Senator: OPR Torture Report Likely To Be "Devastating"

[JackLuis]

Ah now the shit hits the fan!

Hang on to your hat, Dick this is gon'a' hurt!

How the system is working Here

 

[3113]

I dunno. We had the usual stupidity in the letters section of our newspaper today regarding the waterboarding memos. One guy wrote to say that he'd been in the army in charge of debriefing Vietnam P.O.W.'s and that to understand them better, the army had giving him a taste of some of the torture techniques, including waterboarding. He went on to inform the newspaper that "it was no big deal." As with the waterboarding here, were doctors nearby. He'd survived it and was healthy and fine. He didn't understand why everyone was getting so bent out of shape about doing it to prisoners.

And then, of course, there was a letter from someone insisting that woe-to-the-U.S. if bleeding-heart liberals do away with torture and start treating terrorists all nice.

Which is to say, with this sort of mentality, I'm not so sure any shit's gonna hit the fan. It seems that waterboarding is no big deal, and besides, we've gotta be mean to terrorists. What we thought was a scandal is actually either nothing important or absolutely necessary. Who knew?

 

[shereads]

I dunno. We had the usual stupidity in the letters section of our newspaper today regarding the waterboarding memos. One guy wrote to say that he'd been in the army in charge of debriefing Vietnam P.O.W.'s and that to understand them better, the army had giving him a taste of some of the torture techniques, including waterboarding. He went on to inform the newspaper that "it was no big deal." As with the waterboarding here, were doctors nearby. He'd survived it and was healthy and fine. He didn't understand why everyone was getting so bent out of shape about doing it to prisoners.

There can be no valid comparison between the effects of waterboarding or other physical/mental abuse on someone who has volunteered as part of training, and someone who is in involuntary custody.

The military trainee knows that the 'torture' will end with him alive, whole, and free. If it gets to be more than he can bear, he can drop out of the program.

Control versus helplessness. Apples and oranges.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No one who matters, gives a shit about torture. It's simply one more thing Usual Suspects agonize over, and the whole world does.

 

[amicus]

It is all 'pacifist', left wing, bleeding heart liberal mantra...anti war, anti guns, anti self defense, and if it continues, will lead to increased terrorism and domestic criminal activity as both terrorists and criminals will, 'know', that the left is, as they always are, 'soft' on crime and punishment.

I really think left wingers are born deficient a gene for self esteem as they have no respect for individual rights or human freedom and won't lift a finger to defend anything, save their stash.

To repeat something on another thread, leaks concerning a thwarted 9/11 like attack on Los Angeles planned for 2002, was prevented because of 'waterboarding.'

Amicus...

 

[3113]

There can be no valid comparison between the effects of waterboarding or other physical/mental abuse on someone who has volunteered as part of training, and someone who is in involuntary custody.

The military trainee knows that the 'torture' will end with him alive, whole, and free. If it gets to be more than he can bear, he can drop out of the program.

Control versus helplessness. Apples and oranges.

Well, precisely. But that's the way this guy thinks. I mean, if it comes down to it, there's two more things I betcha that he didn't take into account. The first was that he was probably in great shape, healthy, and got to rest, have a good meal, and go to bed after his experiences. That's a little different from a prisoner who might not be in the best of health, or as young as he was, and who is going to be abused in other ways in between the waterboarding (like having his head smashed against a wall).

Second, I'll doubt they waterboarded our army friend 183 times.

 

[JackLuis]

It is one thing to be water boarded once. It is a whole different deal to be water boarded 88 or a hundred times in a month.

Not to mention being chained up so you can not sit or move for weeks at a time.

JBJ: why don't you try standing with you hands over your head for a couple of hours?

Amicus: "they have no respect for individual rights or human freedom and won't lift a finger to defend anything, save their stash."
You talk about personal liberty and freedom, but you deny the same liberty to others? The Line is, "Inalienable rights," oh I get it since the terrorists don't profess the same God as you do they are not 'persons' but vermin that can be dealt with like any animal?

Did the torturer yield any information worth sullying our National Honor? I find it hard to believe that given the Bush Administration's tendency for self promotion that they wouldn't have spread it across Fox News and the other outlets to take the publicity.

What they did was illegal and immoral. I don't care much about the CIA interrogators but the lawyers and Instigators of this out rage should face the court and accept responsibility for their acts.

Hanging is too good for them, they should be .... Well quickly transported to another plane of nonexistence.

 

[sr71plt]

JBJ: why don't you try standing with you hands over your head for a couple of hours?

Wouldn't sitting on his hands away from the keyboard for a couple of hours be more productive for all of us?

 

[amicus]

It was not illegal. It was not immoral. Further, both former Vice President Cheney and the director of Intelligence, have both stated that 'waterboarding' specifically gained information preventing an attack on the Liberty Tower in Los Angeles in 2002.

And just what is it you do not understand about American citizens have 'rights' because we fought for Independence and protect those rights.

Express please the sympathy you have for a terrorist with no country who killed a 19 year old American soldier during combat in Afghanistan.

Amicus

 

[JackLuis]

Express please the sympathy you have for a terrorist with no country who killed a 19 year old American soldier during combat in Afghanistan.

Amicus

My personal preference is a .357 magnum, 180 grain silvertip in his ear. That doesn't mean I want to torture him for any reason.

 

[Huckleman2000]

You know, I've heard about this tower in LA story many times now. I've yet to hear of any arrests, raids on terror cells, or anything else that suggests that it was a 'foiled plot'. How did they foil it? How far along in the planning were they? How do we know this was more than just a dream of the terrorist being tortured?

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]
Express please the sympathy you have for a terrorist with no country who killed a 19 year old American soldier during combat in Afghanistan.

Amicus

Sympathy for an enemy has nothing to do with it, and no one has argued for extending all the rights of US citizenship to foreign terrorists. Prisoners do have rights under the law, though, both domestic and international. Torturing the prisoner won't bring back the soldier and it jeopardizes the justice system which is supposed to convict and punish the terrorist.

 

[Liar]

Express please the sympathy you have for a terrorist with no country who killed a 19 year old American soldier during combat in Afghanistan.

Amicus

That was one of the most fallacious sentences I've ever read.

I have no sympathy for that one you call terrorist. I don't have to have that to have morals and principles that say that torture is objectively immoral.

Killing a soldier in combat is not terrorism.

Did the man who killed a soldier in combat also commit acts of terror somewhere else perhaps?

And what does the soldier's age say about anything? Only that America sent a 19 year old into combat.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JACK LUIS

JBJ: why don't you try standing with you hands over your head for a couple of hours?

I've experienced worse.

Every 30 years or so we have these eruptions of hand-wringing and crocodile tears for America's enemies. But the bottom-line is, most Americans cant care less what happens to our enemies AND the whole world uses pain for information collection. I imagine we do much worse than is reported.

 

[xssve]

That was one of the most fallacious sentences I've ever read.

I have no sympathy for that one you call terrorist. I don't have to have that to have morals and principles that say that torture is objectively immoral.

Killing a soldier in combat is not terrorism.

Did the man who killed a soldier in combat also commit acts of terror somewhere else perhaps?

And what does the soldier's age say about anything? Only that America sent a 19 year old into combat.

To Afghanistan.

 

[3113]

To Afghanistan.

Where there are terrorists.

You know, I'd like to thank, Ami. His nonsense puts a lot of things into perspective and keeps our minds sharp.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

There can be no valid comparison between the effects of waterboarding or other physical/mental abuse on someone who has volunteered as part of training, and someone who is in involuntary custody.

The military trainee knows that the 'torture' will end with him alive, whole, and free. If it gets to be more than he can bear, he can drop out of the program.

Control versus helplessness. Apples and oranges.

How is it that I understood this back before grade school and the government doesn't understand it even now?

 

[xssve]

Where there are terrorists.

You know, I'd like to thank, Ami. His nonsense puts a lot of things into perspective and keeps our minds sharp.

The Taliban offered to turn OBL over if we had any evidence linking him to 9-11 - but there was supposed to be a pipeline going through Afghanistan, and certain parties wanted assurances.

The Iranians also offered to help hunt down AQ, as did Syria, and even Hussein probably would have been glad to get rid of them had there not been a personal vendetta going on between him and the Bush's. These guys are pretty much a fly in everybody's ointment, including China.

The real upshot of all of this is that after all the lives lost and the country bankrupted, Pakistan will likely end up in the hands of the radical Salafists, and they'll have nukes this time, nice work.

No, amicus doesn't make you think, he just wastes time.

 

[amicus]

Liar:

"...I don't have to have that to have morals and principles that say that torture is objectively immoral..."

~~~

You were a bit more cautious than CharleyH, who said she 'knew' "torture" was immoral; you left a way out in your choice of words by using, 'say'.

You also avoid the real issue by positing, 'Torture', when that is not the issue, 'waterboarding', 'enhanced interrogation', is the issue and the evidence is that it has worked.

You will of course deny the nuances at the same time you utilize them for your own purposes.

Each and every procedure of 'interrogation', has been tacitly approved by the US Congress during 'closed session' meetings with the Intelligence Community, both Houses of Congress and both Republicans and Democrats.

Secondly, the Court system has ruled on these procedures and found them to be within the bounds of the legal description of acceptable interrogation methodology.

Whether you claim or deny participation, you are expressing the typical left wing bleeding heart softness on crime, anti war, anti gun mentality.

There are clearly defined, 'due process' laws to protect American citizens accused of criminal activity.

Suppose, for a change, you and your cohorts outline your view of proper procedures for dealing with enemy combatants, from other countries, who have been captured in a theatre of war killing or attempting to kill American military personnel.

But then, that would require actually taking a rational stand on an issue and perhaps being required to logically justify it.

You folks never, ever do that...you just bitch and whine as usual suspects always do. Pussies.

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Save your breath with the Usual Suspects. They will never believe that Osama or the Taliban or al Quaeda would shoot them first. And they would. The Usual Suspects are always the first shot.

 

[sr71plt]

AMICUS

Save your breath with the Usual Suspects. They will never believe that Osama or the Taliban or al Quaeda would shoot them first. And they would. The Usual Suspects are always the first shot.

Wrong. I fully well know that they would (and I've been in al-Qaeda's sights, which is very likely more than you can say).

More absolutist categorization by the Sore Loser Club members.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Each and every procedure of 'interrogation', has been tacitly approved by the US Congress during 'closed session' meetings with the Intelligence Community, both Houses of Congress and both Republicans and Democrats.

Secondly, the Court system has ruled on these procedures and found them to be within the bounds of the legal description of acceptable interrogation methodology.

...
Amicus...

The parts of your post I have quoted I see as the real problem.

Whether enhanced interrogation is torture; whether Extraordinary Rendition is allowable; whether what went on at GITMO could have been done on the US mainland without legal challenge - all those decisions aided and abetted the enemies of the US and embarrassed its allies. Anyone treated that way in the Continental US would have grounds for a legal challenge to the authorities. What is illegal inside the US SHOULD BE illegal wherever US government agencies operate.

The impact on US Foreign Policy has been disastrous.

IF there is a war on terror; if there are enemy combatants in the field against US troops - then anyone captured should be treated according to the Geneva Conventions. In Afghanistan they are. Injured Taliban fighters are given the same medical treatment as the troops of the US and its allies.

What should you do with terrorists? If they are PROVEN to be terrorists then they should be tried, convicted and sentenced by due process. That process must be seen to be as fair as possible.

The real problem is that the "terrorists" are only suspected of being terrorists.

Og

 

[sr71plt]

I would really like to see the documentation that there were full-disclosure briefings to Congress on any intelligence topic whatsoever. I used to put together intell briefings for Congress, for closed and open hearings as well. And I say "barf" to anyone claiming congressional hearings have ever been given full disclosure on any intell operation--under any administration.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

Amicus and I nominated you for membership in the SORE LOSER CLUB. Its the sister club to the SORE LOSERMAN CLUB of 2000.

 

[amicus]

The parts of your post I have quoted I see as the real problem.

Whether enhanced interrogation is torture; whether Extraordinary Rendition is allowable; whether what went on at GITMO could have been done on the US mainland without legal challenge - all those decisions aided and abetted the enemies of the US and embarrassed its allies. Anyone treated that way in the Continental US would have grounds for a legal challenge to the authorities. What is illegal inside the US SHOULD BE illegal wherever US government agencies operate.

The impact on US Foreign Policy has been disastrous.

IF there is a war on terror; if there are enemy combatants in the field against US troops - then anyone captured should be treated according to the Geneva Conventions. In Afghanistan they are. Injured Taliban fighters are given the same medical treatment as the troops of the US and its allies.

What should you do with terrorists? If they are PROVEN to be terrorists then they should be tried, convicted and sentenced by due process. That process must be seen to be as fair as possible.

The real problem is that the "terrorists" are only suspected of being terrorists.

Og

~~~

As usual, attacking on a presumed basis, even an assumed one, that you present as absolute.

First off, it remains an open question as to how to deal with captured terrorists. The United States and over 30 Allied nations liberated the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and facilitated, over a period of years, a form of democratic government to replace the dictatorship that was in power.

Secondly, there was no legal precedent in place to guide Coalition nations as to how to treat terrorist and suspected terrorist mercenary captives.

Further, just the opposite from your claims of, 'aiding and abetting and embarrassing...', it spoke volumes for the determination of the US and the Coalition, to in fact render humane treatment of all prisoners rather than summarily execute them as the Geneva Conventions suggested.

The Geneva Convention protects only those in military uniform and those engaged in war. Terrorists target soft, civilian gatherings, like wedding parties, Mosque's, your own transportation facilities, restaurants and night clubs and Embassies around the world.

In a film, yes, only a film, "Dirty War", the title, I think, Muslim terrorists set off a dirty bomb in London. Guess what tactics were employed to extract information from captured terrorists?

There is no 'hot poker in the eye', or pulling out fingernails; in fact no interrogation methods were used that caused lasting physical or mental damage to those questioned.

So, although I haven't searched to document chapter and verse of the Geneva Conventions that outline procedures for the incarceration and interrogation of mercenaries and terrorists. It is my understanding that summary execution is afforded those not in the uniform of their country who engaged in mortal combat.

"...What should you do with terrorists? If they are PROVEN to be terrorists then they should be tried, convicted and sentenced by due process. That process must be seen to be as fair as possible..."

How sweet and nice of you. Where do you try, convict and sentence a Syrian terrorist armed with an RPG made in Iran, who killed a British soldier in Basra, Iraq?

And what is fair when an Egyptian terrorist explodes a bomb in a restuarant in Baghdad with a weapon made in Russia, and kills men, women and children indiscriminately?

For those of you who are so morally rigid that you will protect a woman's so called, 'reproductive rights', and murder an innocent baby in the process, are again so morally rigid to insist that terrorists have rights of any kind.

When a human being, any human, outside the umbrella of war, takes or even injures innocent humans, the perpetrator forfeits all human rights except a speedy execution.

I have watched a fair amount of live, embedded coverage of American and British troops going door to door in towns and villages in Iraq, searching for weapons, explosives, RPG's, et cetera. They take an interpreter along and threatening does not produce information as to the location of terrorists or even confessions in the field, yet the area produces mortar fire that kills and maims Iraqi men women and children and Coalition troops.

These terrorists, suspected terrorists, alleged terrorists, are removed from the village or town and the attacks stop. How do you deal with them in prison?

Those coalition troops never know who will attack them, men, women, teen aged boys and girls, all are suspect, as is every roadside or cross roads. It has required an entirely new order of rules of engagement, even to the extent of creating Iraqi like towns in an American desert to train troops how to carry out assignments without bringing injury or insult to the locals.

You and others like you, do a tragic disservice to coalition nations, your own included, the men and women on the front lines and our entire political systems by your continuing anti war efforts that have now extended to prisoner treatment and interrogation.

You, and most, comfortable in your cozy, protected environment, made that way by the efforts and sacrifices of others continue to drive a wedge between a sincere effort to defend your lives, rights and properties, and those who enjoy the fruits of freedom.

You should be ashamed...but you won't be; you are so sacrosant in your faith and your belief that you will continue to chip away at mans' endeavors to protect.

Amicus