=large]exposure to cold temperature, in cells and interrogation rooms, alleged by most of the 14; three had cold water poured over their bodies[/size];

-- prolonged shackling of hands and/or feet, alleged by most detainees;

-- threats of ill-treatment to them and their families, alleged by nine of the 14;

-- forced head and beards shaving, alleged by two of the 14;

-- deprivation and restrictions of solid food from 3 days to a month after arrest, alleged by eight of the 14; and

-- also deprived of access to open air, exercise, appropriate hygiene facilities, and other basic items as well as restricted Koran usage.



Al-Kandari recalls that while he was in US custody in Kabul in December 2001, he was shackled in various stress positions for as long as 36 hours at a time. He was beaten with hands and instruments including a chain and a plastic hose to prevent bruising. Throughout his ordeal, Al-Kandari was photographed; unfortunately, those photographs cannot be shown "for your protection."
In early 2002, Al-Kandari was transferred to Bagram and held in a roofed tent with no sides, where overnight temperatures typically reached below freezing. In additional to the physical assaults, Bagram was most memorable for threats with weapons and sleep depravation. Photographs again documented his condition, but they have never been released. [...]





The ice-water cure. "On a daily basis during the first two weeks I was made to lie on a plastic sheet placed on the floor which would then be lifted at the edges. Cold water was then poured onto my body with buckets. ... I would be kept wrapped inside the sheet with the cold water for several minutes. I would then be taken for interrogation," detainee Walid bin Attash told the Red Cross.




I know, its not torture....

Why not stay on the topic. You describe what other countries did and what the military might have done in the two months following 9/11. And we are talking about what the CIA and FBI did under the direction of the Bush Administration. When ever you see the words maybe, should have, could have and might have, reportably and sometimes in a document brought up by a liberal then it should be treated as hearsay and not given much credence. But regardless what does it have to do with what we are talking about.

[quote=6863m]
Why not stay on the topic. You describe what other countries did and what the military might have done in the two months following 9/11. And we are talking about what the CIA and FBI did under the direction of the Bush Administration. When ever you see the words maybe, should have, could have and might have, reportably and sometimes in a document brought up by a liberal then it should be treated as hearsay and not given much credence. But regardless what does it have to do with what we are talking about.[/quote]


[size=x-large]All the techniques in the accounts of torture by the International Committee of the Red Cross, as reported Monday, collected from 14 detainees held in CIA custody[/size] Understand Richard? How can I make this more clearer for you? I am open to suggestion.

Read the International Red Cross report.. page 17.... describing what the US did, not other countries.. stop being in denial.. I believe Cheney would want you liberated. Your muddying the water with nonsense.

http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf

The fact that we have "rules" stating what are and what are not acceptable methods of killing people during times of war are insane at best. That said the following are undisputable facts.

1. The USA declared war and by doing so are obligated by signature of the Geneva convention to obide by rules.
2. The Geneva convention forbids torture of POWs.
3. The USA has captured POW's of said declared war.
4. The USA has performed acts of torture on these POW's
5. Dick Chenney in his position of power endorsed and encouraged these acts
6. Dick Chenney should be charged and tried as a war criminal by a world court.
.
The end does not justify the means..

I guess if it's good for the goose then it's good for the gander. How about we hold Chenneys nuts to the battery coil till he tells us what we want to hear. He says it's ok right? Maybe we will get something believeable about the invasion and his involvment with Haliburton's contracts. I'm sure he's ok with it, don't ya think.

.

LaVerne, I have not seen many posts from you around here, let me fill you in a bit.

Your post contained WAY (thanks Kirk) too many facts, around here facts are ignored and whoever delivers those facts are ridiculed.

If I could make a suggestion, edit your post, remove the facts, throw in a few insults which are emotionally charged, and call it a day.

Where in your post did it say they were in the custody of the CIA. They were in the custody of four countries. Are you confusing the Clinton Rendition program with this topic. If the CIA questioned them at some point in some country under the eyes of some unknown country which one of the situations you listed were used by the CIA. Maybe they followed the law and used the techniques that had been approved for them. Maybe Dubai did everything you listed.

It's easy for me to sit in the background and voice my distaste for these acts. If I were in the front line or had close ties injured or killed by these people I might feel obliged to pour the water myself. I hope to never be in that position but if I were I pray to the almighty to paralize my limbs that I may not do so.

LaVerne, put the shoe on the other foot. It is your daughter living in downtown Denver when the CIA man is trying to find out where the bomb is in Denver. He is in Chicago and trying to save the life of your daughter. That makes it both tougher and easier. The one side will say that the information he gives will be no good so why bother. The other side of those will say that evidence shows that a terrorists will give up the rigth information unde EIT methods. They are not trained military.

I would be on the side of pouring the water and saving who you can. Obama has decided that he can accept some losses to protect our image. Easy as long as it is not his daughter.

[quote=6863m]
Where in your post did it say they were in the custody of the CIA. They were in the custody of four countries. Are you confusing the Clinton Rendition program with this topic. If the CIA questioned them at some point in some country under the eyes of some unknown country which one of the situations you listed were used by the CIA. Maybe they followed the law and used the techniques that had been approved for them. Maybe Dubai did everything you listed.[/quote]


All the techniques in the accounts of torture by the International Committee of the Red Cross, as reported Monday, [size=x-large]collected from 14 detainees held in CIA custody[/size]


You see the bold big fonts Richard?

[quote=6863m]
LaVerne, put the shoe on the other foot. It is your daughter living in downtown Denver when the CIA man is trying to find out where the bomb is in Denver. He is in Chicago and trying to save the life of your daughter. That makes it both tougher and easier. The one side will say that the information he gives will be no good so why bother. The other side of those will say that evidence shows that a terrorists will give up the rigth information unde EIT methods. They are not trained military.

I would be on the side of pouring the water and saving who you can. Obama has decided that he can accept some losses to protect our image. Easy as long as it is not his daughter.[/quote]


Richard, can you point to any case where torture has given any actionable intel? Please I would love to hear it.

Torture in the real world is different from Jack Bauer on 24.

[quote=6863m]
LaVerne, put the shoe on the other foot. It is your daughter living in downtown Denver when the CIA man is trying to find out where the bomb is in Denver. He is in Chicago and trying to save the life of your daughter. That makes it both tougher and easier. The one side will say that the information he gives will be no good so why bother. The other side of those will say that evidence shows that a terrorists will give up the rigth information unde EIT methods. They are not trained military.

I would be on the side of pouring the water and saving who you can. Obama has decided that he can accept some losses to protect our image. Easy as long as it is not his daughter.[/quote]

Sleep deprivation. Stress positions. Waterboarding. These interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration in the war on terror were explained, at the time, as harsh but necessary tactics that forced captives to give up names, plots, and other information. But a new look at the neurobiological effects of prolonged stress on the brain suggests that torture damages the memory, and therefore often produces bad intelligence.

or, lets look at is this way

Canada invades America to spread freedom and democracy, and to liberate the millions of people we have in jail for marijuana crimes, and to exact revenge for all the torturing we did in the past 8 years.

you're in Denver, getting ready to attend a Bronco's game, go Orton !!! all of a sudden a van drives up, scoops you up, bags your head, blindfolds you, shackles your hands and feet, sticks you on a cargo plane, and you have no idea where you are. You don't know who took you, you don't know why they took you, you only know you are in deep shit.

the torture begins to loosen you up, so you will spill your guts and confess. but you ask confess to what? no charges have been presented to you, you have no access to a lawyer, family, red cross, nobody. they freeze you to weaken your resolve, then the interrogation begins. you being innocent, at first proclaim your innocence, thinking telling the truth will help your cause. Nope, they start water boarding you, still not telling you why you have been picked up. You have no idea if you have been gone 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, you have been in solitary confinement, still without knowing why you were picked up. Another round of waterboarding and you confess to everything they want to hear, you just want the pain to stop.

there are only 2 people I can find who defend torture as an effective way of extracting information: the Dick's nobody else defends this method, the CIA, the FBI, the military. nobody.

now let's use Dick scenario, and instead of your daughter being in danger, imagine if your daughter was picked up as a "terrorist".

how many people that we tortured did we set free because they were innocent? quite a few.

the Dick's are moving forward under the assumption that everyone we pick up is guilty. if that is case, why not try these people? the reason we don't try these people is because we have zero evidence showing their guilt.

Where do you draw the line Richard? Ok to use the "rack"? Ok to disimbowel while alive? Start cutting off didgets one at a time? Rape his wife in front of him? Kill his whole village? The end does not justify the means. If it does we are no better than they are.

[quote=auctionwatch]

confessionem esse veram, non factam vi tormentorum...

LaVerne, the problem with you post it did not happen that way.

The question is who is covered by the Geneva convention. The prisoners were not signatory to the agreement and were not fighting for a sovereign country. The question then is should we be bound by it regardless. I tend to agree we should and so did Bush. He attempted to find out what the rules were and asked the Supreme Court. They answered and he asked Congress to give him the rules and they did, that satisfied the court.

The EIT met those rules as determined by the Administration. The Obama administration has decided the rules do not. It is up to the Administration, the Congress and in this case the UN to determine what the rules are.

As I recall the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration had a pretty broad view of what was meant by a third party county following some rules. The CIA allowed the Dubai, Egypt and Saudi's to comply with their rules on interrogation. That stopped after the Supreme Court rulings and the EIT was done by all and we did not sub contract questioning.

I am not sure Dubai is signatory to the Geneva Convention. The Red Cross report does not say a CIA man did anything. It is all alleged and what ever took place took place in another country until they got to Gitmo.

If we jail Cheney then I would guess we have to jail Clinton and Gore. They started the Rendition program which was the basis of how the CIA was operating in early 2002 and 2003. None of the fourteen were Afganistan or Iraq citizens. They were truly terrorists caught in a foreign country doing harm.

It was not a declard war in the legal context of a Congressional declaration of war. It is within the powers of the President in prosecuting his foreign policy and protection of his citizens.

No one will charged in any court because they did not break any interantional laws and every attempt to get them there comes up empty.

There there Richard, we didnt torture anyone, we didnt have secret prisons in former Soviet territories, we treated everyone we captured humanely.. I know, I know.. No laws were broken, no one was harmed in the making of the film.... its all good.. your free to roam around your imaginary world now.. Cheney will keep you safe and warm from pain and truth and choice, and other poison devils... back to sleep, go back to sleep.

They will not be charged Richard because we are unlikely to surrender. If we did, trust me they would be charged and found guilty. You want to go lawyer here and debate the issue of whether or not we are obligated to adhere to some form of decency when holding POW's. I ask you again where do you draw the line? I said to you before that the Patriot Act was the single most dangerous piece of legislation passed in this country. It gives full reign to those in power to do whatsover they choose without consequenses. Suppose I report you as a terrorist and you are arrested. Suppose they choose to extract information from you which you do not have. Where oh where Richard do you draw the line as to what you think they should be allowed to do to you to extract that information?

duck, dodge, deflect

come on Dick, lets see you in action, can't wait to see your response

LaVerne, Richard enjoys waterboarding.. to him its like taking a ride down Splash Mountain... he gets a little wet, gets the heart rate going and wears a big ear to ear smile.. ITS FUN!!! He went through it in bootcamp, loved it so much he thinks everyone should share in the fun.. .

Patriot Act is the most dangerous legislation passed I agree 100%.... How that legislation written up so fast and passed so quickly is astonishing. Makes me think that it was already written.. just waiting for the right event to take away our freedoms.

Richard, when do we get these waterboarding attractions up and running in theme parks?

LaVerne, if you read my posts I drew the line at the EIT. The Army exceeded those rules and paid a price. If the CIA exceeded those rules the AG Holder will tell us. He is on a full court press to find that out so he can make people like 911 and Joe happy. So far they have not found anything. The CIA is clean right now they have done nothing wrong except follow a lawful order to use the EIT. My prediction has been that Holder will just let it die and we will hear nothing. But rest assured if he can indict Cheney and Bush he will.

If you throw out the words rape and cutting off digets no one goes there and that was not done by anyone.

Cheny just said unredact and declassify the memos and let the people decide. Obama and Holder have refuesed so we don't know who is right. The guy who read them or Joe and yourself. Cheney is willing to let you decide Obama is not.

The analogy of scooping up anyone totally innocent is a little too far for me but I can't say it did not happen in the fog of battle as they like to say. And as to the analogy of someone protecting their county from an occupier. If you read thre list in the Red Cross report there were no Iraqi's also I am not sure there are any Iraqi's in Gitmo. Must be but you sure don't see their names on any list. It is mostly outsiders.

[quote=6863m]
LaVerne, if you read my posts I drew the line at the EIT. The Army exceeded those rules and paid a price. If the CIA exceeded those rules the AG Holder will tell us. He is on a full court press to find that out so he can make people like 911 and Joe happy. So far they have not found anything. The CIA is clean right now they have done nothing wrong except follow a lawful order to use the EIT. My prediction has been that Holder will just let it die and we will hear nothing. But rest assured if he can indict Cheney and Bush he will.

If you throw out the words rape and cutting off digets no one goes there and that was not done by anyone.

Cheny just said unredact and declassify the memos and let the people decide. Obama and Holder have refuesed so we don't know who is right. The guy who read them or Joe and yourself. Cheney is willing to let you decide Obama is not.

The analogy of scooping up anyone totally innocent is a little too far for me but I can't say it did not happen in the fog of battle as they like to say. And as to the analogy of someone protecting their county from an occupier. If you read thre list in the Red Cross report there were no Iraqi's also I am not sure there are any Iraqi's in Gitmo. Must be but you sure don't see their names on any list. It is mostly outsiders.[/quote]


I am sure you think the CIA will be totally upfront and share all the data right? They wouldnt stonewall at all, they will give up everything right? I dont trust our govt to investigate our govt, thats like asking a Mob Boss to investigate the Mob..


Richard, we have foreigners living in this country, you think that doesnt happen in other countries?


Richard: FYI

Four Iraqi prisoners have been transferred from the U.S. military detention center in Guantanamo Bay to Iraqi custody, two senior Iraqi security officials said Monday.

"We have interrogated four Iraqi men who are now in our custody," one of the officials said, adding the detainees included a Shiite from Basra. He said one more Iraqi citizen remains at the U.S. naval base in Cuba and was seeking refugee

More Cheney lies..

A key proponent of the Iraq invasion and of harsh interrogation methods, Cheney has become the leading defender of such measures, which included forced nudity, prolonged sleep deprivation, stress positions and waterboarding, which simulates drowning.

The Rocky Mountain News asked Cheney in a Jan. 9, 2004, interview if he stood by his claims that Saddam's regime had maintained a "relationship" with al Qaida, raising the danger that Iraq might give the group chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to attack the U.S.

"Absolutely. Absolutely," Cheney replied.



There is no ties..... torture produces tortured results..

Richard I am assuming then that if Americans were picked up and transfered to Egypt or Saudi Arabia and tortured you would have no problem with that due to their I guess you call lack of laws surrounding torture? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander right? You wouldnt have a problem with an American being tortured in a country like the ones I mentioned right? Since its really not breaking any "law".. is this correct?

good point, what if Iran decided to waterboard those hikers they picked up.

Dick, you would understand they are simply trying to protect themselves, right?

Whether or not they have drug anyone off in the night we will not know because they have no rights under the act. Even if they haven't, the fact that they can bothers me a lot. Either ruling party can use this act anytime they choose to repress rebellion. Yes the rebellion of the Obama dictatorship as well. You yourself could be in jepordy for crossing the present leader. Some one will someday use this act against his own people. No finger removal today but it's a very short step and without any protection who will know? I ask again where do you draw the line? If it's ok for POW's is it ok for domestic prisoners as well? How about home use is that acceptable as well? What about the golden rule? Is this the way you want to be treated?

This could be happening right now, under Obama, and we would have no idea it happened. A missing person report would be issued, and that would be the end of whoever was taken.

Dick thinks we are safer because of this.

By the way Joe, I usually stay out of the frays here. They go nowhere and change no thinking. I do feel some pasion for this issue, hence the response. Love your guitar work.

I'm a huge Joe Walsh fan, and have never seen him perform live. I've heard from many people he puts on one of the best shows around.

Was going to try and see an Eagles show, but tickets always seem to be very expensive. One of these days . . .

I hear you LaVerne.... some would like to call torture for what it is, some would like to use a catchier moniker... like Enhanced Interrogatoin Programs..

Just the same as some of us called French fries, French Fries, some began calling them freedom fries... but at the end of the day, they were both thinly sliced potatoes, fried in oil with salt sprinkled on them.

LaVerne, when we discussed the patriot act in detail it seemed that the amended act was changed and had adequate protection. We have also heard almost nothing from even the conspiracy nuts in some time. For me I am not worried about being drug away. We don't allow democrats down the road and if they don't know the secret code word they are not allowed. They have to name the Chairman of the RNC.

Do you have anything that you base your concerns on. I just don't see it.

I am not sure anyone knows how to treat a terrorist. They don't fit the mold of a domestic criminal and common murderer. They don't fit the mold of a soldier and do not seem to have the cardinal rule of survival first. They don't have military training and don't seem to study the Geneva convention rules as we do. So what is the protocol. You sound as if you think they should be treated as a criminal with the same rights as a criminal. They should have our constitutional rights and be read their rights. I am not sure where we go from there. What is a happy middle ground for you. We capture them on the field of battle and on the street corner shooting and performing leadership duties and have to deal with them. If they are truly just a military prisoner they are turned over to the Iraqi and Afghans. If they are of intelligence interest they are processed quickly into the system to be questioned and imprisoned. They have information and whose rules prevail. I am OK with EIT and if I understand you are for the Army manual for the CIA and FBI. For me that does not get the job done.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/special/patriot_act_sneak_peak_search_drugs_terrorists

PATRIOT Act "Sneak and Peek" Searches Targeted Drug Offenders, Not Terrorists

Blues, I read the report and I am not understanding how they are connected to terrorism. The act is to request the information of warrants issued and processed. However they don't seem to say that they have anything to do with terrorism or any other crime. It is only a report but it has nothing to do with the why of a warrant nor does it initiate anything. It looks like the only purpose is to get access to the warrants for terrorism that are issued by all the different jurisdictions.

The source is a group who want to legalize drugs so I would guess they have an issue with the 65% that are drug warrants. But once you read the report what then. I did not get the point.

We got off the issue Richard so I'll leave the Patriot Act alone as we will continue to agree to disagree.

As for the treatment of POW's I will make this my final statement. I stand for humane treatment of any POW. We can re-lable anything we want "terrorist/POW" but in the end they are human beings standing up for what they believe in. I do not endorse citizen rights but simply basic humane dignity. If we can't hold to higher ground standards then we are doomed to dwell in the same cespool. Non uniformed combatants are nothing new. How soon we forget the guerilla warfare in Viet Nam. If this is the road we take then I suggest that we finish the job and execute the POW's after interrorgation and be finished with it. I'm sure Mr. Cheney would agree.

...it's a tool to achieve an end which is always seen as an defensive act, to perpetuate an ideology.....the debate over the "humaneness" is always won by the victors.

LaVerne, every one stands for humane treatment of POW's and they are being treated quite well where ever they are held. That is not the issue. We only need to answer the same question we have with every war we have been in. How do we get information from high value intelligence POW's. How far do we go. I don't know if you read the memos for the EIT or whether you are using some other information to determine how you think they are questioned by the CIA and FBI. I read them and I have reconciled that they are adequate and they are reasonable. The UN and the US Senate agree with me.

Current Events Richard.... this is today..


Italy Convicts 23 Americans In CIA Terrorist Kidnapping Case
Huffpost - Italy Convicts 23 Americans In CIA Terrorist Kidnapping Case stumble reddit del.ico.us ShareThisCOLLEEN BARRY | 11/ 4/09 12:56 PM |
MILAN — An Italian judge on Wednesday convicted 23 Americans in absentia of the 2003 kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric from a Milan street, in a landmark case involving the CIA's extraordinary rendition program in the war on terrorism.

Citing diplomatic immunity, Judge Oscar Magi told the Milan courtroom Wednesday that he was acquitting three other Americans.

Former Milan CIA station chief, Robert Seldon Lady, received eight years in prison. The other 22 convicted American defendants each received a five-year sentence.

The Americans, all but one identified by prosecutors as CIA agents, were tried in absentia as subsequent Italian governments refused or ignored prosecutors' extradition request.

In Washington, CIA spokesman George Little declined to comment on the convictions. He said, "The CIA has not commented on any of the allegations surrounding Abu Omar," the kidnapped man.

Lawyers for the 23 convicted Americans said they would appeal the convictions. The Americans remain fugitives from Italian justice and prosecutor Armando Spataro said he was considering asking the government to issue an international arrest warrant on the strength of the conviction. The government of Silvio Berlusconi, a close ally of President George W. Bush, has previously refused.

Magi said he was acquitting five Italian defendants because an Italian high court ruled key evidence inadmissible as classified. Two of the Italian defendants were convicted as accomplices to kidnapping and received three-year sentences.

The verdict "sends a strong signal of the crimes committed by the CIA in Europe," said Joanne Mariner of Human Rights Watch. The crimes were "unacceptable and unjustified," said Mariner, who was in the courtroom for the verdict at the end of the nearly 3-year-long trial.

The Americans were accused of kidnapping Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, on Feb. 17, 2003, in Milan, then transferring him to U.S. bases in Italy and Germany. He was then moved to Egypt, where he says he was tortured. He has since been released, but has not been permitted to leave Egypt to attend the trial.

The trial is the first by any government over the CIA's extraordinary rendition program, which transferred suspects overseas for interrogation. Human rights advocates charge that renditions were the CIA's way to outsource the torture of prisoners to countries where it is permitted.

The Milan proceedings have been a sore spot in relations between the United States and Italy. The CIA has declined to comment on the case, and Italy's government has denied involvement.

Among the Americans acquitted was Jeffrey Castelli, a former Rome CIA station chief, who prosecutors had alleged coordinated the abduction. The two other acquitted Americans were also assigned to the U.S. Embassy in the Italian capital and thus were covered by broad diplomatic immunity.

The trial continued despite obstacles that threatened to derail it, including Rome's refusal to cooperate with prosecutors.

In addition, Italy's highest court ruled some key evidence inadmissible because it is considered classified – including dossiers seized from the Rome apartment of an Italian intelligence agent and the testimony of a carabinieri officer allegedly at the scene of the kidnapping. That ruling was cited in the acquittal of the main Italian defendants, including the former head of military intelligence.

The government's will to enforce the verdict against the Americans, however, is unlikely to be tested any time soon. Sentences in Italy aren't served until all appeals are exhausted, a process that can take years.

The court also ruled that those convicted must pay 1 million euros to the Egyptian in damages and 500,000 euros to his wife.



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/italy-convicts-23-america_n_345274.html

Richard, history has proved time and again that not everyone stands for humane treatment of POW's. We are just another example. Given a noble goal any faction will use the end justifies the means excuse. I'm not buying it.

And this concludes my broadcast day.

I am only glad the US Government refused to make the agents stand trial. I am afaid for the future because I don't think Obama would support them if this was done in his term. He will throw them under the bus or worse yet not even try to get the criminal.

Criminals are anyone we deem them to be... Richard, you could be next... be careful.

I am not worried I don't talk to terrorists and I don't fund them. I don't even own a gun I am so confident.

[quote=6863m]
I am not worried I don't talk to terrorists and I don't fund them. I don't even own a gun I am so confident.[/quote]


Neither did those innocent men in Gitmo.... Keep that in mind at all times..

I read a really good book on Gitmo. It described the inmates and treatment pretty well. If you believe they were just some innocent shop keeper on the corner, it is silly.

[quote=6863m]
I read a really good book on Gitmo. It described the inmates and treatment pretty well. If you believe they were just some innocent shop keeper on the corner, it is silly.[/quote]

1) Who authored the book? Richard Bruce Cheney? Donny Rumsfeld?

2) How many have been charged with crimes? any crimes, including shoplifiting?

Gitmo Detainee’s ‘Genitals Were Sliced With A Scalpel,’ Waterboarding ‘Far Down The List Of Things They Did’
Last week, two British High Court judges ruled against releasing documents describing the treatment of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident who is currently being held at Guantanamo Bay. The judges said the Bush administration “had threatened to withhold intelligence cooperation with Britain if the information were made public.”

But The Daily Telegraph reported over the weekend that the documents actually “contained details of how British intelligence officers supplied information to [Mohamed's] captors and contributed questions while he was brutally tortured.” In fact, it was British officials, not the Americans, who pressured Foreign Secretary David Miliband “to do nothing that would leave serving MI6 officers open to prosecution.” According to the Telegraph’s sources, the documents describe particularly gruesome interrogation tactics:

[size=x-large]The 25 lines edited out of the court papers contained details of how Mr Mohamed’s genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, “is very far down the list of things they did,” the official said.[/size]

Another source familiar with the case said: “British intelligence officers knew about the torture and didn’t do anything about it.”

“It is very clear who stands to be embarrassed by this and who is being protected by this secrecy. It is not the Americans, it is Labour ministers,” former shadow home secretary David Davis said. But one unnamed U.S. House Judiciary Committee member told the Telegraph that if President Obama “doesn’t act we could hold a hearing or write to subpoena the documents. We need to know what’s in those documents.”

Mohamed remains at Guantanamo Bay and “is currently on hunger strike.” “All terror charges against him were dropped last year,” the Telegraph reported.





You had your testicles sliced open in basic training too right Richard? Wasnt that part of your training? Along with being misted by squirt bottles?

RICHARD, RICHARD... what do you say now? innocent men in Gitmo? A Republican saying this? Oh he must be a liberal, or a Rino..





Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said Thursday.


"There are still innocent people there," Lawrence Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told the Associated Press. "Some have been there six or seven years."

Wilkerson, who first made the assertions in an Internet posting Tuesday, told the AP he learned from briefings and by communicating with military commanders that the United States soon realized many Guantanamo detainees were innocent but nevertheless held them in hopes they could provide information for a "mosaic" of intelligence.

"It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance," Wilkerson wrote in the blog. He said intelligence analysts hoped to gather "sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified."

Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel, said vetting on the battlefield during the early stages of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan was incompetent with no meaningful attempt to discriminate "who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation."

Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on Wilkerson's specific allegations but noted that the military has consistently said that dealing with foreign fighters from a wide variety of countries in a wartime setting was a complex process. The military has insisted that those held at Guantanamo were enemy combatants and posed a threat to the United States.

In his posting for the Washington Note blog, Wilkerson wrote that "U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released."

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney fought efforts to address the situation, Wilkerson said, because "to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership."

Wilkerson told the AP in a telephone interview that many detainees "clearly had no connection to al Qaeda and the Taliban and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Pakistanis turned many over for $5,000 a head."

Some 800 men have been held at Guantanamo since the prison opened in January 2002, and 240 remain. Wilkerson said two dozen are terrorists, including confessed Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was transferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in September 2006.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/19/MNFH16JM02.DTL#ixzz0Vv9SS4SU

We are waiting for the trials to go forward. They were being done under military tribunals before and had not started so I am not sure every inmate has the charges he will be tried under determined. No one knew the rules, why would they put out anything. Obama has made a decision and has some plan we will eventually understand but right now no one knows.

Right now they were in a fight involving intent to harm an American soldier and or they were helping the fighters trying to do harm to our soldiers.

What about the testicle slicing... I am sure you must have been subjected to this in basic training right? It is humane right?

RICHARD OH RICHARD... are you there?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/60minutes/main3976928.shtml


CBS) At the age of 19, Murat Kurnaz vanished into America's shadow prison system in the war on terror. He was from Germany, traveling in Pakistan, and was picked up three months after 9/11. But there seemed to be ample evidence that Kurnaz was an innocent man with no connection to terrorism. The FBI thought so, U.S. intelligence thought so, and German intelligence agreed. But once he was picked up, Kurnaz found himself in a prison system that required no evidence and answered to no one.

The story Kurnaz told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley is a rare look inside that clandestine system of justice, where the government's own secret files reveal that an innocent man lost his liberty, his dignity, his identity, and ultimately five years of his life.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60 Minutes found Murat Kurnaz in Bremen, Germany, where he was born and raised. His parents emigrated there from Turkey. His father works in the Mercedes factory. Kurnaz wasn’t particularly religious growing up, but in 2001 he was marrying a Turkish girl who was. And he decided to learn more about Islam.

"I didn't know how to pray. I didn't know anything," Kurnaz says. "So I had to study more about Islam so I could go to the mosque and pray."

In Bremen, he met Islamic missionaries who urged him to go to Pakistan for study. As he was planning the trip, 9/11 happened. He told 60 Minutes he was horrified by the attacks, and had never heard of al Qaeda. He decided to go ahead with his trip anyway.

"You went to Pakistan several weeks after 9/11," Pelley remarks. "Did you begin to think that that wasn't a great idea?"

"Today, I know it wasn't a great idea," Kurnaz says.

Kurnaz told 60 Minutes his story using the English that he learned from his American guards. If he seems a little distant, reserved, you'll understand why as his story unfolds. It begins in 2001, when he was at the end of that trip to Pakistan. He was headed to the airport to fly home to Germany when his bus was stopped at a routine checkpoint.

"They stopped the bus and because of my color, I’m much more different than Pakistani guys," says Kurnaz, who is lighter-skinned. "He looked into the bus and he knocked on my window."

"He" was a Pakistani cop who pulled Kurnaz off the bus. The reason Kurnaz was singled out may always be a mystery. But at the time, the U.S. was paying bounties for suspicious foreigners. Kurnaz, who'd been rambling across Pakistan with Islamic pilgrims, seemed to fit the bill. Kurnaz says that he was told that U.S. intelligence paid $3,000 for him. He ended up bound and shackled on an American military plane.

"I was sure soon as they would find out I'm not a terrorist, they will apologize for it and let me go back home," he says.

But the plane flew him out of Pakistan and to a U.S. base in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where he was mixed with prisoners fresh off the battlefield. His new identity was "number 53." [size=x-large]He was kept in an outdoor pen, in sub-freezing weather and interrogated daily.[/size]

"They asked me, 'Where is Osama bin Laden,' and if I am from al Qaeda or from Taliban. Questions like that. I told them, 'I don't know where is Osama bin Laden, I never saw him and I don't know anything about al Qaeda. I don't know what it is.' And I spent all my time in Pakistan," he says.

Asked what happened next, Kurnaz says, "I told them just they can call Germany to ask who I am and they can ask anybody in Germany who I am."

Back in Germany, Bremen police were investigating, and what they were hearing made matters worse: Kurnaz's worried mother told them her son had recently become more religious, had grown a beard and was attending a new mosque; schoolmates said that Kurnaz might have been headed to Afghanistan.

"It was just guessing, just fear, no more. But the fear turns into a fact," says attorney Bernhard Docke, who was hired by Kurnaz’s mother.

He says there was no reason to suspect Kurnaz knew anything about al Qaeda. But this was weeks after 9/11 and some of the hijackers had been living in Hamburg. "And so close after 9/11, and close after Germany realized that 9/11 started with the Hamburg cell in Germany, everybody in the secret services got crazy," Docke says.

Docke says the police report was sent to the Americans. And Kurnaz claims his interrogations at Kandahar turned to torture. He told 60 Minutes that American troops held his head underwater.

"They used to beat me when my head is underwater. They beat me into my stomach and everything," he says.

"They were hitting you in the stomach while you're head was underwater so that you'd have to take a breath?" Pelley asks,

"Right. I had to drink. I had to…how you say it?" Kurnaz replies.

"Inhale. Inhale the water," Pelley says.

"I had to inhale the water. Right," Kurnaz says.

Kurnaz says the Americans used a device to shock him with electricity that made his body go numb. And he says he was hoisted up on chains suspended by his arms from the ceiling of an aircraft hangar for five days.

Kurnaz isn't alone in these allegations: other freed prisoners have described electric shocks at Kandahar, and even U.S. troops have admitted beating prisoners who were hanging by their arms. Kurnaz's story fits a pattern.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/60minutes/main3976928_page3.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody



[size=x-large]RICHARD YOU READING THIS?[/size]

RICHARD... Oh RICHARD.... you there?

I am here and responding to posts that can be discussed and not to all the same old he said she said. You have made it clear how you feel as have I and I don't care to just re hash the same issues.

[quote=6863m]
I am here and responding to posts that can be discussed and not to all the same old he said she said. You have made it clear how you feel as have I and I don't care to just re hash the same issues.[/quote]

Yeah because what I posted that has factual information that differs from your belief we are humane.... we dont torture.. . and subject detainees to below freezing temps.. something you thought I made up.. that you carefully scooted around..

Richard, before you go can you leave your ball so those of us here can still play?

Richard "I dont want to see it, I dont want to hear it, I dont want to believe it" Grothen..

Richard is slicing testicles humane? Were you subjected to that in basic training when you were being watered down with a Super Soaker?

Heck, by Fort Benning I was a 1st Lt. trained killer and we got the whole deal, super soakers were for cadets..

[quote=6863m]
Heck, by Fort Benning I was a 1st Lt. trained killer and we got the whole deal, super soakers were for cadets..[/quote]

I will say that was pretty funny..

that is a pretty disturbing story 911

Richard, why or how with so much evidence clearly showing we tortured, do you, or can you keep the blinders on.

Joe, we all have to read the stories. I don't know if you read them or not. But every one of them is based on the facts given by the prisoner. The prisons of America are full of innocent men. You choose to believe every statement made by the terrorists. That is fine with me, you can do it because we can't hear the other side. The CIA and the FBI can not fight back. They can't respond. Cheney responded but was limited to only what Obama would allow and he will never allow the truth to see the light of day. We don't get to see or hear the other side. The only side we have seen heard and could make a judgement on was the military side. These were mostly reservists and one day they were on the streets of Michigan and the next day in a prison in Iraq. They were tried convicted and punished. Their leaders were punished. They were not protected by politics or the system.

We have not heard from our side. We hear from every fringe unit and anti American group there is and you believe each of them. Well I am willing to wait. If there is anything there AG Holder will be screaming from the top of his lungs the same rhetoric you do. Cheney and his darth vader pictures will be all over the NY times.

[quote=6863m]
Joe, we all have to read the stories. I don't know if you read them or not. But every one of them is based on the facts given by the prisoner. The prisons of America are full of innocent men. You choose to believe every statement made by the terrorists. That is fine with me, you can do it because we can't hear the other side. The CIA and the FBI can not fight back. They can't respond. Cheney responded but was limited to only what Obama would allow and he will never allow the truth to see the light of day. We don't get to see or hear the other side. The only side we have seen heard and could make a judgement on was the military side. These were mostly reservists and one day they were on the streets of Michigan and the next day in a prison in Iraq. They were tried convicted and punished. Their leaders were punished. They were not protected by politics or the system.

We have not heard from our side. We hear from every fringe unit and anti American group there is and you believe each of them. Well I am willing to wait. If there is anything there AG Holder will be screaming from the top of his lungs the same rhetoric you do. Cheney and his darth vader pictures will be all over the NY times.[/quote]


Richard, we have admitted to waterboarding... that is torture.. not sure why its so hard for you to understand.. Bush said he authorized this war crime...


What exactly do you think EIT is? Maybe a day at the salon? nails done, hair done, a nice facial for the detainee? There are mounds of evidence, now will our govt do anything about it? Not sure. Will a world body? I certainly hope so, we can not be above the law, and expect to spread our democracy to people 1) who dont want it, and 2) see the hypocrisy in our policy..

Saddam tortures.. its bad.. We torture, well its not really torture and its good.. I dont get it.

We have admitted to kidnappings, secret renditions, and secret gulogs.. .we have admitted skirting around to countries where this 12 century torture mentality is "allowed".. what do you think happens? They sit around playing duck, duck, goose?

We are a nation of laws, if we cant follow them, we have NO business forcing other countries too..

RIchard, you would be OK with the Iranians using EIT on the 4 hikers right? Since it is humane in your view. You wouldnt have any problems with any soldier picked up in Afghanistan waterboarded, or caged for days in a shackled stress position in sub freezing temperatures right?

[size=x-large]RICHARD... RICHARD!!!!!!! THIS IS TODAY....[/size] WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY NOW? This isnt a "terrorist" saying this.. this is a UK Ambassador..


Here is your raping Richard, you have long denied....

Former UK ambassador: CIA sent people to be ‘raped with broken bottles’


Thursday, Nov 5th, 2009

The CIA relied on intelligence based on torture in prisons in Uzbekistan, a place where widespread torture practices include raping suspects with broken bottles and boiling them alive, says a former British ambassador to the central Asian country.

Craig Murray, the rector of the University of Dundee in Scotland and until 2004 the UK’s ambassador to Uzbekistan, said the CIA not only relied on confessions gleaned through extreme torture, it sent terror war suspects to Uzbekistan as part of its extraordinary rendition program.

“I’m talking of people being raped with broken bottles,” he said at a lecture late last month that was re-broadcast by the Real News Network. “I’m talking of people having their children tortured in front of them until they sign a confession. I’m talking of people being boiled alive. And the intelligence from these torture sessions was being received by the CIA, and was being passed on.”

Human rights groups have long been raising the alarm about the legal system in Uzbekistan. In 2007, Human Rights Watch declared that torture is “endemic” to the country’s justice system.



Murray said he only realized after his stint as ambassador that the CIA was sending people to be tortured in Uzbekistan, country he describes as a “totalitarian” state that has never moved on from its communist era, when it was a part of the Soviet Union.

Suspects in Uzbekistan’s gulags “were being told to confess to membership in Al Qaeda. They were told to confess they’d been in training camps in Afghanistan. They were told to confess they had met Osama bin Laden in person. And the CIA intelligence constantly echoed these themes.”

“I was absolutely stunned — it changed my whole world view in an instant — to be told that London knew [the intelligence] coming from torture, that it was not illegal because our legal advisers had decided that under the United Nations convention against torture, it is not illegal to obtain or use intelligence gained from torture as long as we didn’t do the torture ourselves,” Murray said.

IT’S THE PIPELINE, STUPID

Murray asserts that the primary motivation for US and British military involvement in central Asia has to do with large natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. As evidence, he points to the plans to build a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan that would allow Western oil companies to avoid Russia and Iran when transporting natural gas out of the region.

Murray alleged that in the late 1990s the Uzbek ambassador to the US met with then-Texas Governor George W. Bush to discuss a pipeline for the region, and out of that meeting came agreements that would see Texas-based Enron gain the rights to Uzbekistan’s natural gas deposits, while oil company Unocal worked on developing the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.

“The consultant who was organizing this for Unocal was a certain Mr. Karzai, who is now president of Afghanistan,” Murray noted.

Murray said part of the motive in hyping up the threat of Islamic terrorism in Uzbekistan through forced confessions was to ensure the country remained on-side in the war on terror, so that the pipeline could be built.

“There are designs of this pipeline, and if you look at the deployment of US forces in Afghanistan, as against other NATO country forces in Afghanistan, you’ll see that undoubtedly the US forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It’s what it’s about. It’s about money, it’s about oil, it’s not about democracy.”

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline is slated to be completed in 2014, with $7.6 billion in funding from the Asian Development Bank.

Murray was dismissed from his position as ambassador in 2004, following his first public allegations that the British government relied on torture in Uzbekistan for intelligence.

The following videos were posted to YouTube by the Real News Network on Oct. 26 and Nov. 4, 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNYES8KOIqY&feature=player_embedded#

[size=x-large]RICHARD... part 2[/size]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNYES8KOIqY&feature=player_embedded#


I want to see how you marginalize this atrocity..

RICHARD..... RICHARD...

I guess if you were not tortured it did not happen..... this is sickening..

How long before Craig Murray dies in an "accident"?

Richard, you there? Will you tell us how your rear end was raped with broken bottles in basic training, and that it really isnt torture?

I think Richard is avoiding you and your facts 911

[quote=walshja]
I think Richard is avoiding you and your facts 911[/quote]


Maybe, but somewhere deep inside, I know that he will try to spin this like a brand new Maytag on the heavy duty wash cycle.

where Richard go?

Bueler, Bueler

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91oESPRinas&feature=related[/video]

Richard, read the international law and get back to me with your thoughts.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

Again, I am not sure where you get this stuff, but I find it very hard to believe and I don't. If there was any truth to there would be serious discussions and ramifications. This would not and should not be accepted. I will wait to hear the response. I would assume you will post it as soon as it hits the internet.

Joe, lets not confuse this with facts until they can be verified by the other side.

[quote=6863m]
Again, I am not sure where you get this stuff, but I find it very hard to believe and I don't. If there was any truth to there would be serious discussions and ramifications. This would not and should not be accepted. I will wait to hear the response. I would assume you will post it as soon as it hits the internet.

Joe, lets not confuse this with facts until they can be verified by the other side.[/quote]

Are you questioning our allies ambassador? Or Lavernes link?
Are you semi disgusted what has been done all in the name of protecting your freedom?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0904i.asp

Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

By Philip Watts

01/08/06 "revcom.us" -- -- John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.

It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo."

This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

The audio of this exchange is available online at revcom.us

Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children ? As David Cole puts it, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."

What is the position of the Bush Administration on the torture of children, since one of its most influential legal architects is advocating the President’s right to order the crushing of a child’s testicles?

This fascist logic has nothing to do with "getting information" as Yoo has argued. The legal theory developed by Yoo and a few others and adopted by the Administration has resulted in thousands being abducted from their homes in Afghanistan, Iraq or other parts of the world, mostly at random. People have been raped, electrocuted, nearly drowned and tortured literally to death in U.S.-run torture centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo Bay. And there is much still to come out. What about the secret centers in Europe or the many still-suppressed photos from Abu Ghraib? What can explain this sadistic, indiscriminate, barbaric brutality except a need to instill widespread fear among people all over the world?

It is ironic that just prior to arguing the President's legal right to torture children, John Yoo was defensive about the Bush administration policies, based on his legal memo’s, being equated to those during Nazi Germany.

Yoo said, "If you are trying to draw a moral equivalence between the Nazis and what the United States is trying to do in defending themselves against Al Qauueda and the 9/11 attacks, I fully reject that. Second, if you’re trying to equate the Bush Administration to Nazi officials who committed atrocities in the holocaust, I completely reject that too…I think to equate Nazi Germany to the Bush Administration is irresponsible."

If open promotion of unmitigated executive power, including the right to order the torture of innocent children, isn’t sufficient basis for drawing such a "moral equivalence," then I don’t know what is. What would be irresponsible is to sit by and allow the Bush regime to radically remake society in a fascist way, with repercussions for generations to come. We must act now because the future is in the balance. The world cannot wait. While Bush gives his State of the Union on January 31st, I’ll find myself along with many thousands across the country declaring "Bush Step Down And take your program with you."

John Yoo, needs to have his childrens if he has any, testicles crushed in front of him, while he is strapped in a chair, and then he would be next... what the hell is this guy thinking?

what the hell are the Richard(s) thinking? How are they not disgusted at all this

[quote=walshja]
what the hell are the Richard(s) thinking? How are they not disgusted at all this[/quote]


In the land of make believe this didnt happen....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3k3C-Man0I

I would think in the pure constitutional question a President could torture a child to protect the nation and it's citizens. I doubt he or she would but I would think he could under his executive powers usurp almost any law. It does not remove the moral law but legally he probably could. I would think YoO was correct in his strict answer to a question.

[quote=6863m]
I would think in the pure constitutional question a President could torture a child to protect the nation and it's citizens. I doubt he or she would but I would think he could under his executive powers usurp almost any law. It does not remove the moral law but legally he probably could. I would think YoO was correct in his strict answer to a question.[/quote]


[size=x-large][color=#FF0033]WHAT???????????[/color][/size] Where the hell in the Constitution does it say this? Holy cow, My eyes just nearly left my skull reading this....

Please tell me you were joking.... Torture a child? Really Richard? My God... I cant even write down how ridiculous this claim is? What age does it stop at? 1 year olds? Holy cow man, rethink, and please edit your post.. I really think you have lost your damn mind..


So the presidents are untouchable? They live by different laws Richard? Holy Cow, please tell me your joking and this was just to get a rise out of me..

How the hell is torturing a child protecting a nation.. .My God man... Earth to Richard, Earth to Richard come in... I really can not believe anyone with functioning brain cells would ever think that its constitutional... I hope to God you dont have children Richard. Where the hell do you NEOCONS draw the F'ing line?

Its their half assed legal opinions.. I hope some country has the same legal interpretations and invades our country and subject your child or grandchild to this as it may be for the protection of their nation... If this is your or Yoo's or anyones interpretation of the constitution and what is legal for a president to do, we as a nation are over, finished, done.


Holy $hit man.. my god.. so our presidents could "constitutionally' commit genocide too Richard? Jesus Christ Almighty.. I am fucking blown away.

Try to think of the question he was asked and the context. If you start out with the image of pulling the finger nails off children you won't go anywhere. The question he was asked to dea with is what is the scope and breadth of the Executive power of a President when the question regards national defense and security. How would you write the limitations. You can't so we are left with trusting the ethics and morals of our President. They would not torture a child in any circumstance but for moral reasons not legal ones if Yoo is correct. I am OK with that understanding. I don't think Obama will torture children even if a million of us were doomed. I also don't think any prior President would either. Well maybe LIncoln, he was pretty one sided about what he was trying to do.

When and if that line is crossed be prepared to reap what we have sown thats all I got to say... You just blew my mind. Would you want Obama to torture children? This isnt the damn 12 century holy cow man, get with it..

Write limitations? No torture period..... what do you think the parents of that child would do if they saw their child being tortured, what would you do Richard? Sit there and comfort them by telling them old basic training stories.. GOOD GOD... And when the story leaked out that we did this to children in X country, the world would come after us, and people who we did this too would, and they would be fully justified in my opinion to do so.

Where the hell do you draw the damn lines?

Sorry for the curse word, but that just absolutely blew my mind...

When we even think of things of this nature moreless act on them, we have become the very people we hate.. .think about it.. think about it long and hard. I am so worked up my hands are fucking shaking..

Sorry if I offended anyone with my bad word... its just the only word I know strong enough to demonstrate my total disgust.

It blows your mind because you can't think the whole process through from start to finish. You get hung up with the vision and emotion. It is also why you would not be a good President. It is also why for right now Obama is not very good either. We have to wait and see. Right now he is failing. You was dealing with a very strict question.

For you the only question is what will you allow a person to do to save your life. I say he could not torture children, but he could torture a person he has deemed to have information that would save my life. I am willing to trust that he knows the difference and would only do so if he was sure the person had the information. You would rather an innocent person pay the ultimate price. You can't reconcile it, which is why I would no want you to be a decider.

[quote=6863m]
It blows your mind because you can't think the whole process through from start to finish. You get hung up with the vision and emotion. It is also why you would not be a good President. It is also why for right now Obama is not very good either. We have to wait and see. Right now he is failing. You was dealing with a very strict question.

For you the only question is what will you allow a person to do to save your life. I say he could not torture children, but he could torture a person he has deemed to have information that would save my life. I am willing to trust that he knows the difference and would only do so if he was sure the person had the information. You would rather an innocent person pay the ultimate price. You can't reconcile it, which is why I would no want you to be a decider.[/quote]

Richard, please stop.. your absolutely portraying yourself as a maniacal, sadistic, extremely twisted individual. A good president in your view is one that would be fine with torturing children? Is that what makes a leader Richard? Someone who will torture the most innocent? My God man, are you for real? Seriously, I dont think you will find any of your Reich Wing buddies come on here and defend you on this.

Richard torture produces no actionable intel.... it just fulfills sadistic fantasies...

Your position is exactly why I wouldnt want you to be in any position of authority, moreless the president..

I hope, and I will pray with all my might tonight, that some country decides the same, invades our nation, happens to labe your freedom fighting son, or grandson is a terrorist and crushes his balls to dust with a vice grip.. I pray to lord jesus...

The 12 century is over, you would think we would have evolved... your knuckles are dragging on the floor..

Hey stupid blank ...the left has been torturing children for ever, in fact one of your greatest heros made it Oaky Doaky to do so...what a specimen of leftist compassion........here ya go Mr blank.......enjoy..... vhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell


"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. ”

"Holmes concluded his argument with the infamous phrase "Three generations of imbeciles are enough". The sole dissenter in the court, Justice Pierce Butler, declined to write a minority opinion."

[size=x-large]Watch the language people.[/size]

Did you read any of my post, I never said I wanted a President to torture children and said so. But that does not slow you down. I gave you the answer without the emotion and vision only but you twist it. You are so wound up I could not understand much of this last post.

What did this mean

hope, and I will pray with all my might tonight, that some country decides the same, invades our nation, happens to labe your freedom fighting son, or grandson is a terrorist and crushes his balls to dust with a vice grip.. I pray to lord jesus...

Sounds wierd to me but I am a knuckle dragger.

"Holmes concluded his argument with the infamous phrase "Three generations of imbeciles are enough".


Does this mean were gonna have to put with another Bush administration?

Heres the box score:


Richard LaVerne

Doesn't believe waterboarding is torture / Believes waterboarding is torture
Doesn't believe USA violated in laws by waterboarding / Believes USA clearly violated international law
Believes the end justifies means / Believes we must hold ourselves to a higher standard
Believes that torture provides valuble inteligence / Believes that if you put my nuts in a vise


I'll tell you where I buried Jimmy Hoffa, how many shots I took at Kennedy from the grassy knoll, why I shot Lincoln, How I sunk the Titanic or any other damn thing you want to know

LaVerne, I agree with everything you said. I would have added the EIT in () but let's not pick at at the small stuff. The bad thing for you is that I know you don't have the answer to those questions so you are in for a long night until you remember who the leader of your cell is.

I have one last example of why these things won't work Richard and then I'll let you and the others finish needling each other.

When I was 17 I was on the high school baseball team. I was playing in a Saturday morning game. When I got home my mother was visably upset and my dad was very angry and imeadiatly started questioning me about what happened at school the day before. I had no idea what he was talking about. He said that the police had been to the house earlier in the day asking about my involment with a drug deal. He told me that if he I was involved he would kill me.

Two sherrifs officers and a city policeman came back to the house about an hour later and proceded to interogate me and must have told me 20 times that it would go a lot easier on me if I confessed. Since I didn't have a clue what they were talking about I did not. If I had been "EIT" as you put it, I'm sure I would have told them anything they wanted to hear and spent 10 to 20 in the cooler.

The facts were that I and another student were studying in a study room. There were a couple of other students in the room also which wasn't unusual. At some point the assistant principal asked me and the person I was with to leave the room, which we did. Never gave it another thought. The person who was with me was at his home when they came by and was arrested and hauled in for questioning. No doubt I would have been also had I been home.

I found out later that the one of the other two people in the room had a couple of hits of mesquilline in pill form that he ground into the carpet when the assistant principle came into the room. You think I was gonna volunteer that info to the police? F*** them and their we know your guilty crap.

Now lets use this as another example of why this won't work.

Suppose it's you that's getting enhanced by the CIA. Lets also say that one of your offspring is the person they are seeking and that you also believe in the cause of your offspring. You and I both know that your never gonna give them up even if they cut your balls off and shove them down your throat.

These people are willing to die for a cause they believe in and have demonstrated it time again. Were not getting anything from anybody that knows anything. In your heart you know it but you just can't admit it because Dick head Cheney says otherwise.

LaVerne, you have made the perfect case for never bothering to arrest anybody.........if it's bull shit under duress then its bull shit while having a cup of coffee and a smoke while trading recipies with the cops......... easy peasy.......we all know that anybody can be a cop...and a concert pianist.........it's an innate talent we are all born with...no practice needed....

man you just saved the taxpayer gobs a cash. btw I kinda like Dickhead Cheney...........

good story tho..........as far as another Bush administration..........naw....your guys are in....komrade.

[quote=6863m]
Did you read any of my post, I never said I wanted a President to torture children and said so. But that does not slow you down. I gave you the answer without the emotion and vision only but you twist it. You are so wound up I could not understand much of this last post.

What did this mean

hope, and I will pray with all my might tonight, that some country decides the same, invades our nation, happens to labe your freedom fighting son, or grandson is a terrorist and crushes his balls to dust with a vice grip.. I pray to lord jesus...

Sounds wierd to me but I am a knuckle dragger.[/quote]


Well you would have no reservations about it being done by a president using executive power here in a Jack Bauer reality you live in.... I was just turning it around on you, saying that if we could rule that way, so could another nation, and if it was your child being tortured you certainly would come full circle.

Why turn it around to anything. Just leave it for what I said.

Joe, I read the UN resolution. We agree with it, and so does the United States Senate, Supreme Court, G Bush and Obama. Sounds great reads great. We determined that our EIT does not inflict pain. We determined that a strong re alignment of your head to look me in the eye was not painful enough to meet the threshold. We determined that an open hand slap will not meet the threshold. So we determned that the 11 techniques don't conflict with the UN resolution. Problem solved. If you violate the EIT you go to jail.

So all is well so far. Why not re read the memos and the back ground of how they went through the process.

As to custody, I would not always follow their strict language because it does not fit with my mission and want to get the prisoner away from a disfunctional local prison system. There is a war going on.

But to your point which is torture we meet the resolution.

LaVerne, I can't buy into the analogy of your two examples because of the professionalism of the police and distance between two simple high school kids and a drug buy. You just can't force the closure of the situation. I think we have to stay with every analogy being in Iraq or Afghanistan and a war zone.

[quote=6863m]
Why turn it around to anything. Just leave it for what I said.

Joe, I read the UN resolution. We agree with it, and so does the United States Senate, Supreme Court, G Bush and Obama. Sounds great reads great. We determined that our EIT does not inflict pain. We determined that a strong re alignment of your head to look me in the eye was not painful enough to meet the threshold. We determined that an open hand slap will not meet the threshold. So we determned that the 11 techniques don't conflict with the UN resolution. Problem solved. If you violate the EIT you go to jail.

So all is well so far. Why not re read the memos and the back ground of how they went through the process.

As to custody, I would not always follow their strict language because it does not fit with my mission and want to get the prisoner away from a disfunctional local prison system. There is a war going on.

But to your point which is torture we meet the resolution.

LaVerne, I can't buy into the analogy of your two examples because of the professionalism of the police and distance between two simple high school kids and a drug buy. You just can't force the closure of the situation. I think we have to stay with every analogy being in Iraq or Afghanistan and a war zone.[/quote]



We determined our EIT does not inflict pain? Then why are we using it to extract confessions? Shouldnt just asking the question be sufficient? We dont inflict pain.. thats laughable..

Go back and read the memo's. They go through the very issue the UN talks about and what is the perameters of pain. Is a stinging slap pain under the context of the resolution. But if the memos are too much to read then of course there is no context so any technique is wrong. Is pushing a prisoner into a specially designed wall with no studs painful or shocking and does it sting. How long does the sting last. If slapped in the face how long and lasting is the sting.

We know that just asking questions does not work. If I am trained that I am not to answer questions with anything but my name rank and serial number that is what I will do. No problem, no fuss just back to the cell. It gets a little tougher when they can start adding phsical issues along with fear. But those cross your lines so I stick with the manual. At some point I would guess that a prisoner really loses all his value. If I can't get information from him to help me why not issue the same order as the Russians and take no prisoners. Cuts down the costs and maintenance.

There has to be a hope of reciprocity of treatment or it does not matter. Once the push to Berlin was underway there were no more prisoners, they decided just to move west and deal with the casualties.

[quote=6863m]
Go back and read the memo's. They go through the very issue the UN talks about and what is the perameters of pain. Is a stinging slap pain under the context of the resolution. But if the memos are too much to read then of course there is no context so any technique is wrong. Is pushing a prisoner into a specially designed wall with no studs painful or shocking and does it sting. How long does the sting last. If slapped in the face how long and lasting is the sting.

We know that just asking questions does not work. If I am trained that I am not to answer questions with anything but my name rank and serial number that is what I will do. No problem, no fuss just back to the cell. It gets a little tougher when they can start adding phsical issues along with fear. But those cross your lines so I stick with the manual. At some point I would guess that a prisoner really loses all his value. If I can't get information from him to help me why not issue the same order as the Russians and take no prisoners. Cuts down the costs and maintenance.

There has to be a hope of reciprocity of treatment or it does not matter. Once the push to Berlin was underway there were no more prisoners, they decided just to move west and deal with the casualties.[/quote]


Richard Dahmer...
Your forgetting freezing cells, rapes, stress positions, waterbaording.. should I go on? Also you contradict yourself, its not painful in one posting, and now it becomes we need to add physical issues? seems someone doesnt know what the hell they are talking about..


Oh and Richard our good German man, wants to adopt Russian policy of no prisoners? seriously there is no hope for you...

You talk about the Muslims having no value for life etc... you must be looking in the mirror. You are exactly the enemy you hate... how does it feel to be a bloodthirsty sociopath? Richard would like to torture children, whats next Mr Dahmer... eating them alive? Raping their dead corpses in front of the parents? I think I know your answer... "the president could constitutionally do this"

A padded room is wating for you.