Obama says torturers may face prosecution

Obama may prosecute over torture | theage.com.au

Obama may prosecute over torture

* Ewen Macaskill, Washington
* April 23, 2009
* Page 1 of 2 | Single Page View

IN A surprise about-turn, US President Barack Obama says members of the Bush administration who approved the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation measures could face prosecution.

Mr Obama said his Attorney-General, Eric Holder, was conducting an investigation and the final decision rested with him. Mr Obama referred to four Bush administration memos he released last week detailing CIA interrogation measures, saying they "reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings".
Obama open to torture charges

US President Barack Obama said he is open to prosecuting officials who laid the legal groundwork for harsh interrogation of detained terror suspects.

Mr Obama also lifted his opposition to a separate congressional inquiry. Last night, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the President would like to see the inquiry modelled on the 9/11 commission. Mr Obama reiterated that there would be no prosecutions of CIA agents who carried out the interrogation of suspected al-Qaeda members at Guantanamo Bay and secret prisons around the world.

But for the first time he opened up the possibility that those in the Bush administration who gave the go-ahead for waterboarding and other interrogation techniques could be prosecuted.

"For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate for them to be prosecuted," Mr Obama said. "With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney-General, within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that."

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said only three days ago that the Administration did not favour prosecutions of those who had devised the policy, and Mr Gibbs echoed that on Monday.

Mr Obama again indicated that he remained opposed to politicisation of the issue, saying it might hamper national security operations. But he added: "If and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion â?¦ that would probably be a more sensible approach to take."

Republicans reacted angrily. "What happened to him talking about not looking backward, about looking forward?" said Republican senator John Ensign of Nevada. "I think it's a huge mistake," said Republican senator Lindsey Graham. "If we start criminalising legal advice given to a past president, advice you may disagree with, that's on the margins of legal thought, in your opinion, you've really harmed the presidency."

Mr Obama's own Director of National Intelligence privately told his workforce last week that the now-banned methods had produced valuable information.

"High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organisation that was attacking this country," Dennis Blair wrote in an April 16 memo to staff.

A version of the memo was distributed to the media without that line. But in a statement to the White House summarising his views, Mr Blair said: "The damage (the interrogation methods) have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Mr. Otruama is at it again. I realy think this guy hates americans- and our freedoms given to us by the constitution.

It will prove just how crazy a society we live in if they don't prosecute these torturers and other criminals from the Bush administration and continue to arrest and prosecute medical or recreational marijuana/cannabis users. Cannabis users don't torture as far as I've had experience. We're not perfect, but come no where close to that. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gypski

It will prove just how crazy a society we live in if they don't prosecute these torturers and other criminals from the Bush administration and continue to arrest and prosecute medical or recreational marijuana/cannabis users. Cannabis users don't torture as far as I've had experience. We're not perfect, but come no where close to that. :thumbsup:

---

Speak for yourself. I smoke weed daily but if I discovered a member of a terrorist organization who was planning some terrorist act, I would happily torture them in order to get the needed information to protect American lives.

Obama is the fucking criminal here for giving CIA secrets away to the world! How exactly does that benefit our national security? I see nothing wrong with torturing our enemies in order to gain the knowledge to protect ourselves from said enemies.

I suppose we should just hand em a joint, drop to our knees and start sucking their dick until they give us the information we need... That is far more humane, except for one small problem, it wouldn't work.

For the sake of debate, I suppose you don't believe in the doctrine of cruel and unusual punishment either then? :D Torture has never gotten to the truth. Just look at the Inquisition. I suppose you'd support that too? :stoned: To each their own as they say. :pimp:

And to qualify myself, if you harmed mine, you'd suffer the worst of retribution if I had to take the law into my own hands. Still, it would be tempered by the degree of the crime. Will the government torture someone to find out where a grow is? Do you support that? Where do you draw the line?

Your comparing torturing war captives to religious persecution? We aren't talking about cruel and unusual punishment in it's traditional sense.

Torture has never gotten results? How exactly do you know that?

We aren't talking about them torturing citizens to find out where a grow op is. The people being interrogated were war prisoners, enemies of the state, not American citizens. If they ever began torturing American citizens I would speak up and fight against that, but that isn't what were talking about here.

Not to mention, why should we treat our enemies better than they treat us. Do you not remember the beheading videos of American's in the Middle East? Do you think our enemies give a shit about how they get information from their captives?

There's a reason why all the civilized nations signed the Geneva Convention. Because its wrong to torture anyone and the knowledge gained from torturing is usually worthless. If we resort ot torture then we should just stop all pretenses of civilized nation. Go back to the wild west days and we just shoot anyone we don't like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

We aren't talking about cruel and unusual punishment in it's traditional sense.

Torture has never gotten results? How exactly do you know that?

---

Case in point: The Raw Story | Cheney pushed torture techniques to find Iraq, Qaeda tie: report

And, no we don't behead either. At least not the we are aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

There's a reason why all the civilized nations signed the Geneva Convention. Because its wrong to torture anyone and the knowledge gained from torturing is usually worthless. If we resort ot torture then we should just stop all pretenses of civilized nation. Go back to the wild west days and we just shoot anyone we don't like.

---

as far as i am concerned, terrorists and pirates don't deserve to be treated by the Geneva conventions. they're not soldiers, they're rabid dogs and should be shot on sight.

also, if i had to water-board someone so i could prevent them from cutting off your head, i'd do it in a minute.

this is just another tactic by the Obama administration to keep us looking at Bush so we won't see the bullshit that's really going on!
it's just sleight of hand, a dog and pony show to distract us while Obama bin Laden sells America to the highest bidder.

So much for the belief in innocent until proven guilty.
If I were to torture someone I am pretty sure they would have a breaking point at which time they will tell me whatever I want them to.
This does not make what they say the truth.

Torture is a thing of the dark ages and really has no place in a so called civilised society. How can you denounce Saddam or others for using something and then go right ahead and use the very same thing ,wouldn't that make you a hypocrite ?

The people responsible for giving the go ahead to torture should be treat as criminals.

you can't bring a knife to a gun fight, these people will blow up your mother and your daughter
simply because they don't believe in Allah, and then they'll cut your friggin' head off.

they don't play by the same rules as we do, hell, they don't have any rules!

i hope they don't detonate a nuke here in America before people like you start to
get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanotherbozo

you can't bring a knife to a gun fight, these people will blow up your mother and your daughter
simply because they don't believe in Allah, and then they'll cut your friggin' head off.

they don't play by the same rules as we do, hell, they don't have any rules!

i hope they don't detonate a nuke here in America before people like you start to
get it.

---

This really smacks of ignorance and xenophobia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

This really smacks of ignorance and xenophobia.

---

Xenophobia is an unreasonable fear of foreigners. I think the killing of 2,000 or so American citizens makes the fear reasonable.

What exactly was wrong with his statement? I failed to see where he said Muslims, he simply said terrorists which is simply a portion of the Muslim population.

these people will blow up your mother and your daughter
simply because they don't believe in Allah

That does give a very clear indication of the object of his post.
I don't know of too many Christians that praise Allah .
Perhaps xenophobia was the wrong choice of word since his fears are in fact more to do with religion.

However , neither his post nor yours is really on topic.

How it is supposed to relate to the question of wether torture is okay as long as it's us doing the torturing is beyond me but I'm sure he will enlighten us.

BTW
I can be a pedant too
Could you please hilight the point in his post where he mentions "terrorists", he didn't, he used the very vague "these people".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanotherbozo

as far as i am concerned, terrorists and pirates don't deserve to be treated by the Geneva conventions. they're not soldiers, they're rabid dogs and should be shot on sight.

also, if i had to water-board someone so i could prevent them from cutting off your head, i'd do it in a minute.

---

There you go psyco, he mentioned it in his first reply to the OP.

Quote:

---

these people will blow up your mother and your daughter
simply because they don't believe in Allah

That does give a very clear indication of the object of his post.
I don't know of too many Christians that praise Allah .
Perhaps xenophobia was the wrong choice of word since his fears are in fact more to do with religion.

---

Seeing as these extremist seem to be fighting a holy war, is statement was not at all off base. And yes, they have already blown up Americans mothers, daughters, sons, moms wives, etc as well as many other nationalities both on 9/11 and other terrorist attacks around the world. Their entire hatred for Western Civilization is based on their extreme religious views. Hell, their motivation is that Allah has promised them nearly 100 virgins if they sacrifice their life in a terrorist attack.

How exactly is this not relevant? These are the people who were tortured under the Bush administration, these are our enemies. How the fuck is it not important to the topic?

We aren't going over their kidnapping innocent children and water boarding them, these are terrorists, enemy combatants, most of which have been exiled from their native country meaning they are no longer protected under the Geneva Convention.

You assume an awful lot.
You assume they are guilty.
You assume they were caught in combat
You assume they are terrorists.

Once more I will ask "How does that equate with the very American edict of innocent until proven guilty" ?

If a member of your own family was accused of a crime would you advocate the use of torture ?

How can you trust any information given under those conditions ?

Are you not trying to blur the lines by saying it's okay to torture certain people but not others ?
Where do you draw the line ?
Should waterboarding be used in all investigations , hell why not go back to the old days of policing and get out the rubber hoses.

Do you understand that you cannot denounce an act that you yourself are commiting , regardless of who the victim is ?

We are talking about extreme circumstances in a time of war. Exceptions are easily made in times of war.

There may be a few low level enemy combatants mistaken for high level officers who were tortured, that is simply an unfortunate event. Wars are nasty and they will never be completely civilized.

I'm not saying all information gained from torture is legitimate, however, some of it surely is. Innocent until proven guilty deals with American courts, it isn't required to carry over to war tribunals and war prisoners.

They aren't protected by our laws and Constitution.

If ,as you claim they are prisoners of war then surely that is a case for the Geneva Convention ?

Please clarify this for me.

How can someone claim the moral high ground and denounce a practice that they themselves use ? Isn't that a tad contradictory ?

Here is a site with the text of the Geneva Convention in regard to war prisoners.

Quote:

---

"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

It also states it applies to:

"Persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
   
   1. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
   2. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
   3. That of carrying arms openly;
   4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
   
   

---

The prisoners we are talking about here are not protected under the Geneva Convention.

I apologize to you psycho for giving you negative rep for the xenophobia comment especially since the dude hasn't responded to defend himself. I assumed he was talking about the Muslim extremist since he mentioned terrorists in his first post, however, he knows for sure, I'm just making an assumption. :hippy:

The inappropriate use of strong words like xenophobia is simply a huge pet peeve of mine.

i didn't defend myself because i've dealt with enough left-wingers that insist on
playing by the rules while the jihadists continue killing innocent people.

the truth is, some of these people will never get it, they'll just continue to insist
that we are wrong while they themselves turn the other cheek. i guess they just
don't realize that that only gives the jihadists a better angle to cut thier friggin
heads off.

if some of their family is killed in the next attack maybe then they'll get it.

i'll say it again, you can't apply the rules of boxing to a cage fight!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

Torture has never gotten results? How exactly do you know that?

---

How do you know it has?

Quote:

---

We aren't talking about them torturing citizens to find out where a grow op is. The people being interrogated were war prisoners, enemies of the state, not American citizens. If they ever began torturing American citizens I would speak up and fight against that, but that isn't what were talking about here.

---

So, if our own soldiers are war prisoners, or enemies of the state, then it would be OK to torture American Soldiers?

Quote:

---

Not to mention, why should we treat our enemies better than they treat us. Do you not remember the beheading videos of American's in the Middle East? Do you think our enemies give a shit about how they get information from their captives?

---

Because you lead by example. Do you not remember what our Government did to it's own citizens? The tuskegee experiment, ruby ridge, waco, rainbow farms, japanese during ww2, war on drugs, and the list goes on and on. Do you think our "Leaders" give a shit about us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

Seeing as these extremist seem to be fighting a holy war, is statement was not at all off base. And yes, they have already blown up Americans mothers, daughters, sons, moms wives, etc as well as many other nationalities both on 9/11 and other terrorist attacks around the world.

---

Which we had plent of intelligence before this ever happened and failed miserably to protect the American people.

Quote:

---

Their entire hatred for Western Civilization is based on their extreme religious views.

---

Pure propaganda

Quote:

---

We aren't going over their kidnapping innocent children and water boarding them, these are terrorists, enemy combatants, most of which have been exiled from their native country meaning they are no longer protected under the Geneva Convention.

---

How do you know what went on over there?

Lets see how the pro-torture groups feel once they capture some of our troops in Afganistan and attempt to extract information from them using the same torture techniques. :twocents:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gypski

Lets see how the pro-torture groups feel once they capture some of our troops in Afganistan and attempt to extract information from them using the same torture techniques. :twocents:.

---

and when they're done laughing at the stupid Americans and their stupid rules,
they'll just behead our troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanotherbozo

and when they're done laughing at the stupid Americans and their stupid rules,
they'll just behead our troops.

---

Although there may be a glimmer of reality in that, and looking at what occurred at Falluja with the Blackwater people, and David Burg, it could be possible. Does that mean we have to stoop to that level of barbarity? Could you behead a person without tossing your guts? If your into torture, you better lay off the medication. Its taking you in the wrong direction. :D

Take this personal torture test and see if you approve. Get some pepper spray and spray it on your ass, or have a friend do it and record your reaction. Or have a friend tie your hands and feet, put you on your stomach, then take a rope and tie your feet and hand together. Hog tie you up tight and see how long you last. :jointsmile:

Record this too for Youtube, then come back and tell us how you still support torture of underlings and other low levels with no actionable intelligence but what ever you want them to admit to. :twocents:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by epxroot

How do you know it has?

---

I don't, my main point here is that Obama hurt our national security by releasing the documents. If he wanted to end it fine, he doesn't need to make a publicity stunt and release secrets to the entire world and our enemies.

Quote:

---

So, if our own soldiers are war prisoners, or enemies of the state, then it would be OK to torture American Soldiers?

---

Our soldiers are protected under the Geneva Convention. When we start strapping bombs to our chests, than we can compare us to them.

Quote:

---

Because you lead by example. Do you not remember what our Government did to it's own citizens? The tuskegee experiment, ruby ridge, waco, rainbow farms, japanese during ww2, war on drugs, and the list goes on and on. Do you think our "Leaders" give a shit about us?

---

Of course our government has done some shitty things to Americans as well. Simply because we allow torture of foreign terrorists doesn't mean it will be used against us, when that happens than I will change my stance, I feel that is unlikely though.

So I guess obamas plan is to close down gitmo, pull the troops out of Iraq, and prosecute Americans for fighting the war on terror ? goodness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by higher4hockey

So I guess obamas plan is to close down gitmo, pull the troops out of Iraq, and prosecute Americans for fighting the war on terror ? goodness.

---

I read an article several days ago about American soldiers who were lost and separated from their unit. They came across an Iraqi teen, they became worried for their safety, and deliberated as to if they should kill the Iraqi. They decided not to kill him out of fear of a shit storm being started and them being prosecuted. As it turned out, the kid gave their position to the enemy.

Why do we not protect our citizens and soldiers first and than worry about the rest of the world?

same thing happened in afghanistan. the book lone survivor tells all about it.

i just got back from iraq, and believe me, its ridiculous. there's a saying over there. "its better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six"

While we are on this subject, let's clarify what these techniques entailed. They way people are talking you would think we are using medieval tactics.

Set the Record Straight: Publish All Key Memos on CIA Interrogations

Quote:

---

What the Memos Reveal

---

Quote:

---

While many media accounts portrayed the memos as evidence that interrogation practices were both illegal and ineffective and therefore an indictment of Bush policies, others disagree.


For example, after analyzing the memos, David Rivkin and Lee Casey concluded in The Wall Street Journal, "The four memos on CIA interrogation released by the White House last week reveal a cautious and conservative Justice Department advising a CIA that cared deeply about staying within the law. Far from 'green lighting' torture--or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees--the memos detail the actual techniques used and the many measures taken to ensure that interrogations did not cause severe pain or degradation."[2]

---

Quote:

---

What has not been released, however, is all the other relevant information about the program that would help Americans better understand both how it worked and how effective it was.



While The Washington Post reported that "Justice Department documents released yesterday offer the fullest account to date of Bush administration interrogation tactics, including previously unacknowledged strategies,"[3] it failed to note that many key details about the program, including those that might put interrogation policies in a more favorable light, were not disclosed.


For example, former Vice President Cheney noted in an interview, "One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort."[4] The Vice President stated that he had previously asked for the declassification of additional memos. In recent press interviews, he renewed his request.

---

Here is an article pointing out the misinformation about Walling.

The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture - WSJ.com

Quote:

---

The four memos on CIA interrogation released by the White House last week reveal a cautious and conservative Justice Department advising a CIA that cared deeply about staying within the law. Far from "green lighting" torture -- or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees -- the memos detail the actual techniques used and the many measures taken to ensure that interrogations did not cause severe pain or degradation.


Interrogations were to be "continuously monitored" and "the interrogation team will stop the use of particular techniques or the interrogation altogether if the detainee's medical or psychological conditions indicates that the detainee might suffer significant physical or mental harm."
An Aug. 1, 2002, memo describes the practice of "walling" -- recently revealed in a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which suggested that detainees wore a "collar" used to "forcefully bang the head and body against the wall" before and during interrogation. In fact, detainees were placed with their backs to a "flexible false wall," designed to avoid inflicting painful injury. Their shoulder blades -- not head -- were the point of contact, and the "collar" was used not to give additional force to a blow, but further to protect the neck.


The memo says the point was to inflict psychological uncertainty, not physical pain: "the idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and that will be far worse than any injury that might result from the action."


Shackling and confinement in a small space (generally used to create discomfort and muscle fatigue) were also part of the CIA program, but they were subject to stringent time and manner limitations. Abu Zubaydah (a top bin Laden lieutenant) had a fear of insects. He was, therefore, to be put in a "cramped confinement box" and told a stinging insect would be put in the box with him. In fact, the CIA proposed to use a harmless caterpillar. Confinement was limited to two hours.


The memos are also revealing about the practice of "waterboarding," about which there has been so much speculative rage from the program's opponents. The practice, used on only three individuals, involved covering the nose and mouth with a cloth and pouring water over the cloth to create a drowning sensation.


This technique could be used for up to 40 seconds -- although the CIA orally informed Justice Department lawyers that it would likely not be used for more than 20 seconds at a time. Unlike the exaggerated claims of so many Bush critics, the memos make clear that water was not actually expected to enter the detainee's lungs, and that measures were put in place to prevent complications if this did happen and to ensure that the individual did not develop respiratory distress.


All of these interrogation methods have been adapted from the U.S. military's own Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (or SERE) training program, and have been used for years on thousands of American service members with the full knowledge of Congress. This has created a large body of information about the effect of these techniques, on which the CIA was able to draw in assessing the likely impact on the detainees and ensuring that no severe pain or long term psychological impact would result.


The actual intelligence benefits of the CIA program are also detailed in these memos. The CIA believed, evidently with good reason, that the enhanced interrogation program had indeed produced actionable intelligence about al Qaeda's plans. First among the resulting successes was the prevention of a "second wave" of al Qaeda attacks, to be carried out by an "east Asian" affiliate, which would have involved the crashing of another airplane into a building in Los Angeles.


The interrogation techniques described in these memos are indisputably harsh, but they fall well short of "torture." They were developed and deployed at a time of supreme peril, as a means of preventing future attacks on innocent civilians both in the U.S. and abroad.
The dedicated public servants at the CIA and Justice Department -- who even the Obama administration has concluded should not be prosecuted -- clearly cared intensely about staying within the law as well as protecting the American homeland. These memos suggest that they achieved both goals in a manner fully consistent with American values.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, who served in the Justice Department under George H.W. Bush, were U.S. delegates to the U.N. Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

---

We are talking about psychological tactics not physical and barbaric torture here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by higher4hockey

same thing happened in afghanistan. the book lone survivor tells all about it.

i just got back from iraq, and believe me, its ridiculous. there's a saying over there. "its better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six"

---

That's what it was actually, an article about that book.

Well, since some approve of torture, you in the military, if you happen to get captured look forward to this and even more drastic measures. Remember the old adage, what goes around, comes around. And I'm not defending any one just denouncing torture in any form as a wasted form of gaining information.

Try this at home on yourself and let us all know how it is not torture but just a little extreme stress.

The Raw Story | Suit: Torture began before Bush administration sanctioned it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gypski

Well, since some approve of torture, you in the military, if you happen to get captured look forward to this and even more drastic measures. Remember the old adage, what goes around, comes around. And I'm not defending any one just denouncing torture in any form as a wasted form of gaining information.

Try this at home on yourself and let us all know how it is not torture but just a little extreme stress.

The Raw Story | Suit: Torture began before Bush administration sanctioned it

---

shit man! they're already cuttin' off our fuckin' heads man, what worse could they do?
by your own argument, we're just givin' back what they gave us, only not nearly as brutally.

you should think long and hard and try to understand that freedom isn't free,
sometimes it takes harsh action. it's easy to 'do unto others as you would have
them do unto you' when you're dealing with reasonable people but when you are
talking about people willing to blow themselves up to get you, well then you have
to 'do unto others before they do unto you', or you're dead.

like it says in higher4hockey's sig, this is the land of the free because of the brave.

maybe you should listen to veterans like higher4hockey and the family's of
those that died on 9\11 rather than Nancy Pelosi.

or not, that's the beauty of America, you're entitled to any opinion you want,
as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else for you to have it. just remember though,
the Kool-Aid is to the left.

Well just look at that! Obama done did it again......:wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

I don't, my main point here is that Obama hurt our national security by releasing the documents. If he wanted to end it fine, he doesn't need to make a publicity stunt and release secrets to the entire world and our enemies.

---

In what way has our "national security" been hurt?

Quote:

---

Our soldiers are protected under the Geneva Convention. When we start strapping bombs to our chests, than we can compare us to them.

---

If you were in a third world country with no military, or billions to spend on weapons to kill, how would you fight an empire?

Quote:

---

Of course our government has done some shitty things to Americans as well. Simply because we allow torture of foreign terrorists doesn't mean it will be used against us, when that happens than I will change my stance, I feel that is unlikely though.

---

So, you want to wait until it happens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

While we are on this subject, let's clarify what these techniques entailed. They way people are talking you would think we are using medieval tactics.

Set the Record Straight: Publish All Key Memos on CIA Interrogations


Here is an article pointing out the misinformation about Walling.

The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture - WSJ.com



We are talking about psychological tactics not physical and barbaric torture here.

---

Well, I will not attack the source, but you do understand that WSJ is a right wing paper correct? Anyway, back to "Torture". Are you saying that just because this is not about physical, or barbaric tactics, and it is just psychological, that it is OK? I would rather have physical torture performed on me, than psychological.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanotherbozo

shit man! they're already cuttin' off our fuckin' heads man, what worse could they do?
by your own argument, we're just givin' back what they gave us, only not nearly as brutally.

you should think long and hard and try to understand that freedom isn't free,
sometimes it takes harsh action. it's easy to 'do unto others as you would have
them do unto you' when you're dealing with reasonable people but when you are
talking about people willing to blow themselves up to get you, well then you have
to 'do unto others before they do unto you', or you're dead.

like it says in higher4hockey's sig, this is the land of the free because of the brave.

maybe you should listen to veterans like higher4hockey and the family's of
those that died on 9\11 rather than Nancy Pelosi.

or not, that's the beauty of America, you're entitled to any opinion you want,
as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else for you to have it. just remember though,
the Kool-Aid is to the left.

---

Before you give me the patriotic speech, I'm an ex-Marine and I know all about war and its results. We didn't start cutting off heads and won't make it part of our rules of engagement. Sorry, but if you had been a troop under me and tried some attrocites, I have you up on charges. Discipline is needed on the battle field, not a bunch of maniacs.

I'm more concerned about our own troops killing themselves after they've come back home. Quit drinking the righty kool-aid on Fox. Its hazardous for one's health. :twocents:

The main problem with the "look what they're doing to our boys" argument is the simple fact that "our boys" shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

The main problem with the "look what they're doing to our boys" argument is the simple fact that "our boys" shouldn't have been there in the first place.

---

Which place are you referring to? Afghanistan or Iraq?

Seeing as an organization responsible for attacking Americans on American soil is located in Afghanistan, our army had every right to retaliate and try to eliminate the enemy. I am afraid Afghanistan will turn into our modern day Vietnam though.

Now if you are referring to Iraq. We overthrew a dictator who was responsible for ordering the murder of 148 Shiites. So, although I don't exactly agree with this war, it is certainly justifiable on a moral level. It is also hard to blame Bush for the intelligence he acted on. Many reports from several different nations all said Iraq had WMD's, not to mention, historically they have had them.