Topic: The Mighty Cop: President Obama is wrong to excuse torturers (Read 2047 times)

Copernicus · « **Reply #20 on:** April 23, 2009, 03:10:40 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 23, 2009, 02:24:38 PM

I think we are forgetting one very important thing here. No one, or virtually no one, in America believes America should torture.

That depends on your next statement.

Quote

The central dispute is what constitutes torture.

That is not so much in dispute anymore.

Quote

Example, some people say waterboarding is, others say it isn't. If the law is such that it isn't, then you cannot retroactively prosecute people who engaged in the practice while it was deemed as not torture. Well, I guess you could, if you wanted to set horrible, horrible precedent.

Or maybe we could just treat waterboarding as the same kind of activity for which we executed some Japanese for after WWII, when we considered the waterboarding of American soldiers to be torture. Very few people have a problem in thinking of waterboarding as torture. One can always imagine worse forms of torture, but waterboarding meets all of the usual definitions of torture.

Quote

I have not seen any evidence that the people who engaged in these activities nor the ones who set the boundaries as they understood it from the law acted in violation with the law at the time. In cases where activities went too far- such as Abu Ghraib- there was prosecution. Without evidence of actual illegality according to the law at the time, I don't see the point of trials.

Surely, you agree that the Justice Department should conduct an investigation, don't you? Would you have a problem with an independent prosecutor? I would certainly prefer that over having Holder manage the investigation, since there is a question of political pressure from the Obama administration to turn a blind eye to torture. (And, BTW, Holder has admitted that waterboarding is torture.)

Quote

Didn't Obama even leave wiggle room for himself to use 'appropriate measures' at 'his discretion' when he called for the CIA to use the Army manual?

Actually, this is not Obama's call. It is for the Justice Department to investigate. If crimes were committed, the President does not have the authority to do anything but short-circuit the law with a pardon.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #21 on:** April 23, 2009, 06:21:37 PM »

"That is not so much in dispute anymore."

heh maybe in Nether-Netherland.

"Or maybe we could just treat waterboarding as the same kind of activity for which we executed some Japanese for after WWII, when we considered the waterboarding of American soldiers to be torture."

Uh, the Japanese did far, far, far worse than waterboarding. It isn't the kind of thing that I've researched, but I am inclined to think that waterboarding was far down the scale for the Japanese. Ie, if you were water boarded by the Japanese, you were lucky.

"One can always imagine worse forms of torture, but waterboarding meets all of the usual definitions of torture."

Yea, you can always imagine worse forms of torture, and most of the world is engaged in things far worse at any given time. A little perspective seems to be in order. Exactly how many people were waterboarded, anyway? 2-3?

Do our own troops get waterboarded in their training? You know they do. I have trouble believing that things we make our own soldiers and airman endure in the course of training really constitutes torture. I am sure that

"Surely, you agree that the Justice Department should conduct an investigation, don't you?"

You dodged the question. The question is whether or not there was any evidence that anyone acted contrary to US law at the time. If there isn't that evidence, then no, there shouldn't be an investigation. Do you think people should be investigated when there is no evidence of misconduct?

"Would you have a problem with an independent prosecutor?"

See above.

"Actually, this is not Obama's call. It is for the Justice Department to investigate."

You characteristically missed my point. Obama, when he ordered the CIA to use the Army manual, reserved the right for himself to use appropriate measures at his discretion. I wasn't talking about whether or not Obama could decide to prosecute.

I just think it is telling when Obama himself seemingly reserves the right to 'torture' if he feels that it is appropriate.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/guan-j23.shtml

Personally, I just haven't made up my mind about water boarding. Like I said, I have trouble viewing what we do to our own troops as torture. Unpleasant, certainly, but torture? I just don't know. If it is decided by law that it is torture that won't bother me (although I guess we'd then have to stop torturing our own). Was it decided by law to be torture at the time? That is the critical point.

Again, perspective seems to be in order. As far as I can tell, waterboarding is the absolute worst thing that was done to any of these detainees, and then only 2-3 detainees were affected out of the whole lot of them. They still have their heads. They still have their fingernails. They have not be sterilized. The procedure ended in 2003. Is it really necessary to pursue it? Looks and smells like a witch hunt to me.

If waterboarding was not defined as torture at the time I just don't see the case.

Copernicus · « **Reply #22 on:** April 23, 2009, 09:41:09 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 23, 2009, 06:21:37 PM

"Or maybe we could just treat waterboarding as the same kind of activity for which we executed some Japanese for after WWII, when we considered the waterboarding of American soldiers to be torture."

Uh, the Japanese did far, far, far worse than waterboarding. It isn't the kind of thing that I've researched, but I am inclined to think that waterboarding was far down the scale for the Japanese. Ie, if you were water boarded by the Japanese, you were lucky.

It was an explicit war crime, and we punished the Japanese for using that technique. Waterboarding was illegal in the US at least since 1898, when US troops who used it in the Spanish-American war were court-martialed for using it against captured enemies.

Quote

"One can always imagine worse forms of torture, but waterboarding meets all of the usual definitions of torture."

Yea, you can always imagine worse forms of torture, and most of the world is engaged in things far worse at any given time. A little perspective seems to be in order. Exactly how many people were waterboarded, anyway? 2-3?

There was a report back in 2007 (since discredited) that only 3 people had been waterboarded. This report made its way into the right wing news bubble, and is still spread around as if it were fact. The exact number is not known, but it was far more common than had been publicly announced during the Bush regime. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003. Needless to say, he has confessed to a lot of things, many of which he may have done. Abu Zubaydah was only waterboarded 83 times in the month of August 2002. (In December 2007, the NY Times reported that he had only been waterboarded once for 35 seconds.) Zubaydah has also enthusiastically confessed to everything he was told to confess. He may have done some of those things, but you never can tell with torture, can you? A footnote in a 2005 Justice Department memo said "waterboarding was used both more frequently and with a greater volume of water than the CIA rules permitted." (See NY Times report) It turns out that Zubaydah was not the high ranking Al Qaeda official that the government said he was. He was just a "helpful training camp personnel clerk". And he gave up nothing under waterboarding than he had not already given up.

Quote

Do our own troops get waterboarded in their training? You know they do. I have trouble believing that things we make our own soldiers and airman endure in the course of training really constitutes torture. I am sure that

I'm sorry, but you don't really understand the point of the SERE program. It was bsed on torture techniques that it explicitly labelled illegal under US law. The Bush administration used the program to figure out how it could best TORTURE prisoners that it wanted to extract confessions and information from. It extracted confessions to just about everything, but very little information that wasn't learned by other means. Traditionally, waterboarding has been used to punish prisoners and to extract confessions. It has never been seen as a reliable means of coercing truthful information out of prisoners, because prisoners will say anything to stop the torture. That is why it is an effective means of extracting false confessions from prisoners.

Quote

"Surely, you agree that the Justice Department should conduct an investigation, don't you?"

You dodged the question. The question is whether or not there was any evidence that anyone acted contrary to US law at the time. If there isn't that evidence, then no, there shouldn't be an investigation. Do you think people should be investigated when there is no evidence of misconduct?

I did not dodge the question, but I'm sorry if you got that impression. I thought that it was pretty obvious that the answer was YES! Here it is again: YES. Evidence exists. But it is "evidence" only in a prima facie sense. It exists in the form of press reports. It has never been validated by a formal investigation. That is why I asked whether you would agree to such an investigation. Your response was to ignore my question. So I say YES. Such evidence exists as reported allegations in the press. Now, I ask again. Do you agree with me that there should be a formal investigation to validate that evidence? Just to clear up the allegations?

Quote

"Would you have a problem with an independent prosecutor?"

See above.

Can you answer my question, now that I have answered yours?

Quote

"Actually, this is not Obama's call. It is for the Justice Department to investigate."

You characteristically missed my point. Obama, when he ordered the CIA to use the Army manual, reserved the right for himself to use appropriate measures at his discretion. I wasn't talking about whether or not Obama could decide to prosecute.

Obama can't decide to prosecute. Holder can. Historically, the Justice Department has not been beholden to the President for such judgments, although that policy changed radically under Bush, who totally politicized the Justice Department.

Quote

I just think it is telling when Obama himself seemingly reserves the right to 'torture' if he feels that it is appropriate.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/guan-j23.shtml

You've got to be kidding me! You go to a Socialist propaganda site for your interpretation of the news? Politics makes strange bedfellows. You take right wing sources as entirely credible. Next you rely on unabashed socialists and communists. After that, you rank the mainstream media and liberal elements such as MSNBC news. REPUBLICANS have been calling Bush's "enhanced interrogation" torture. Boehner even called it torture, but he felt that Democrats were as culpable as Republicans. Some defense, eh?

Quote

Personally, I just haven't made up my mind about water boarding. Like I said, I have trouble viewing what we do to our own troops as torture. Unpleasant, certainly, but torture? I just don't know. If it is decided by law that it is torture that won't bother me (although I guess we'd then have to stop torturing our own). Was it decided by law to be torture at the time? That is the critical point.

Undergoing waterboarding voluntarily, as Christopher Hitchens has, is not actually torture in the conventional sense. It is done under conditions where the subject knows he will not be killed and that the torture can be stopped at any time. Christopher Hitchens had it done twice to him--the second time to see if he could acclimate to it. He said it was definitely torture. He could not endure it. BTW, our troops are not routinely waterboarded. SERE was for special ops personnel.

Quote

Again, perspective seems to be in order. As far as I can tell, waterboarding is the absolute worst thing that was done to any of these detainees, and then only 2-3 detainees were affected out of the whole lot of them. They still have their heads. They still have their fingernails. They have not be sterilized. The procedure ended in 2003. Is it really necessary to pursue it? Looks and smells like a witch hunt to me.

OK, you really haven't been following the news. They confined prisoners in boxes with insects. They slammed them against walls, after fitting them with neck braces to prevent whiplash. They used lots of techniques. Were these worse than waterboarding? I can't say, but I doubt that we really know all the facts of what was done in our collective name at this point.

Quote

If waterboarding was not defined as torture at the time I just don't see the case.

Actually, it was clearly defined as torture in 2002, when it was first used. The memos to justify it were solicited and written later on.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #23 on:** April 23, 2009, 10:26:04 PM »

"It was an explicit war crime,"

Great. Cite the statute.

"There was a report back in 2007 (since discredited) that only 3 people had been waterboarded."

Funny how you said it was discredited but then only listed 2 people.

"I'm sorry, but you don't really understand the point of the SERE program. It was bsed on torture techniques that it explicitly labelled illegal under US law."

Nonsense and irrelevant. Much of the SERE program deals with 'run of the mill' 'discomforts.' Stress positions, etc. But it is irrelevant, because the point is that if we are putting our troops through 'illegal' procedures then we are breaking the law within that training, right?

My understanding is that some of our troops have been waterboarded in the course of their training. You may correct me if I am wrong.

"It exists in the form of press reports. It has never been validated by a formal investigation."

Lovely. Now if something appears in the press we've got to hasten to investigate it? We'll see how long you keep that reasoning up....

"Do you agree with me that there should be a formal investigation to validate that evidence? Just to clear up the allegations?"

That's ridiculous. On this basis every time someone makes an allegation we'll have to bend over and investigate it. You need something far better than this.

As near as I can tell, there is no dispute that a certain number of folks have indeed been waterboarded. Has this been denied? I don't understand what new information you expect an investigation to turn up.

"Can you answer my question, now that I have answered yours?"

You've provided me no reason to. Your evidence is press reports? Press reports that certain people have been waterboarded- which hasn't been denied?

You are still dodging the real issue. The real issue in my mind, anyway. Show where in US law it is established that waterboarded was considered torture at the time and then I'll care a little more.

"Obama can't decide to prosecute. Holder can."

You did it again.

"You've got to be kidding me! You go to a Socialist propaganda site for your interpretation of the news? Politics makes strange bedfellows. "

You silly boy. I used a socialistic news source specifically since you couldn't condemn it as being 'right wing.' You can read the decision for yourself. Obama didn't suspend rendition and he left open the option- if he so chose- to implement interrogation techniques not in the army field manual. Maybe you didn't hear this in your left wing bubble.

I also figured that since you are basically a socialist yourself, you'd listen more if you heard it from your own. :)

"BTW, our troops are not routinely waterboarded. SERE was for special ops personnel."

I used 'troops' in a general sense. I would consider special ops as American soldiers. You? Is it torture to force our soldiers to endure waterboarding?

"OK, you really haven't been following the news. They confined prisoners in boxes with insects. They slammed them against walls, after fitting them with neck braces to prevent whiplash. They used lots of techniques. Were these worse than waterboarding? I can't say, but I doubt that we really know all the facts of what was done in our collective name at this point."

heh I probably haven't been following the news on this point as well as you but I actually took the time to read the first memo and did some summary skimming. I heard about being confined in boxes with insects... and also that it was merely threatened.

Honestly, if being threatened with a caterpillar is torture, we're really not going to get anywhere in this conversation.

"Actually, it was clearly defined as torture in 2002, when it was first used. The memos to justify it were solicited and written later on."

Great, cite the statute.

Now, about press reports.

You are aware that press reports have firmly established that we don't know jack about what is on Obama's long form birth certificate and we know that press reports have firmly established that Obama is refusing to release this document. In fact, he has spent a million dollars in legal fees since he was elected. A MILLION dollars.

Surely an independent investigator is called for, right? Just to clear up the allegations, you know?

I don't know what statute clearly says waterboarding is illegal but I know for darn sure that only natural born citizens can legally be president.

You call for an investigation into Obama's citizenship and I'll think you are serious about the rule of law and aren't just trying to extract another piece out of the Bush administration.

Copernicus · « **Reply #24 on:** April 24, 2009, 01:52:18 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 23, 2009, 10:26:04 PM

Great. Cite the statute.

Which one? It is constitutionally prohibited under the Eighth Amendment. If you want more specific statutes, here is a whole page of them in the Washington University Law Review. Take your pick. It certainly violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. But there are numerous other anti-torture statutes. This isn't even close. (BTW, a procedure such as waterboarding does not have to be specifically named in a statute in order for the statute to apply to it.)

Quote

...Much of the SERE program deals with 'run of the mill' 'discomforts.' Stress positions, etc. But it is irrelevant, because the point is that if we are putting our troops through 'illegal' procedures then we are breaking the law within that training, right?

Wrong. Voluntary training exercises do not qualify under any of the legal definitions, which refer to detainees and prisoners subjected to involuntary pain and humiliation. That includes those "stress positions". What is the point of inflicting stress positions, extreme temperatures, confinement in a box with insects, slamming people against walls, etc.? If it isn't torture, then why do it? What is it supposed to accomplish. I know that you are not naive. You are either in total denial, or you are just being disingenuous.

Quote

My understanding is that some of our troops have been waterboarded in the course of their training. You may correct me if I am wrong.

Again, totally irrelevant. The statutes refer to involuntary treatment of prisoners, not volunteer trainees, who do not feel that their lives and health are in real danger.

Quote

"It exists in the form of press reports. It has never been validated by a formal investigation."

Lovely. Now if something appears in the press we've got to hasten to investigate it? We'll see how long you keep that reasoning up....

Do you understand why we have a free press? These allegations are being made by people who were involved in the torture program, and THEY call it torture. Congressman Boehner calls it torture. The Attorney General calls it torture. Seriously. How many allegations do you need before you think the allegations ought to be formally investigated?

Quote

"Do you agree with me that there should be a formal investigation to validate that evidence? Just to clear up the allegations?"

That's ridiculous. On this basis every time someone makes an allegation we'll have to bend over and investigate it. You need something far better than this.

I thought so. You seem completely oblivious to the fact that Congress is in an uproar, and Obama has backed away from trying to quash any investigation. Rush Limbaugh and other right wing infotainers are trying to make light of the allegations, but there are going to be investigations now. Holder should do himself a favor and appoint an independent prosecutor.

Quote

As near as I can tell, there is no dispute that a certain number of folks have indeed been waterboarded. Has this been denied? I don't understand what new information you expect an investigation to turn up.

Nor is there any real dispute any longer that waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture. We do not know how many people were waterboarded yet. We did not know the extent to which individuals were waterboarded. You don't waterboard someone 181 times in a month--well over the prescribed limit under guidelines that were themselves illegal--and expect to learn something new from it. Clearly, what they were doing was intended to punish, not interrogate. We are also just beginning to learn some of the other illegal torture methods that were used.

Quote

"Can you answer my question, now that I have answered yours?"

You've provided me no reason to. Your evidence is press reports? Press reports that certain people have been waterboarded- which hasn't been denied?

I see. You demand answers from me that aren't necessary. I give them anyway. You still stonewall.

Quote

You are still dodging the real issue. The real issue in my mind, anyway. Show where in US law it is established that waterboarded was considered torture at the time and then I'll care a little more.

The US government has prosecuted waterboarding--that specific procedure--as a method of torture. It has always been described as torture. No prosecutor is going to have the slightest difficulty in making that case. The word "waterboarding" need not be named in the statute if the practice meets the legal definition of torture.

Quote

You silly boy. I used a socialistic news source specifically since you couldn't condemn it as being 'right wing.'...

Why would you think I have any more respect for socialist propaganda rags than right wing fascist propaganda rags?

Quote

I also figured that since you are basically a socialist yourself, you'd listen more if you heard it from your own. :)

Gee, thanks. I guess I'll be needing to quote fascist and Nazi sources to establish credibility with you.

Quote

I used 'troops' in a general sense. I would consider special ops as American soldiers. You? Is it torture to force our soldiers to endure waterboarding?

SERE is a very limited program. You didn't appear to know that before, but I'm glad you acknowledge it now. It is limited to volunteers in elite programs, not average soldiers.

Quote

heh I probably haven't been following the news on this point as well as you but I actually took the time to read the first memo and did some summary skimming. I heard about being confined in boxes with insects... and also that it was merely threatened.

And you believe that? Bybee explicitly approved it in his memo. They originally announced that Zubaydah was waterboarded once for 35 seconds. A few days ago, we learned that it was 83 times in one month. That is why we need an investigation.

Quote

Honestly, if being threatened with a caterpillar is torture, we're really not going to get anywhere in this conversation.

Honestly, inflicting extreme emotional pain and degradation meets the definition of torture. You don't actually have to mutilate people to torture them.

Quote

You are aware that press reports have firmly established that we don't know jack about what is on Obama's long form birth certificate and we know that press reports have firmly established that Obama is refusing to release this document. In fact, he has spent a million dollars in legal fees since he was elected. A MILLION dollars.

Not this again.

It has already been thoroughly investigated and laughed out of court.

Quote

Surely an independent investigator is called for, right? Just to clear up the allegations, you know?

You really don't pay attention to the news. The investigation is long past. Have you stopped taking your meds again?

FYI, here is just one legal definition of torture from the United Nations Convention against Torture:

Quote

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #25 on:** April 24, 2009, 07:39:34 AM »

"BTW, a procedure such as waterboarding does not have to be specifically named in a statute in order for the statute to apply to it."

It certainly would help. I think this puts the finger on the whole issue. You are adamantly insisting that it is torture and citing treaties and laws that forbid torture. But what is specifically under dispute it not the legality of torture but rather whether or not waterboarding is. You think it is. Perhaps a lot of people think so. But some people don't.

The way to clear up the ambiguity is to pass legislation on it, not retroactively prosecute past interpretations you disagree with but may not be- and on my information, aren't- explicitly impossible to reconcile with existing law at the time.

That sort of thing happens all the time. People don't like the way that other people interpret the law so they write a new law that settles it once and for all. If you want to do that, fine. That would be a healthy way to approach it.

"Wrong. Voluntary training exercises do not qualify under any of the legal definitions, which refer to detainees and prisoners subjected to involuntary pain and humiliation."

lol, you're insane. You really are. The point is that if it our own troops can endure it at all and we submit them to them, it is disputable as to whether or not it really is torture even on the 'legal definitions.' Whether it is voluntary or not has nothing to do with it if the equivalent 'discomfort' is being experienced.

Your goal here is to present it as indisputable. But it has been disputed and continues to be disputed.

In my view, one should not torture even voluntary folks.

Or do you think if our troops endure it voluntarily, sticking needles underneath their fingernails and electrocuting their genitals would be ok? That would be legal and hence not torture on your view?

That is ridiculous. We don't do some things because those things most definitively are torture.

"How many allegations do you need before you think the allegations ought to be formally investigated?"

You lost me at hello. There is no weight to this argument as you don't believe it yourself. If you did, you'd think otherwise about Obama's citizenship. Sorry, I don't consider this line of attack credible out of you.

"You seem completely oblivious to the fact that Congress is in an uproar, and Obama has backed away from trying to quash any investigation."

Obama? The Messiah? No way. He wouldn't quash any investigation. He is coming on clouds of righteousness and truth.

Anyway, the idea that Congress is in an uproar is perfectly meaningless to me. I have no respect for any of our legislators, including the Republican ones. They are the last place I'd look for guidance as to what is a genuine moral outrage. It doesn't take much to put them into a tizzy. They are just manipulating you, Cop. They want your donations. Don't fall for it.

"Nor is there any real dispute any longer that waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture."

A tried and true technique to try to end discussion. "No one disputes any more..." "The debate is over..." Sorry, but by my readings there is still plenty of dispute.

"We do not know how many people were waterboarded yet."

The evidence is 3. Press reports, you know.

"Why would you think I have any more respect for socialist propaganda rags than right wing fascist propaganda rags?"

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

"Gee, thanks. I guess I'll be needing to quote fascist and Nazi sources to establish credibility with you."

Actually, I'm pretty sure that fascism is being implemented by the liberals these days. Let's see, CEO's being 'asked' to resign, bailout debt being transformed into common shares... sure sounds like the government taking more and more control of private institutions and entities to me.

"You didn't appear to know that before, but I'm glad you acknowledge it now. It is limited to volunteers in elite programs, not average soldiers."

Actually, I did know that, Cop. I actually know people who have gone through it. Two of them. You?

"And you believe that?"

Hey, press reports. I'm just going on the same quality of information as you are.

"Honestly, inflicting extreme emotional pain and degradation meets the definition of torture. You don't actually have to mutilate people to torture them."

I understand that. And I am not saying that I believe that waterboarding is not torture. I honestly don't know. I think there is room to debate it. That is why I think if you really wanted to resolve the matter, you wouldn't retroactively prosecute the matter but rather simply pass legislation that directly ends the debate, at least on legal grounds.

"Not this again. d'oh! It has already been thoroughly investigated and laughed out of court."

Did you know that Obama has spent a million dollar on legal fees since he has been elected? Aren't you in the least curious as to what is worth hiding that he'd be willing to fork over a million bucks?

"You really don't pay attention to the news. The investigation is long past."

What investigation? I don't recall a formal investigation into Obama's citizenship. I am aware of no Secretary of States validating Obama's credentials. This 'investigation' exists at the level of the press.

If a declaration of innocence by the media is enough for you then a declaration of guilt by the media should appease you as well.

If it doesn't, don't give me this jazz about the 'evidence' of press reports. It is clear that you value 'press reports' and believe allegations should be investigated only in areas you care about. It is hard to consider that kind of approach as credible.

"FYI, here is just one legal definition of torture from the United Nations Convention against Torture:"

Look, wiggle room!

Quote

It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

I guess that's why Muslims can stone people to death (Christians and 'adulteresses' usually) and the International community doesn't make a peep.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #26 on:** April 24, 2009, 08:20:10 AM »

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_briefed_on_waterboarding_in_02_.html

Pelosi knew!

Classic.

Copernicus · « **Reply #27 on:** April 24, 2009, 07:02:05 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 24, 2009, 08:20:10 AM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_briefed_on_waterboarding_in_02_.html

Pelosi knew!

Classic.

Read the article more carefully. That briefing did not constitute approval, and the techniques themselves were supposedly not implemented then, according to the Bush administration. So it was just a walkthrough and a classified discussion. This information is coming out now at a time when partisan attacks are in an upswing. Republicans are finally beginning to admit that they approved torture, but they want the Democrats dragged down into the mud with them. Classic obfuscation. The dismantling of traditional restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment was largely directed by the Bush administration. Most Republicans were clamoring for it, and most Democrats were divided over it.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #28 on:** April 24, 2009, 09:46:14 PM »

lol come on, Cop. How can you sit there and just let yourself get manipulated?

I read the article. And I watched Pelosi on TV. She sat in those briefings and heard all this stuff. She says that she had no idea they were actually going to be used. What the heck do you expect her to say? This is just too funny.

Well, I guess if you're willing to turn Holder's 'independent investigator' loose on the Democratic leadership to ascertain 'what did they know and when did they know it' I might soften my position as it relates to our conversation.

This is just Pelosi's version of "It all depends on what the definition of is, is." And you're buying it.

So, what of it? Do you want your independent investigator to dig into what the Democrats knew of it or are they going to get a pass in y our book?

Copernicus · « **Reply #29 on:** April 25, 2009, 12:51:03 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 24, 2009, 09:46:14 PM

lol come on, Cop. How can you sit there and just let yourself get manipulated?

You're the one being manipulated, my friend. You are still parroting Bush propaganda on torture long after most people have dropped the pretense that it made sense.

Quote

I read the article. And I watched Pelosi on TV. She sat in those briefings and heard all this stuff. She says that she had no idea they were actually going to be used. What the heck do you expect her to say? This is just too funny.

Do you really think I care all that much whether she is telling the truth? I am not her biggest fan, but I do not hold her culpable for policies on which Republicans led the charge, even if she sometimes chose to look the other way. She is a politician, and politicians often do what they consider expedient to advance their own careers, believe it or not. Gosh, even non-politicians behave like hypocrites sometimes.

Quote

Well, I guess if you're willing to turn Holder's 'independent investigator' loose on the Democratic leadership to ascertain 'what did they know and when did they know it' I might soften my position as it relates to our conversation.

What are you talking about? Nobody is accusing even the Republican leadership in Congress of crimes. An independent prosecutor would determine if officials in the Bush administration were liable for criminal behavior. Right now, there is prima facie evidence that they were. Republicans and some Democrats in Congress might be embarrassed by revelations coming out of such an investigation, but I have no problem with that.

Quote

This is just Pelosi's version of "It all depends on what the definition of is, is." And you're buying it.

Not really, but I don't see much culpability for anything on her part. I consider Feinstein a worse scoundrel. Pelosi may be shading the truth to cover her butt, but that is nothing compared to the fabrications coming from Republican and Bush administration sources. Suddenly, Cheney is all for openness and transparency in government. He wants to unleash the memos that he had crafted to vindicate his behavior. I say, release all the memos. Let the chips fall where they may.

Quote

So, what of it? Do you want your independent investigator to dig into what the Democrats knew of it or are they going to get a pass in y our book?

I want the truth to come out, no matter which side gets embarrassed, including Democrats. Everyone needs a good cleansing on this issue.

Copernicus · « **Reply #30 on:** April 26, 2009, 10:37:42 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 24, 2009, 07:39:34 AM

"BTW, a procedure such as waterboarding does not have to be specifically named in a statute in order for the statute to apply to it."

It certainly would help. I think this puts the finger on the whole issue. You are adamantly insisting that it is torture and citing treaties and laws that forbid torture. But what is specifically under dispute it not the legality of torture but rather whether or not waterboarding is. You think it is. Perhaps a lot of people think so. But some people don't.

Don't be silly. Torture is a legally defined concept. There is no need to cite a name for every conceivable type of torture. Waterboarding has long been a recognized torture technique since the Inquisition. The Japanese called it the "water cure" in WWII, and we sentenced people to prison and death for using it against US servicemen. Bush and company quite clearly wanted to rescind anti-torture policies in the US that went back to the time of George Washington, and, to our shame, he succeeded for quite a few years. Thankfully, most Americans are now coming to their senses on this issue. Torture may satisfy a yearning for revenge, but it only gets reliable information out of torture victims in the movies and on TV.

Quote

"Wrong. Voluntary training exercises do not qualify under any of the legal definitions, which refer to detainees and prisoners subjected to involuntary pain and humiliation."

...In my view, one should not torture even voluntary folks.

There is a big difference between involuntary torture and voluntary submission to torture techniques as a means of learning how to resist it. Most people get this, even if you do not.

Quote

Or do you think if our troops endure it voluntarily, sticking needles underneath their fingernails and electrocuting their genitals would be ok? That would be legal and hence not torture on your view?

The SERE program did not mutilate those who participated in it, AFAIK. For the most part, waterboarding was a technique designed to break victims without leaving permanent traces of torture on their bodies. That aspect of it was also attractive to Bush, Rumsfeld, et al, since they did not want to leave evidence that they had actually tortured detainees. It's called plausible deniability.

Quote

"How many allegations do you need before you think the allegations ought to be formally investigated?"

You lost me at hello. There is no weight to this argument as you don't believe it yourself. If you did, you'd think otherwise about Obama's citizenship. Sorry, I don't consider this line of attack credible out of you.

You didn't answer the question, but I didn't really expect you to. The "birth certificate" canard is something that I did expect from you. You are among a tiny minority of right-wingers who consider that ploy worth pursuing.

Quote

"Honestly, inflicting extreme emotional pain and degradation meets the definition of torture. You don't actually have to mutilate people to torture them."

I understand that. And I am not saying that I believe that waterboarding is not torture. I honestly don't know. I think there is room to debate it. That is why I think if you really wanted to resolve the matter, you wouldn't retroactively prosecute the matter but rather simply pass legislation that directly ends the debate, at least on legal grounds.

I don't really believe for a second that you approve of torture, but I do think that you'll go a long way before admitting that the Bush administration actually engaged in torture. After all, you helped vote those bozos into power. I don't think that you can face the extent to which you were used by these people. We need a formal investigation by an independent prosecutor--not one tied closely to Democrats--precisely because we need legal minds with integrity to determine whether the law was violated.

End Bringer · « **Reply #31 on:** April 27, 2009, 01:00:19 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on April 26, 2009, 10:37:42 PM

We need a formal investigation by an independent prosecutor--not one tied closely to Democrats--precisely because we need legal minds with integrity to determine whether the law was violated.

I curious, what exactly are you demanding needs investigation? Because it seems apparent you have decided that the act of torture (and by proxy some violation of law) has been commited. Your opening post makes this very clear to the point of demanding they be made examples of. As such it seems you have already decided people are guilty before proven innocent at trial, so exactly what are you demanding needs investigation? It seems obvious that you are simply demanding that the cuffs be slapped on people then they immediately need to be "hanged".

Copernicus · « **Reply #32 on:** April 27, 2009, 01:43:18 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on April 27, 2009, 01:00:19 PM

I curious, what exactly are you demanding needs investigation?

There have been allegations that US officials have violated the law. That is what demands an investigation, preferably by a special prosecutor that is not directly controlled by the White House.

Quote

Because it seems apparent you have decided that the act of torture (and by proxy some violation of law) has been commited. Your opening post makes this very clear to the point of demanding they be made examples of. As such it seems you have already decided people are guilty before proven innocent at trial, so exactly what are you demanding needs investigation? It seems obvious that you are simply demanding that the cuffs be slapped on people then they immediately need to be "hanged".

If nobody were making charges or allegations, there would be no need for an investigation. Take the unfounded charges that Obama was not born in the US. Those have been tested in court and thrown out as completely baseless. Sntjohnny, yourself, and others still persist in trumpeting the charges anyway, but the legal system has had a chance to at least examine the charges. In the case of allegations of torture, the same folks who gone at length about investigating whether or not Obama's birth certificate is a fake, cannot seem to find any merit whatsoever in having an investigation to determine the truth of those allegations. Are they being blinded by their political bias? Hmmm. Do you think?

End Bringer · « **Reply #33 on:** April 27, 2009, 02:16:56 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on April 27, 2009, 01:43:18 PM

There have been allegations that US officials have violated the law. That is what demands an investigation, preferably by a special prosecutor that is not directly controlled by the White House.

Quote

Bush and company quite clearly wanted to rescind anti-torture policies in the US that went back to the time of George Washington, and, to our shame, he succeeded for quite a few years.

Again, it's quite apparent your mind-set already has those accused as guilty. Based on mere allegations no less! So again, what exactly are you demanding needs investigation? You've clearly already decided everyone is guilty, which makes the matter look less like a concern for legal violations, and more like a way for liberals to get at the Bush administration.

Quote

If nobody were making charges or allegations, there would be no need for an investigation.

The mere charge/allegation isn't automatically worthy of investigation on it's own anyway. Otherwise it'd just be a tool in 'us vs them' wars to the point of waisting everyone's time. There IS the matter of the source of the allegation and whether there IS any evidence to support the allegation by itself. But SJ's sufficiently proven your hypocrisy in this matter any way. If allegation is all it takes you wouldn't dismiss Obama's citizenship issue, because that allegation has certainly been made. No, it's just clear this only goes so far as tearing strips off the Bush administration.

Quote

Take the unfounded charges that Obama was not born in the US. Those have been tested in court and thrown out as completely baseless.

Yeah, by Obama's court. Not the "independent" investigation you are crying for. And I honestly think you'd be more than satisfied if the investigator was Democraticly inclined if Obama pursued the matter.

Quote

Sntjohnny, yourself, and others still persist in trumpeting the charges anyway, but the legal system has had a chance to at least examine the chargesIn the case of allegations of torture, the same folks who gone at length about investigating whether or not Obama's birth certificate is a fake, cannot seem to find any merit whatsoever in having an investigation to determine the truth of those allegations. Are they being blinded by their political bias? Hmmm. Do you think?

The difference being an investigation should not have even been asked in Obama's case. It was over something that's a prerequisite for the job of Presedency. And his suspicious actions over it were indeed evidence to give weight to the allegation itself. A person doesn't need to hide something that has nothing wrong with it. Especially something that should be trivial if nothing is wrong.

As such we can clearly see one allegation having weight even if it turns out to be wrong. From yours all we see is an allegation that may be more motivated by political bias to the point where you clearly think the accused are deserving of punishment before-hand and may be the reason for the allegation in the first place.

cimics · « **Reply #34 on:** April 29, 2009, 08:31:52 PM »

BTW, anyone who is interested in discussions about this in international law circles should check out http://opiniojuris.org/

jfoxton · « **Reply #35 on:** May 07, 2009, 03:04:47 PM »

I've tried to read up on this topic - of course there are various approaches to it and depending on the circumstances, even died in blue democrats have embraced water boarding. There are some articles listed in Worldnetdaily.com on the bottom of the front page that link you directly to this issue. Apparently, the Japense's definition of water boarding and ours are quite different.

Copernicus · « **Reply #36 on:** May 07, 2009, 03:44:49 PM »

Quote from: jfoxton on May 07, 2009, 03:04:47 PM

... Apparently, the Japense's definition of water boarding and ours are quite different.

You mean that they were less humane torturers? Another thing for Americans to take pride in!

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #37 on:** May 07, 2009, 04:31:07 PM »

Quote

Those have been tested in court and thrown out as completely baseless. Sntjohnny, yourself, and others still persist in trumpeting the charges anyway, but the legal system has had a chance to at least examine the charges.

This just isn't true. It bothers me when you can believe such a patent falsehood.

Most of the cases have been thrown out on questions of standing. Eg, that a particular person doesn't have standing to demand that the president meets the constitutional requirements.

In the rare cases where the substance was addressed, appeals were made to the fact that the the document was 'authenticated' by the Annenburg Foundation and shown online. I mean, what more can you ask for? This is so astoundingly stupid it doesn't even dignify further discussion. Next time that I need to show my birth certificate I'm going to post it online and trust that this satisfactorily deals with the issue.

"Apparently, the Japense's definition of water boarding and ours are quite different."

Exactly.

Cop, you're begging the question. You continue to assume that waterboarding- as we implemented it- really was torture. I don't have a firm view on it, personally. I just find it very difficult to imagine that anything we do to our own soldiers in training is actually torture. You protest that "Well, they knew it wasn't a real interrogation..." well, then let's stick needles under their fingernails and shock the crap out of their genitals. After all, it isn't a real interrogation and its being done by the good guys, so I guess that wouldn't be torture, right?

In my view, almost definitionally, anything that we are willing to do to our own in the course of training is NOT torture. There are things we wouldn't do in training, period. Those things are clearly torture. Something like waterboarding- American style- which we do to our own seems legitimately debatable.

But for purposes of the law, if someone wants to say it is, then fine. Make it illegal and henceforth prosecute those who break the law. But if it isn't codified at the time it happens...

Anyway, you also seem to be deliberately forgetting that Congress, including the Democrats, specifically went out of their way to give interrogators the legal right to do these things.

If you want an independent investigation, besides calling one for Obama's citizenship, you better put Pelosi and all the other dems on trial, too. If you aren't willing to do that, it is apparent it is just a partisan witch hunt to me. If that's the way you want to play it, I'll be sure to call for the next conservative president to investigate and prosecute anyone in the Obama administration who violates laws that weren't in place yet. Sound fair?

For example, since certain forms of music apparently are torture, it should follow that any annoying noise can be construed as torture. Listening to Obama stutter is torture to me. So let's prosecute the dude first chance we get. That's what I think.

Copernicus · « **Reply #38 on:** May 15, 2009, 02:58:56 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on May 07, 2009, 04:31:07 PM

Cop, you're begging the question. You continue to assume that waterboarding- as we implemented it- really was torture. I don't have a firm view on it, personally. I just find it very difficult to imagine that anything we do to our own soldiers in training is actually torture. You protest that "Well, they knew it wasn't a real interrogation..." well, then let's stick needles under their fingernails and shock the crap out of their genitals. After all, it isn't a real interrogation and its being done by the good guys, so I guess that wouldn't be torture, right?

As I have already pointed out, waterboarding has been considered torture by just about everyone since the time of the Inquisition. It has long been used as a method of extracting forced confessions, not information. Apparently, it was used by Bush and cronies to try to build a case for linking Al Qaeda to Iraq. Despite daily repeated torture sessions, they never got what they sought.

The training sessions were not torture precisely because they were only conducted on volunteers who were not being terrorized. Nobody except you disputes that. All you are trying to do with that tactic is distract from the central point here, and we both know it.

Quote

Anyway, you also seem to be deliberately forgetting that Congress, including the Democrats, specifically went out of their way to give interrogators the legal right to do these things.

Actually, that is not true at all. The only question is whether a few Congressional reps were briefed. Even if Nancy Pelosi were fully briefed and gave her explicit approval in writing, that would not have made torture legal.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #39 on:** May 15, 2009, 08:53:25 AM »

I knew you'd be back.

"As I have already pointed out, waterboarding has been considered torture by just about everyone since the time of the Inquisition."

Huh. So there aren't different kinds of waterboarding?

Your attempts to equivocate here are really sad. Sad in the sense that you appear to be utterly unaware of the fact that the way we waterboarded is much different than how waterboarding has occurred in the past.

"The training sessions were not torture precisely because they were only conducted on volunteers who were not being terrorized. Nobody except you disputes that."

That's not true at all. You seem to be out of touch with the national dialogue. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I bet if you did 5 minutes with Google's blog search you would find similar sentiments.

If you cannot see the prima facie difference between waterboarding our troops and jabbing needles underneath their fingernails or hooking their genitals up to car batteries then... well, the conversation is pointless.

""Anyway, you also seem to be deliberately forgetting that Congress, including the Democrats, specifically went out of their way to give interrogators the legal right to do these things.""
"Actually, that is not true at all. The only question is whether a few Congressional reps were briefed."

Cop, you need to get out more. Where are you getting your news? lol, forget I asked.

Like the Democrats who forgot that they themselves gave Bush all the authority he needed to go into Iraq AND that more options were on the table than just WMD's (the WMD-based rationale for war in Iraq became the centerpoint, but the original legislation allowed for numerous ones), so too did the Democrats go along with most of what the Bush admin was doing regarding 'torture.' While it was in their political interest, that is.

Anyway, consider this piece of legislation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_Act

Note, this is from 2005.

I want you to look at this portion that was specifically and deliberately included:

Quote

(a) Protection of United States Government Personnel- In any civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States Government who is a United States person, arising out of the officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent's engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity that poses a serious, continuing threat to the United States, its interests, or its allies, and that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or extinguish any defense or protection otherwise available to any person or entity from suit, civil or criminal liability, or damages, or to provide immunity from prosecution for any criminal offense by the proper authorities.

(from the full text)

Please observe that Democrats all over the place supported this legislation. Pelosi was one of them but there were others. Do you really think they were unaware of the purpose of the above paragraph? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR02863:@@@R

So, under the current law of the land, my friend, interrogators have the explicit defense that if their actions were considered legal at the time they are in the clear. This law was passed by Democrats. This law was passed by Pelosi, who knew that in the past even waterboarding had occurred.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. All of your heroes are complicit in all of this. Like typical Democrats, they didn't want it on their head if something happened so they allowed unchallenged everything they could and only spoke up when they thought they could dig in at Bush under political cover. But they knew what would happen to them if something serious happened and they had interfered with measures that would have stopped it. And they all believed that something serious happening was imminent.

The United States does not torture. But Democrats change the definition to make it appear like we did when it suits their purpose.

Weren't you listening to Pelosi's press conference? She said that she kept silent because there was nothing she could do about it... except try to get a new president. So for 6 years she did nothing to stop 'torture' and instead focused on undermining Bush and getting a new president. Wow, how noble. (How disgusting).

No doubt if you did watch the conference you missed the other important element: she accuses the CIA of lying to her 'just like Bush lied about WMD.' Of course, Bush's information on WMD came from the CIA, too. Note the liberal mindset: it is possible that the CIA would lie to Congress but they'd never lie to the President! The idea that the Bush admin was working on the best information that they had available to them at the time hardly crosses anyone's mind, but when its turned on its head, that's exactly the argument Pelosi wants to make.

The sad thing is that a nation of suckers is going to believe it. We're all watching Pelosi crumble, but none of the media thought to challenge this inconsistency.

Side note: the CIA was happy to undermine the president with the Democrat's blessings during the 8 years of the Bush admin. They expected a little loyalty once the Dems had power. The CIA isn't going to let itself get thrown under the bus for this. Looks like you're going to get your investigation, Cop. Should be fun. :)

Author Topic: The Mighty Cop: President Obama is wrong to excuse torturers (Read 2047 times)