13
   

Bush-era interrogation may have worked, Obama official says

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 05:36 pm
Quote:
The military agency that helped to devise harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171.html?hpid=topnews

Our own military referred to what was done as 'torture.'

Cycloptichorn
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 06:51 pm
@revel,
The thinking is that Panetta, only because he is the current CIA chief, has to publicly argue against release of the torture memos. Otherwise, he might compromise his leadership within the CIA.

It is turning out that many of the alleged successes of torture presented by the Bush people could not be valid because of the time lines. For instance, they contend that torture prevented an attack in LA. However, it turns out that the torture occurred after that attack was thwarted. Lies, lies, lies, from the right!
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 01:59 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:


Our own military referred to what was done as 'torture.'

Cycloptichorn


and our own leaders used to, until cowards like dick cheney got hold of some power. he should get himself back to that undisclosed location and shut the **** up.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 07:25 am
Even if it was torture, so what?

To quote CI...
Quote:
Also, I don't see how any international law can be enforced against the US.
old europe
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 07:28 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
Even if it was torture, so what?


Are you claiming that only international law makes torture illegal? Are you saying that within the United States, it's perfectly okay and in accordance with the Constitution to torture somebody?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 07:36 am
@old europe,
Not at all.
I am simply quoting CI as to whether or not international law can be enforced against the US.
He seems to think it cant.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 07:52 am
@mysteryman,
The other countries could retaliate in many ways. For instance, certain countries would cease cooperation in eliminating drug manufacture.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 07:53 am
@mysteryman,
Also, pity the poor US soldier, or even the civilian, who would face torture in other countries.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 07:57 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
Not at all.
I am simply quoting CI as to whether or not international law can be enforced against the US.
He seems to think it cant.


Depends on what kind of international law we're talking about. If we're talking about war crimes or violations of the Geneva Conventions, I would point you or c.i. to the War Crimes Act of 1996

Quote:
The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed with overwhelming majorities by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The law defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions", specifically noting that "grave breach" should have the meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of war) to which the U.S. is a party. The definition of "grave breach" in some of the Geneva Conventions have text that extend additional protections, but all the Conventions share the following text in common: "... committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."

The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. armed forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death. The death penalty is only invoked if the conduct resulted in the death of one or more victims.


0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 09:01 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Tell me something,are your principles worth dying for?

If your principles tell you that killing is wrong, would you abandon those principles to defend yourself or your kids?
Or would you let your kids dies for the sake of your principles?

That has to be one of the stupidest questions I have ever seen.
Do you think the only way to prevent someone from killing me or my kids would be to "kill" them?

I can think of any number of ways to incapacitate someone without killing them but maybe I am just better trained and better able to understand situations than some that think "killing" is the only choice.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 09:02 am
@mysteryman,
International law can be enforced against the US by the US courts. Under the constitution treaties entered into by the US have the force of US law.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 02:39 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

International law can be enforced against the US by the US courts. Under the constitution treaties entered into by the US have the force of US law.


and if that didn't do the job, i suppose a few, or several, countries could form a "coalition" and attack america.

i'd rather hand over cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle et al.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 02:48 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

parados wrote:

International law can be enforced against the US by the US courts.
Under the constitution treaties entered into by the US have the force of US law.



DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Quote:
and if that didn't do the job, i suppose a few, or several, countries could form a "coalition" and attack america.
i'd rather hand over cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle et al.

Your screen name belies your articulated willingness to relinquish American sovereignty.

In other words,
DontTreadOnMe prefers to exalt cowardice over sovereignty and independence. Right ?





David
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 05:20 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David, I guess the constitution only applies when it enforces things you like (e.g., right to bear arms). The constitution prescribes that international agreements to which we subscribe are the supreme law of the land.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 06:02 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:


Quote:
David, I guess the constitution only applies
when it enforces things you like (e.g., right to bear arms).

U made that very personal.



Quote:

The constitution prescribes that international agreements
to which we subscribe are the supreme law of the land.

Do u allege that the President and Congress have authority
to relinquish American sovereignty? I deny that thay do.

Do u allege that the Constitution can be amended
by effecting a treaty? I deny that too; so has the USSC.


Indeed, if the Constitution allowed that,
O boy coud treat with Mexico such that the presidents
and the legislatures woud endure incumbent for 25 years,
with no elections and according to your interpretation
of the Constitution, that woud be the end of THAT.




David
DontTreadOnMe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 06:33 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

parados wrote:

International law can be enforced against the US by the US courts.
Under the constitution treaties entered into by the US have the force of US law.



DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Quote:
and if that didn't do the job, i suppose a few, or several, countries could form a "coalition" and attack america.
i'd rather hand over cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle et al.

Your screen name belies your articulated willingness to relinquish American sovereignty.

In other words,
DontTreadOnMe prefers to exalt cowardice over sovereignty and independence. Right ?


you sir, are an idiot.

you really don't understand what being the world leader means, do you?

of course you don't. how could you possibly understand what that means when you have bragged about how you and the other members of McCarthy's Rat Squad employed the exact same methods as the Communists you allege to have been trying to defeat.

being the leader of the world means that you lead by example. others have tried to "lead" the world by force and intimidation, look where it got 'em.

look where it got the paranoid McCarthy. bye-bye...

if you wanna talk about exalting cowardice, it is small minded, frightened little men like you. and McCarthy. and Dick Cheney and pretty much any right-wing radio warrior these days.

you pretend to be Mr. Real American around here, but you proved your willingness to "pull down, tear and wipe" with the constitution in the fifties. and now here you are again, along with cowards like dick cheney vomiting out the same paranoid bile and doing to the same thing to the fundamental goodness of america what you did then.

Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 06:41 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
The constitution prescribes just what you say can't be done. You must think that the constitution is just a piece of paper.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 09:03 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

parados wrote:

International law can be enforced against the US by the US courts.
Under the constitution treaties entered into by the US have the force of US law.



DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Quote:
and if that didn't do the job, i suppose a few, or several, countries could form a "coalition" and attack america.
i'd rather hand over cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle et al.

Your screen name belies your articulated willingness to relinquish American sovereignty.

In other words,
DontTreadOnMe prefers to exalt cowardice over sovereignty and independence. Right ?


Quote:
you sir, are an idiot.

The relative power or paucity of my intellect is off topic.
I doubt your powers of analysis thereof anyway.




Quote:

you really don't understand what being the world leader means, do you?

It means nothing; America is not leading the world anywhere.
Maybe u think that we order it around?




Quote:
of course you don't.

If u choose to answer your own questions,
then Y do u ask them in the first place ??


Quote:

how could you possibly understand what that means

I already told u that it means nothing.



Quote:

when you have bragged about how you and the other members
of McCarthy's Rat Squad employed the exact same methods
as the Communists you allege to have been trying to defeat.

That 's what fighting a war means; apparently u don 't know that.
Senator Joe McCarthy had his heart in the right place.
He injured many commies; that is better than most Americans can truly say.
I join my mind in loving harmony with McCarthy, General Augusto Pinochet
and the Anti-communists of Indonesia
who blessed us all with the massacre of commies there in 1965.
Thru all of their efforts, and those of Ronald Reagan,
we succeeded in WINNING the Third World War.

Did that break your commie heart?




Quote:

being the leader of the world means that you lead by example.

The duties of the US Government are defined in the US Constitution.
Nowhere does it require us to do that.
We are free of any such obligation.
I deny your allegation.






Quote:

others have tried to "lead" the world by force and intimidation, look where it got 'em.

We have no purpose to lead the world ANYWHERE.
Let the world go screw itself; we are concerned about ourselves.
I am concerned about MYSELF & my friends.




Quote:
look where it got the paranoid McCarthy. bye-bye...

He is in the same place that u are going:
to the grave, but HE did so with glory; can u say the same ?



Quote:

if you wanna talk about exalting cowardice,
it is small minded,

I don 't know what small minded means.
Perhaps u 'll enlighten me.




Quote:
frightened little men like you.

Frightened of WHAT??
I fear nothing. I have no emotion, other than being mildly annoyed at u at the moment.
As I said hereinabove,
we already won the 3rd World War, thanks be unto
Reagan, McCarthy, Pinochet et al.
We wiped our red, white & blue asses with guys like u and Stalin.





Quote:

and McCarthy. and Dick Cheney and pretty much any right-wing radio warrior these days.

you pretend to be Mr. Real American around here,

YES.
The following statement is intended to be factually objective,
rather than based upon emotion:
your post shows a lack of basic understanding of Americanism:
meaning self-defense, Individualism, libertarianism, hedonism and laissez faire free enterprize.
Libertarianism does not include allowing anyone to attack us with impunity.


Quote:
but you proved your willingness to "pull down, tear and wipe" with the constitution in the fifties.

That statement is mindless foolishness.
If u wished to be analytical, or logical, u 'd have indicated
which parts of the Constitution I allegedly pulled down, etc.
I re-iterate my commitment to the Constitution,
with NO liberalism. I ratify and embrace all of my
Anti-commie efforts.





Quote:

and now here you are again, along with cowards like dick cheney
vomiting out the same paranoid bile and doing to the same thing
to the fundamental goodness of america what you did then.

U merely hurl yourself down into the lower pits of emotion
whence u hurl semi-hysterical acrimony; pointless, but ineffective.

There was never anything cowardly about Dick Cheney.
He has a fine and brilliant pro-freedom mind.
I hold him in the very highest esteem.
I wish that he 'd have been President instead of W.
The Bushes were never conservative Americans.
Cheney was and is; may the BEAUTY of his life be exceeded only
by his ever increasing JOY and WEALTH !


In the event that u wish to go thru another cycle of this
thrilling dialog, I suggest that u begin a new post
because this one is becoming too intricate to be legible.

I wonder what it IS
that u consider to be the "fundamental goodness" of America ?






David

DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 09:14 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
see? i told you i didn't think you got it.

i will say this though. i regret having called you an idiot. that was wrong of me. sorry.

about the rest; i stand by it.

china. vietnam. cuba. commies.

apparently, the rumour of communism's death has been greatly exaggerated.

not that i'd be sorry to see it go.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 09:28 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Quote:
see? i told you i didn't think you got it.

It coud be possible that u were right; got WHAT ?


Quote:

i will say this though. i regret having called you an idiot.
that was wrong of me. sorry.

OK; accepted.


Quote:

about the rest; i stand by it.

china. vietnam. cuba. commies.

apparently, the rumour of communism's death has been greatly exaggerated.

I believe not so.
From what I 've heard n read,
China is only PINK now; a military dictatorship
wherein cash commands a lot of respect.
I 've changed my mind of MANY years' standing:
I now see benefit (for America) in communism continuing in China,
in that if pure laissez faire free enterprize is established there
huge prosperity will blossom forth, expanding its economy ever faster,
and increasing its competition for oil, driving up its price.
Socialism will retard China 's economic growth,
thereby slowing competition for oil; hence, I see socialism
in China as being good.
(For ME, saying that is HERESY.)

How do u define the "fundamental goodness" of America ?



David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 10:20:17