Three cheers for torture!

Posted by: newkojak

Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 12:23 PM

The following is the complete text of the unclassified F.B.I. memo, read on the Senate floor by Senator Durbin.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>As requested, here is a brief summary of what I observed at GTMO.<br><br>On a couple of occassions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they had urinated or defacated on themselves, and had been left therefor 18, 24 hours or more. On one occassion the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. When I asked the MP's what was going on, I was told that interrogators from the day prior had ordered this treatment, and the detainee was not to be moved. On another occassion the A/C had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room probably well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconcious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night. On another occassion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor. (source)<p><hr></blockquote><p>It's kind of funny what some people become outraged by. In this case, some people manufactured outrage that the above action would be suggested more at home in a totalitarian regime than in America. Is that inaccurate? Is forcing people to [censored] themselves right at home next to baseball and apple pie?<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 12:34 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>It's kind of funny what some people become outraged by. In this case, some people manufactured outrage that the above action would be suggested more at home in a totalitarian regime than in America. Is that inaccurate? Is forcing people to [censored] themselves right at home next to baseball and apple pie?<p><hr></blockquote><p>I can see where Durbin got the idea to equate these interrogation methods with Nazi's marching millions of innocent men, women and children to their deaths in gas chambers. I never quite saw it until you opened my eyes, Professor. Here, you get a smiley face for this one . . .<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 12:50 PM

Yeah! Go Torture!<br><br>So, so long as the United States kills fewer than... we'll say a million people, we're ethically in the clear and allowed to chain people to the floor in their own excrement?<br><br>Someone pass me the electrodes! It's time to celebrate our heritage!<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 01:01 PM

I assume that like most contractors working on government contracts, that they guys who were supposed to build the "communal showers" embezzled the money, and either didn't get round to finishing them, or forgot all that fancy extra pipework!<br><br><br><br>We all do what we do for the same reason: because it seems like a good idea at the time.
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 01:12 PM

You got it!<br><br>Besides, what would you suggest we do with them, Cary, send them to the Cook county Jail? Put 'em up at the Drake? Feed them dinner at The Berghoff? Beg their pardon while asking them, politely of course, what their intentions were while fighting American troops on the battlefield?<br><br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 01:31 PM

Toture is not something to be proud of, but it is a tool. I'm not a soldier and I bet I'd be usless in combat. But there are those who are good at what they do. We don't like to talk about it, but the information they gather saves lives. <br><br>If you could have stopped 9-11 from happening by toturing someone, would you have done it? No, you don't have to answer. For most of us, it's an impossible question to answer because we don't feel the gravity of what's at risk. <br>I'm not mocking you.<br><br>On the surface I feel I could hurt someone to save a few hundred lives. But then I think about what it would be like to cause pain to a human being, their expressions, the sounds. I don't think I could do it. <br><br>But I will say this; just because I can't doesn't mean that it shouldn't happen. If someone has the aswers to how to stop people dying, but won't talk, then find the guy who can do the job. <br><br>We shouldn't glory in the use of toture. We should be thankful that lives are saved. Those terrorists chose to use their lives to kill us. They now face the weight of making that decision. It's not for us to exercise pity on them just because they were caught. If let go, they will kill us. They will teach others to hate and kills us. No, they must and will pay the price of being murders in what ever fashion that payment must be made.<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 01:58 PM

NEVER FORGET!<br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 02:13 PM

Completely setting aside the moral reprehensibility of torture for a moment, there still is absolutely no grounds to support torture on a mechanical level.<br><br>I totally understand your point. The idea that one could do harm in one act in prevention of a horrible atrocity is along the same reasonable allowance of self defense. However, when used with torture, this is presupposed on a few very important things that are totally unsupportable, or at worst non-existant: the suspect has information, torture will get it effectively and accurately, and that information is not accessible by any other reasonable method.<br><br>Strike one: There is no way to prove that torture is the only way to get the hypothetical information we are speaking about.<br><br>Strike two: These suspects are not at all proven to be of use to American intelligence other than the presupposition that since they are being abused, they must know something.<br><br>Strike three: Torture is not effective. This is not my opinion, but that of physiologists, Colin Powel, and the history of United States policy against torture. It is a means of coercion. Someone under torture will say whatever the person doing the torture wants them to irrespective of the truth.<br><br>So even if you ignore the values we hold dear, and the price of adopting the same techniques of brutal totalitarian regimes, torture is still wrong.<br><br>I agree. Terrorists and those willing to hurt regular American citizens should pay for their actions. They should have their cases tried and convicted if guilty. However, torture is not excusable under any circumstance by any civilized society.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 02:13 PM

I thought we'd put them up at your place.<br><br><br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 02:16 PM

I don't see anywhere in my memory of September 11th that it was a mandate for us to adopt the very same moral attitudes of terrorists. The point here, which I believe some people are avoiding purposefully, is that there are a ton of things that differentiate us Americans from Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and even the Taliban and Al Queda, our policies on human rights should be one of them.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 02:27 PM

They've weeded out the people that are not associated with the terrorists and sent them home. The ones in Gitmo now are the bad guys. <br><br>I've also heard that toture is not effictive. Yet history shows that it's been used over and over again because it does work. <br><br>Now lets understand here we're not talking about electro shock, bamboo shoots under the fingernails (and I can tell you that there can be no greater pain), whippings, or branding with hot irons. <br>These guys have to stand or sit in rooms that are hot or cold, or listen to music. I'm sure it's not comfortable, but please, this is not what I'd call toture.<br><br>The values we hold dear is the persuit of life, liberty happieness. These values are not extened to someone who would kill you, your child, your family, your friends, and then take pride in their handywork. <br><br>I'll grant you, these are hard decision to make. I'm glad it's not me that has to make them. It's very much a case of the lesser of two evils, yet gruesom as it may be, if sweating or freezing these murdering cowards is what it takes, then it should be done. <br><br>One single innocent person has more value to me than a terrorist. It isn't more simple than that.<br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 02:35 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>Strike three: Torture is not effective.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Sure it is, but what you posted isn't torture, it sounds more like life at minimum wage. While 100 degree heat might be unbearable for someone from Iceland who's never felt it, to someone used to the Afghan desert it probably felt pretty normal.<br><br>The "techniques of brutal totalitarian regimes" you tout leave gross physical scars and often result people missing several parts of their anatomy. <br><br>So unless our boys are chopping off fingers and cauterizing the wounds with arc welders you're lying when you say the US has stooped to the level of those countries.<br><br>What we do is make people uncomfortable at best, which I'll agree with you isn't effective.<br><br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 02:37 PM

I believe in the policy that humans have rights. Terrorists should not. <br><br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 03:04 PM

Now that we've minimized this down to the life of an American wage-slave, show me where they routinely lock themselves to the floor without water and sit in their own excrement.<br><br>I may be hyperbolic there, but the ethics are exactly the same and now we're arguing over what level of torture is acceptable? The facts of the matter are plain here to see and that it goes much further than making people uncomfortable.<br><br>As for the effectiveness of torture, I stand by my original point and all those (like the State Department pre-Gonzales) that make the same point. Just look at the regimes that participated in torture over the world's history. Do you think accuracy and safety were more important to them than brutality or intimidation?<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 03:21 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>we're arguing over what level of torture is acceptable? <p><hr></blockquote><p>No, we're arguing over what torture is, and sorry but I don't consider what you quoted as torture. Period.<br><br>Putting people in hot rooms and having them sit in their own stink isn't torture. Cutting off body parts is. See the difference?<br><br>If believing that what's going on down there is torture helps you sleep at night, then that's your perogative. Doesn't bother me in the least however.<br><br>Like I said if our boys were cutting off fingers and arms, then I'd have a problem. Loud music, withholding water, hot rooms and crap? Woooo. Hell the German army even admitted a few months back it uses techniques like these on it's own soldiers as part of training. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Do you think accuracy and safety were more important to them than brutality or intimidation?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Regimes like Saddam's didn't disfigure and maim people as a means of getting information. They didn't care about information. They did it as a means of getting the word out that if you cross them you're next. Looks like it worked splendidly.<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 04:00 PM

That's exactly it newkojak. That's what bugs me. The issue(s) that people avoid purposefully. To look at the things that are happening and gauge if we are or are not becoming all we stand against. These questions need to be asked and honestly answered before it's too late.<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 04:10 PM

I read somewhere that FOUR of the detainees at Guatanomo had been charged. FOUR! Where does that work into your human rights scheme? <br><br>Timothy McVeigh killed hundreds of people in his terrorist attack and they knew they had their guy when they found him. He, however, got the full protection of the law and I'll bet he was never subjected to anything where you would have to draw a line dividing whether it was torture or not, even though I am sure he had lots andn lots of information.<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 04:57 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I don't see anywhere in my memory of September 11th<p><hr></blockquote><p>And there, young sir, lies the difference between your POV and mine. Your memory of the event is the result of media input only. Mine, like so any others, is visceral. Physical, and deeply psychological.<br><br>You didn't have to endure the acrid smell of fires that burned for nearly a month, and kept Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn under a thin shroud of smoke and soot. You didn't have to watch the constant procession of flag-draped body bags pass beneath your window. You didn't see the palpable fear and sadness on the faces of everyone you passed on the street or sat next to on the subway. You didn't have to walk past the countless memorials taped to every wall on every street corner where people searched for information about missing fathers and girflriends and sons. You didn't have to face a co-worker who's husband died in the South Tower, or another who's mind and sould died because he ran to his 17th floor rooftop on West Street only to be showered with gore and debri when the second plane struck.<br><br>You experienced none of this. And I envy you that, believe me. I don't feel that being there gives me any special rights or priveleges. But you better believe it colors my view of the issues we've been arguing in this thread. Do I think torture or abuse is right? No. Do two wrongs make a right? No. But after the horrors I saw, do I care if one of these characters has his day ruined because he [censored] himself? Again, NO!<br><br>So think your lofty thoughts. Play your idealistic violin. And wring your wrists over what a terrible beast the U.S. is. I, for one, will not join you.<br><br>
Posted by: bood

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 05:02 PM

Here's commentary about torture of American prisoners of war in Korea:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The deliberate plan of savage and barbaric handling of these men was a continuation of the policy which existed on all the marches, and violated virtually every provision of the Geneva Convention of 1929. They were denied adequate nourishment, water, clothing, and shelter. Not only were they denied medical care but they were subjected to experimental monkey-gland operations. Housing conditions were horrible, resulting in widespread disease [FN28 - Pt. 2, 87-97, 118-128, 143-146; pt. 3, pp. 185-202, 208-212, 215, 216].<br><br>The prisoners were not permitted to practice their religion and on numerous occasions were beaten, humiliated, and punished. Political questioning and forced Communist indoctrination was constant, and the men were subjected to physical abuse and other punishment when they refused to be receptive to the Communist propaganda. The American newspapers available for reading purposes were the Daily Worker published in New York and the People's Daily World published in San Francisco, copies of which were in the prisoner-of-war camps within 2 months after the date of publication. The Communists utilized prisoners on numerous occasions for propaganda purposes and took posed pictures purporting to show the comfortable life being led by the prisoners, an obvious distortion of truth and fact. . . .<p><hr></blockquote><p> link<br><br>There are differences in the intensity of the treatment--clearly the North Koreans were much more physically violent, and clearly their purpose was to cause physical harm as painfully as possible. They were content to have prisoners die. I'll assume that despite the death of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, American policy was not to kill or cause permanent physical harm.<br><br>But different though they are in degree, the treatment of prisoners then and now are the same in kind. As Sen. Durbin said, if we did not know that what his source was describing involved Americans, we would without hesitation call it torture. Arguments that the people so treated "deserved" what they got is specious at best.<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 05:12 PM

Once again, Timothy McVeigh did the same thing to the people of Oklahoma City and got treated like a human being until the day he was executed. And his friend Terry (last name?) was free to live his life when the government knew he was complicit but they didn't hae enough evidence to detain him.<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 05:17 PM

Your point?<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 05:18 PM

Yours?<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 05:21 PM

Need pictures? 5 posts up.<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 05:29 PM

Are you referring to bood's link? Yes, other countries have been known to treat prisoners worse. Your point? As long as we can find someone who does it worse than us we have the moral high ground? Sorry, I'm must guessing.<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 05:31 PM

meant to read "Sorry I'm just guessing"<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 05:34 PM

You are guessing. Try again<br><br>
Posted by: Michael

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 05:38 PM

<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 05:44 PM

Yes, this is more like what I thought I would find. Thanks for clearing that up.<br><br>I could find similar pictures of Oklahoma's Federal Building and McVeigh was still treated under the full protection of the law and given all his rights. Why was he so different?<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 05:51 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I thought we'd put them up at your place.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Nope . . . they're right where they belong . . . <br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 06:24 PM

Frankly, he and his partner should have been chained to a floor and made to lie in their own waste, too. Murder is murder and terrorism is terrorism. IMHO, he was no different than Attah & Company. Rights my elbow. <br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 06:26 PM

Yes, you have a point in this respect. At least he was charged with something. And how old is the youngest detainee at GTMO again?<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 06:39 PM

Gee, I dunno. How old was the youngest victim of 9/11? There were kids on those planes. Remember the news story about the two women (and their kids) who were off to Disneyland that day. By coincidence, each was on one of the two planes that struck the Towers because they had used their frequent flyer miles to buy their tickets. Paige Hackel was a friend of my wife's family. My wife worked for her husband many years ago. Kids were on those planes. So how old is the youngest detainee? I couldn't care less.<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 06:42 PM

I'm not denying anyone's suffering. I am worried about the overall erosion of civil liberties and human rights, regardless of the what brought them about.<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 06:47 PM

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! <br><br><br>Fine. You worry about it. Somebody's gotta do it. I'll remain confident that things will improve. It may get worse before it get's better. But better it will get, and I'll stay focused on that, thankyouverymuch.<br><br><br><br>And now back to our regularly scheduled wrist-wringing...<br><br><br>*I said I was done here. Why didn't I listen to me?* <br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 06/17/05 06:49 PM

Agreed.<br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 06/17/05 07:39 PM

Well our Internet was down the whole day so once I got home... no access.<br><br>This thread is about done, but I'll throw 2¢ in any way.<br>I understand Steveg- 9/11 touched him personally and I have great respect for that.<br><br>I have some problems with our dealings with the "accused" terrorists (they haven't been convicted of any crime):<br><br>(1) after so many months - charge them and give them the chance to defend themselves.<br>The problem with capturing and holding ANY one indefinitely with no charges opens the door for many abuses of civil rights across the Globe.. You can grab anyone - any where -guilty or not and just hold them... what kind of International Law or standard is that? What if some Iranians (or you pick someone) decided to take some Americans and hold us forever - no charges. Would that be fair ?<br>Maybe the people at Git-mo had something to do with 9/11, maybe NOT. How can anyone tell if they haven't been CONVICTED ?<br><br>(2) OK, Maybe this is not as serious torture as the Nazis, or the Russians, etc did.. at least from THIS evidence (time will tell). no fingers, feet , toes etc chopped off... no burns, cuts, electrocutions...<br>but their treatment is certainly not humane... agreed ?<br>IF someone has NOT been proven GUILTY of a crime- how can you treat them like this... we treat animals better.<br><br>(3) Lastly -torture has been proven NOT to work for any purpose but to inflict pain and revenge. For interrogation, it's worthless. And if one's govt participates in said activities - you can be sure if any of yours are captured - they'll get the same treatment or worse. One of the reasons NOT to engage in torture is to protect your own men if they're captured. <br>AND we, the USA, claims to be better than everyone else, more just, the model of Democracy of the "free world"... well friends, with this abuse- we look like a pack of hypocritical liars. This abuse does more for the recruitment of terrorists than it does good for our cause. <br> Bottom Line: It' might feel "good" like revenge for some, BUT It's a losing proposition! <br><br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/17/09 01:36 PM

Is this a thread worth bringing back?
Posted by: carp

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/17/09 02:09 PM

Originally Posted By: newkojak
Is this a thread worth bringing back?


I dunno ? but I certainly missed this thread , did find this

Quote:
I could find similar pictures of Oklahoma's Federal Building and McVeigh was still treated under the full protection of the law and given all his rights. Why was he so different?


I guess the difference would be McVeigh

1 - Was an American
2 - Crime was committed on American soil

McVeigh gets a trial by civilian legal system

Gitmo detainees - essentially is a POW Camp , comes under military law not civilian

1 - detainees are not Americans
2 - combat was committed on foreign soil

Now maybe I am wrong but I never heard a POW ever ever getting a trail of any kind . They were place into camps and released after the war

However Terrorist are not enemy combatants since they represent no country but rather their own ideals . So they should be treated as criminals and placed under the civilian legal system

IMO
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/17/09 02:11 PM

Originally Posted By: newkojak
Is this a thread worth bringing back?


Have we learned anything since? Some might admit they have. Some have gone off the deep end and who knows what they think.

I think we have learned something. You were being ridiculed back then and now the world, starting with our administration, for the most part agrees with you.

That's a start. And it is also the start of a weekend of beach weather and I am done messing with this grant.

Good afternoon and goodnight. Martinis and kayaks and swimming in the quarry await.

Posted by: carp

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/17/09 02:16 PM

Have fun take some photos - what quarry ? I thought you were beachfront or lake front ?
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/17/09 05:05 PM

Seaside town called Rockport and called that for a reason. The town is full of water filled quarries which were carved out to make the Washington Monument, the base of the Statue of Liberty, cobblestones on Park Avenue in Manattan and a lot of other things before the invention of concrete and the Depression killed the industry.

Now they are just good swimming holes when waiting for the ocean to warm up. The Atlantic is at 43F from Newport RI to Maine.

Got a quarry about a hundred yards from my house which has a huge wall on the North of granite which catches all the sun and warms the water. I'm jumping in.
Posted by: starmillway

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/17/09 05:37 PM


Don't go. . .

Quote:
INTO QUARRY'S DEPTHS NO MORE MDC NEARLY FINISHED FILLING DANGEROUS SITE, BUT CLIMBABLE ROCK WALLS REMAIN
The Boston Globe; Oct 18, 2001; Robert Preer, Globe Correspondent ; 679 Words ...rise against the horizon at Granite Rail Quarry in West Quincy, towering over...sprouted grass. The filling of Granite Rail Quarry, the best known and most accessible...discovered in the water of Granite Rail Quarry. When divers discovered the...

The Boston Globe
Robot camera fails to find missing man in Quincy quarries
The Boston Globe; Jul 27, 1994; 271 Words ...Mark II explored first the Granite Rail Quarry and upon finding nothing...team had already searched the Granite Rail Quarry several times without success...he and McDonagh went to the Granite Rail Quarry to drink beer June 26. Walsh...

The Boston Herald
Girlfriend watched Rockland youth fall to his death in Quincy.
The Boston Herald; Sep 26, 1998; Weber, David ; 700+ Words ...from the highest point above Granite Rail Quarry. Jan. 3, 1995: Karen Hammond...was murdered and dumped into Granite Rail Quarry. Authorities are still unsure...Stoughton, was found on a shelf in Granite Rail Quarry. She was murdered, and her...

The Boston Globe
An emergency at the quarries
The Boston Globe; Aug 13, 1997; 315 Words ...19-year-old Patrick McDonagh, believed drowned in the Granite Rail Quarry, that the state would drain the site. The Legislature...that at least $2 million would be needed to drain Granite Rail Quarry, and that would still leave two other popular quarries...

The Boston Globe
Quincy quarry draining hits legal snag
The Boston Globe; Jul 31, 1998; Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff and Daniel Grech, Globe Correspondent ; 591 Words ...block plans to drain the Granite Rail Quarry water level by 115 feet...spot. Pumping out half of Granite Rail's estimated 140 million...died since 1960 diving into Granite Rail and nearby quarries. Hoping...was found in the Granite Rail Quarry, more than ...

The Boston Globe
Teens recount quarry's lure for `free spirit'
The Boston Globe; Aug 2, 1998; Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Correspondent ; 487 Words ...strolled around the nearby Granite Rail Quarry in the hot sun, apparently...26, of Quincy drowned in Granite Rail Quarry last August. Swingle's Quarry...in the air. A plan to drain Granite Rail Quarry has been in the works for...

The Boston Globe
Camera to be used in quarry search
The Boston Globe; Jun 30, 1994; Paul Langner, Globe Staff ; 363 Words ...into the 260-foot waters of Granite Rail Quarry in an attempt to locate Patrick...searchers are concentrating on Granite Rail Quarry, which is part of the MDC...considering such a move at the Granite Rail Quarry. At the quarries yesterday...

The Boston Globe
Quarry historical, recreational site envisioned Park at quarries envisioned; plan might deter swimmers
The Boston Globe; May 2, 1999; Robert Preer, Globe Correspondent ; 700+ Words ...some unpleasant realities. Granite Rail Quarry, the most accessible of the...worry that the draining of Granite Rail Quarry, which should be completed...no plan for the future of Granite Rail Quarry or for the quarry area as...

The Boston Globe
24-hour patrols considered for Quincy quarries
The Boston Globe; Aug 15, 1997; Doris Sue Wong, Globe Staff ; 277 Words ...000 study into the feasibility of draining the Granite Rail Quarry. "There may be some good things about draining...weekend of Thomas L. Roberts, 26, of Quincy, in the Granite Rail Quarry. At least a dozen people are known to have died...

The Boston Globe
RISING TO THE CHALLENGE QUARRY SITE PROVIDES PLAYGROUND FOR CLIMBERS
The Boston Globe; Aug 1, 2002; Elizabeth Shelburne, Globe Correspondent ; 495 Words ...over huge blocks of granite that separate two main...fill-in of the former Granite Rail Quarry in Quincy, while initially...times. The rocks at the Granite Rail Quarry off Ricciuti Drive are a hard gray granite, nearly covered in some...

The Boston Globe
Grief revisits Quincy quarry after youth drowns
The Boston Globe; Sep 26, 1998; Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff ; 582 Words ...in the depths of the adjacent Granite Rail Quarry. Rock climbing is prohibited at Swingle's but permitted at Granite Rail. Swimming is banned at both...begin the draining of Granite Rail Quarry after a fight with conservationists...

The Boston Herald
Divers search for swimmer missing in Quincy quarry.
The Boston Herald; Aug 10, 1997; Mallia, Joseph ; 278 Words ...of a 27-year-old man who may have drowned at the Granite Rail quarry in Quincy, police said. A call came in at around...stalled efforts to fill the others, Hodgdon said. The Granite Rail Quarry is the same spot where an Irish youth, Patrick...

The Boston Globe
Police identify body of woman found in quarry
The Boston Globe; Nov 22, 1994; Michele R. McPhee, Contributing Reporter ; 182 Words ...have identified the body of a young woman who was found in the Granite Rail Quarry in Quincy on Saturday with a cement block tied around her neck...initially thought the body might be his. He was last seen at the Granite Rail Quarry last summer.

The Boston Globe
Focus again on quarry dangers Search continues for missing man
The Boston Globe; Jun 29, 1994; Paul Langner, Globe Staff ; 586 Words ...police searched water-filled granite quarries and the woods surrounding...Commission, which oversees the Granite Rail Quarry, one of two being searched...300-to-400-foot water depths, both the Granite Rail Quarry and neighboring Swingle's...

The Boston Globe
Police remove cars from quarry
The Boston Globe; Oct 9, 1998; Cindy Rodriguez, Globe Staff ; 433 Words ...from the murky waters of the Granite Rail Quarry in Quincy yesterday, removing...bodies dumped in the water. Granite Rail Quarry and nearby Swingle's Quarry...day. Last November in the Granite Rail Quarry, divers found the body of...

The Boston Herald
Search for body grows as quarry nearly drained.
The Boston Herald; Jul 9, 1999; Talbot, David ; 369 Words ...position over the nearly drained Granite Rail Quarry yesterday as the search for...17 people have died at the Granite Rail and adjoining Swingle's quarry...search of the nearly drained Granite Rail Quarry in Quincy yesterday. Right...

The Boston Globe
FINAL REST
The Boston Globe; Dec 12, 1997; 43 Words Friends and relatives mourn as the casket of P.J. McDonagh is carried into St. Mark Church in Dorchester. McDonagh's body was found at the bottom of the Granite Rail Quarry on Nov. 27. He had been missing for more than three years. / GLOBE STAFF PHOTO/WENDY MAEDA @ART:PHOTO

The Boston Globe
Options on quarry trespassing: Nab or bag
The Boston Globe; Aug 23, 1998; Bella English ; 700+ Words ...half the water from the Granite Rail Quarry, one of the area's most...maintained a 24-hour patrol at Granite Rail, but there are several dozen...thriving center of the nation's granite industry -- have been used...might have been dumped in Granite Rail Quarry. ...

The Boston Herald
Death of Milton man renews calls for draining.
The Boston Herald; Aug 1, 1998; Hayward, Ed ; 454 Words Smaller and less notorious than nearby Granite Rail Quarry, the dark hole known as Walt's Quarry...yesterday. The quarry, much smaller than Granite Rail or Swingles Quarry down the road, is...unrecovered body have been found in Granite Rail in the last four years, prompting ...

The Boston Herald
Police cracking down on Quincy quarry diving.
The Boston Herald; Aug 19, 1997; Johnson, Jason B. ; 137 Words ...arrest illegal swimmers at dangerous spots such as the Granite Rail Quarry, officials said yesterday. Both uniformed and plain-cloth...came after Thomas Roberts, 26, of Quincy, drowned in Rail Quarry after jumping from a 70-foot ledge on Aug. 9. Youths...

The Boston Globe
Quarry search halted for missing student
The Boston Globe; Jul 7, 1994; Paul Langner, Globe Staff ; 424 Words ...Police investigators have stopped searching the Granite Rail Quarry here for a 19-year-old man visiting here from Ireland...on them in various Dorchester neighborhoods. The Granite Rail Quarry and the neighboring Swingle's Quarry have taken...

The Boston Globe
Teen falls to death in Quincy quarry
The Boston Globe; Sep 25, 1998; Cindy Rodriguez, Globe Staff ; 549 Words ...remains he believes to be at the bottom of nearby Granite Rail Quarry. "I've been telling that to everyone for years...area around the clock. Rock climbing is allowed at Granite Rail Quarry, but not at Swingle's. Officials had been draining...

The Boston Globe
Quarry search resumes today
The Boston Globe; Apr 6, 1999; 55 Words QUINCY -- An underwater search of the Granite Rail Quarry using a high-technology camera will resume today to look for a body as part of a homicide investigation, officials said. Norfolk...

The Boston Globe
Search of quarry for body to resume Parents certain fate of daughter will be learned
The Boston Globe; Dec 21, 1998; Beth Daley, Globe Staff ; 328 Words Diving for the remains of a woman's body in Quincy's Granite Rail Quarry is scheduled to begin next week, the father of...divers found the the body of P.J. McDonagh in the Granite Rail quarry and during the search, spotted the remains of a...

The Boston Globe
Vigil held for missing Irish student Police halt search of Quincy quarry
The Boston Globe; Jul 7, 1994; Paul Langner, Globe Staff ; 548 Words ...Irish student Patrick McDonagh gathered at the Granite Rail Quarry in Quincy at a candlelight vigil last night. "We'...vigil still hope that McDonagh will be found. The Granite Rail Quarry and the neighboring Swingle's Quarry have taken...

The Boston Globe
FAMILY SUES TO HALT PLAN TO FILL QUARRY
The Boston Globe; Dec 19, 2000; 92 Words ...since Jan. 3, 1995, filed a lawsuit yesterday seeking an injunction to halt the state's plans to fill the Quincy Granite Rail Quarry, where they suspect their daughter's body is located, according to WBZ-TV. Charles Hammond of Dorchester, told...

The Boston Globe
Divers believe body in quarry
The Boston Globe; Nov 21, 1997; 79 Words QUINCY -- Divers searching the Granite Rail Quarry spotted what they believe to be the body of a woman yesterday afternoon, and will return today to recover it, officials said. Three...

The Boston Globe
Weekend patrol of quarry ordered
The Boston Globe; Aug 16, 1997; 69 Words ...Secretary Kathleen O'Toole yesterday ordered State Police to post a round-the-clock guard to keep swimmers out of the Granite Rail Quarry in Quincy through the weekend. A spokesman for O'Toole said discussions will begin Monday among State and Quincy...

The Boston Globe
QUARRY SEARCH
The Boston Globe; Apr 12, 1999; 68 Words ...the background, paused yesterday while speaking to reporters about the search for his daughter Karen's body at Granite Rail Quarry in Quincy. David Traub, a spokesman for Norfolk District Attorney William Keating, said an underground camera...

The Boston Globe
CORRECTION
The Boston Globe; Dec 30, 2000; 65 Words ...in the Dec. 21 City & Region section on Charles Hammond's unsuccessful attempt to block the filling of Quincy's Granite Rail Quarry incorrectly stated that a prison informant told officials in 1997 that Hammond's missing daughter, Karen, had...

The Boston Herald
Deal reached on quarry draining.
The Boston Herald; Aug 4, 1998; 101 Words ...to drain a Quincy quarry where officials believe at least one body is submerged. At a meeting last night at the Granite Rail Quarry, members of the Appalachian Mountain Club and the Friends of the Blue Hills came to a tentative agreement. Officials...

The Boston Globe
Stoneham man hurt in quarry fall
The Boston Globe; Nov 15, 1998; 72 Words QUINCY -- A 48-year-old Stoneham man who was rock climbing at the Granite Rail Quarry in Quincy was injured when he slipped and fell 70 feet yesterday morning, police said. Two off-duty Brockton firefighters who happened...

The Boston Globe
Quarry searched for missing man
The Boston Globe; Aug 10, 1997; 85 Words ...Rescue divers searched for two hours last night for a 27-year-old Quincy man who was reported missing at the Granite Rail Quarry. Police declined to identify the missing man, but said friends claimed they last saw him jump off a cliff into...

The Boston Globe
PUMPING TO BEGIN AT QUARRY
The Boston Globe; Nov 3, 2000; RAPHAEL LEWIS ; 170 Words Big Dig crews today will begin pumping water out of Quincy's Granite Rail quarry to make way for 660,000 tons of dirt being excavated from the highway project, officials said yesterday. The pumping operation...

The Boston Herald
Divers remove cars, ready to drain quarry.
The Boston Herald; Oct 9, 1998; Donlan, Ann E. ; 174 Words Three junk cars were removed yesterday from Quincy's Granite Rail Quarry in preparation for the recovery of a body that police saw nearly a year ago in its murky depths. State and Quincy police are coordinating...

The Boston Herald
For Big Dig, dirty deeds are far from dirt cheap.(News)
The Boston Herald; May 12, 2001; Hanchett, Doug ; 539 Words ...in 2005. With the controversial filling of the Granite Rail Quarry in Quincy moving along faster than expected, project...Quarry Hills development and more recently at the Granite Rail Quarry. That's far below the going market rate for dirt...

The Boston Globe
Cellucci urges action on making quarry safe
The Boston Globe; Aug 14, 1997; Doris Sue Wong and Don Aucoin, Globe Staff ; 200 Words Acting Governor Paul Cellucci has directed state officials to immediately look into ways to make the Granite Rail Quarry in Quincy safe. "It's a priority for me, and now it is a priority for the MDC," Cellucci said yesterday in a interview with the...

The Boston Globe
GROUP TAKES STEP TO HALT QUARRY FILLING
The Boston Globe; Nov 18, 2000; 111 Words A group of 14 Quincy merchants and environmentalists who oppose plans to fill Quincy's Granite Rail Quarry with mildly contaminated Big Dig dirt filed court papers yesterday seeking an immediate halt to the project, set to begin shortly...

The Boston Globe
DA WEIGHS PLANS TO DRAIN QUINCY QUARRY
The Boston Globe; Jan 8, 1998; Stephanis Ebbert, Globe Staff ; 224 Words Stymied by unsuccessful searches for bodies believed to be in the Granite Rail Quarry, Norfolk District Attorney Jeffrey Locke has begun meetings to try to find a way to drain it. Locke met yesterday with the developer...

The Boston Globe
Stoughton girl was quarry victim
The Boston Globe; Nov 23, 1994; Paul Langner, Globe Staff ; 200 Words ...say Sonia Leal was apparently murdered before her body was weighted down with a concrete block and dumped into Granite Rail Quarry. The body was spotted on a ledge about 15 feet below the surface by two hikers. Police said the body was partially...

157 results: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?RelatedId=1P2:8490795

Posted by: polymerase

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/17/09 06:41 PM

Not really sure what the difference between the Quincy quarries and the Rockport quarries but I have read all those stories. A little too close to too many people and that is where you go and burn cars and drop stuff in quarries. All the quarries are fenced off and out of bounds making them even more intriguing for high school kids.

Up here the quarries are all out there in public access. I've been swimming in them for forty years and I think there have been a few broken arms but nothing worse. Kids swim without parents or lifeguards. Kids are trusted to not be stupid and dive off the high rocks. Amazing. Kids get hurt at the same rate they would doing other stuff like playing soccer.

Now kayaking in the ocean when it is only 42F water temp. That's crazy. But I got an ocean race I got to start prepping for. I promise I will stay within 50 yards of the shore.
Posted by: starmillway

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/17/09 06:48 PM



Quote:
Now kayaking in the ocean when it is only 42F water temp. That's crazy. But I got an ocean race I got to start prepping for. I promise I will stay within 50 yards of the shore.


Don't go . . .






I'm the worry-wort grandmother type smile

Just keep your head about you and be your good ole careful self!

Posted by: polymerase

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/17/09 06:59 PM

I stopped doing totally nutty stuff with the birth of my first child. (The wife won't let me skydive anymore or buy a motorcycle until the kids are through college.) I will be kayaking with my second but I am Mister Safety conscious now. Some wetsuit, PFDs, paddle floats, hand pumps, and radar reflectors, all on board.



Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/18/09 12:00 AM

Kewl! grin

I learned to swim in WhiteStone Quarry in NJ.
Chrystal Clear spring fed, and as the name
implies... WHITE MARBLE...like a huge Roman Bath.

The only tricky bit was a RailRoad tunnel
they'd cut between the two adjoining quarries,
...scubba divers inevitably swim between them.

The old locomotive & cars are still at the bottom.
The story is that the workers struck a spring one
friday afternoon, and by monday morning.... eek

Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/18/09 05:20 AM

Ah Rockport, the flashbacks — the hippie kind and the nostalgic. In my MassArt days, we used to drive up there all the time for photo expeditions and to get thoroughly stoned! grin

More recent memories (90s) are the Saturday centuries I used to take up there. Sometimes solo and sometimes with other cyclists. Start out in Needham Center (Bergson's Ice Cream, now gone, was the meeting point) at around 7AM. Head out through Newton to Watertown to Cambridge, pick up Rte 99, through Revere then Salem and then follow the coast all the way to Rockport Center. Have a bite at the pier, and head home. About 108 miles round trip. A shade over five hours solo, closer to four with pace line.

No such ambiance in these here parts. frown
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/18/09 11:45 AM

Quote:
Your memory of the event is the result of media input only. Mine, like so any others, is visceral. Physical, and deeply psychological.

Yeah personal recollections make no difference whatsoever - torture is a crime and should be dealt with as such.

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/18/09 12:17 PM

Matt, there is not ONE shred of evidence that all this torture saved ONE single attack on us...

Only one that believes that is Dick Cheney ( and a few other misled) ... the justification is all hypotheticals, "bait and switch", and "smoke and mirrors" !!


Even John McCain is dead set against it - he KNOWS it doesn't help us or serve our needs ..
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/18/09 03:21 PM

Correct David

However there is no way to prove that enhanced interrogation did not save one attack either ? I mean it goes both ways , only the terrorist can say for sure and I bet they will not say a thing .

McCains torture was built for humiliation and demoralizing the human spirit - Big difference from say like WW 2 when say the Germans wanted to know troop movements and troop strength and troop locations . Today with instant communications , satellites and TV news spilling their guts there is no need for torture for tactical reasons anymore , unless its for humiliation
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/18/09 04:06 PM

There's no justification for breaking International Law
("unless its for humiliation" eek )
to strike any nation on the hunch that they MAY attack
you at some time in the future.
There's a reason that that Law exists;
Like the Geneva Convention, It PROTECTS nations from
destroying each other for Fun and/or Profit.

Otherwise we'd be at risk from any group of nations
that take it into their head to ATTACK US(A) simply
because we've shown ourself to be a bully (A DANGER
to World Peace.) If the RECENT WAR CRIMES Are allowed
to go unaddressed, we lose more than just "FACE", we
lose the International Protection of the International
AGREEMENT Against Attacking Other Countries, simply
because WE CAN.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/18/09 04:48 PM

Originally Posted By: newkojak
Is this a thread worth bringing back?


MOST DEFINITELY!

As the Truth continues to unfold, it becomes increasingly apparent
"Who Put the Tribbles in the QuadaTri-Ticale"! ...and WHY he was
Rewarded with the Presidency of The WORLD BANK...rather than
being hanged for bloody treason.
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/18/09 07:10 PM

Quote:
("unless its for humiliation" )


You read to much into it - ghees I thought I was clear , maybe I need to revert back to baby talk ? ?

Humiliation would be the only reason to torture these days <-- I NEVER said its was legal and were did you read that ? ?

Quote:
Otherwise we'd be at risk from any group of nations
that take it into their head to ATTACK US


We were attacked maybe you forgot its called 911 ??

simply
because we've shown ourself to be a bully (A DANGER
to World Peace.)[/quote]
Quote:


Maybe because the UN and SEC does absolutely nothing - what are they doing with this "piracy" thats been going on for years ? ? absolutely nothing . We already discussed that the UN and SEC has no means to enforce and then relies on member nations to be the enforcer , The US gets charged for being a bully is that what your saying ? ?

[quote]If the RECENT WAR CRIMES Are allowed
to go unaddressed, we lose more than just "FACE",


Its called invading Afghanistan to get the criminal Osama - Iraq well that was stupid - what other WAR crime are you talking about ?

Quote:
we
lose the International Protection of the International
AGREEMENT Against Attacking Other Countries, simply
because WE CAN.


What protection ? ?
Were was that protection for South Korea ? South Vietnam ? New York 911 ? Tibet ? and on and on and on . Even Somalia has been invaded by Muslims who set up Sharia Law , wheres that international protection ? ?

I guess the US could intervene but you know what ? people will say we are the bullies because they are the ones committing the crimes and the ones that what the US help are the victims with no voices .
Posted by: DLC

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/18/09 07:39 PM

Well IF there was one, they'd be able to cite it... so far NADA !

I think Dickie would be touting that to the Max.

Like everything else in the last Administration, it's a farce !! .. a LIE ! .. a cover Up !!

They should be held accountable.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/19/09 04:52 AM

It is for me. This was at the approximate midpoint between the day of the attacks and today. Four years after, and four years since. I still remember the day as if it just happened. Still remember the fear and confusion. Still remember the anger. Still want those responsible brought to justice in a "dead of alive" kind of way. Those memories and emotions are real and valid and painful despite what a certain "barrister" wants to think — not that it matters a whit to me.

But now, I'm totally ashamed of how the U.S. conducted itself under the Bush badministration. It took me a while to get past the anger. And at this point, I would be just as happy to see those schmucks prosecuted right alongside Bin Laden. And what's frustrating is that we know where they are. No need to bomb whole mountain ranges to dust to locate them. Just send the agents to the 18th hole with the warrants and the cuffs.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/19/09 06:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Celandine
Originally Posted By: newkojak
Is this a thread worth bringing back?


MOST DEFINITELY!

As the Truth continues to unfold, it becomes increasingly apparent
"Who Put the Tribbles in the QuadaTri-Ticale"! ...and WHY he was
Rewarded with the Presidency of The WORLD BANK...rather than
being hanged for bloody treason.


For anyone too young to grok My Double-Quasi-Joke:
StarTrek: "The Trouble with Tribbles"
Quote:
...the tribbles also give away the identity of a surgically-altered Klingon agent responsible. The saboteur is the only "human" the tribbles don't like: Arne Darvin, Baris's own assistant.


IOW: Who was the Snake In the Grass that engineered the scheme
that brought about the disaster we're still dealing with to this day
to fill the long standing agenda of his mentor?

HINT: Bush's War: The Wolfowitz Doctrine.
..and why was he so handsomely rewarded for the deed...?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/19/09 07:41 AM

Quote:
I still remember the day as if it just happened. Still remember the fear and confusion. Still remember the anger. Still want those responsible brought to justice in a "dead of alive" kind of way..

I've pointed out to you before that when the twin towers of Lebanon were bombed with US arms and backing in 1982 exactly the same kind of pain and loss of life was occasioned as that which you keep moaning about over 9/11. The events are equally reprehensible. The only difference between the two is that one caused the other which makes that one, if anything, even more blameworthy.

km
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/19/09 08:23 AM


Touché.
Posted by: Gigi

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/19/09 08:56 AM

Does anyone not see what is going on? By continuing the arguments over "whether or not this was torture", the people who actually put the whole program in place get to sit on the sidelines and smirk at the parsing of words. Doesn't the military have a guidebook as well as the Geneva Convention that defines the limits?

I think this is why President Obama just put the memos out there. All of you who are proud to be a part of any of it should just enjoy the reading. If the middle-class (I think most everyone here fits that description) is only going to argue the definition, and most of you are splitting hairs (Bill Clinton anyone?), and nothing else then, why should he try anything more?

I say again what he is looking for is what the ordinary citizen will do about the tone of the report and what it said about our leaders rather than what defines what these detainees were put through. I am not apologizing for any of them, I am sure that there are bad guys of the first order there, but does two wrongs make a right?

I have cancer, it is terminal, I would not seriously wish this disease on my worst enemy, including all those who wish harm to to my country. I cannot condone any part of this by the elected leaders of my country and have already expressed my feelings to my Congressional leaders.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/19/09 12:58 PM


Precisely so.

It rips away the blinders.
One is no longer able to hide behind "Plausible Deniable"
You are being forced to confront that which we were content
to leave up to others, and make necessary decisions for the
way things go forward from here on end.

It's like being totally divorced from murdering our fellow
beings on Earth, simply because our meat is now purchased
neatly wrapped in sterile packages.

It's reminiscent of dragging the German people through the
interment & death camps so they could see the palpable
reality to what they (perhaps) conveniently chose not to see
or think about while entire families were disappearing from
under their very noses all around them.

Having ones nose rubbed in it can indeed be quite instructive.

The question, as you say, is what we now choose to do about it.
...Not just GITMO, but also Palestine. Not just the Pirates,
but what's driving them to this desperate act. We can stay
mired in denial, or join with the Jews in saying "NEVER AGAIN!"
(But not just for our own community... for all of mankind.)
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/19/09 03:41 PM

Moaning? It's a real shame neither of these events happened at your doorstep. Your perspective might have been a little different. Then again, considering the source, probably not so much.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/19/09 05:02 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Moaning? It's a real shame neither of these events happened at your doorstep. Your perspective might have been a little different. Then again, considering the source, probably not so much.


roit!

and as everybody knows
...you personally OWN the pain.

Poor You.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/19/09 05:26 PM

Quote:
...you personally OWN the pain.
Correct. I do OWN the pain that I personally feel. So what?

Quote:
Poor You.
Says Vicky Victim.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/19/09 06:05 PM



STILL don't get it, do you?
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/19/09 08:16 PM

Not much here to "get" to be honest ...

I'm still trying to figure out why this thread was worth necroing in the first place ...
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/19/09 09:12 PM

I thought it was worth looking at what people said about torture back in the day when there were only a few people complaining about it. I thought Poly's question was interesting. Have we learned anything. I'd like to say yes, but I'm afraid we'll just all forget again once the pendulum swings again and there is a new administration to stoke fear in people who should otherwise understand the values we share.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/20/09 04:04 AM

Originally Posted By: newkojak
I thought it was worth looking at what people said about torture back in the day when there were only a few people complaining about it. I thought Poly's question was interesting. Have we learned anything. I'd like to say yes, but I'm afraid we'll just all forget again once the pendulum swings again and there is a new administration to stoke fear in people who should otherwise understand the values we share.


And I still live in hope that now that the nature of torture
(and how people can get around taking responsibility for it)
and who pointed the finger, and was only too glad to share
their well-worn techniques, that would bring home the plight
of the Palestinians (and the reason why they commit acts of
desperation ((face it--- blowing ones self up is about as
desperate as you can get!!!)) in the attempt to bring what's
being done to them to the attention of the WORLD At Large)

TORTURE DOES NOT WORK!
IT ONLY MAKES DESPERATE PEOPLE MORE DESPERATE!


The WORLD "gets it" --- they're now holding it's breath
In HOPE that Obama "Get's It" too.

...and on that note... maybe we can also "get it" when he sez...
"it's time we just put it behind us & look to the future".

(cue carp: "I TOLD YOU SO.")
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/20/09 04:10 AM

Quote:
once the pendulum swings again and there is a new administration to stoke fear in people
A bit fatalistic, eh? smile

Although, while I would like to think that four years of doing the right thing might wean us off of eight years of lies and criminal activity, we could have a "relapse" at some point if Obama continues to impede the investigations and prosecutions of Bush's own little SS.
Posted by: carp

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/20/09 11:59 AM

Quote:
(cue carp: "I TOLD YOU SO.")


WHAT ? ?
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/20/09 12:14 PM


LOL It was a joke, Son...

Cuing you to tell us (or at least me)
that you'd told us all that months ago.

I was finally agreeing with you;
That maybe it's better to just let go of things.

Posted by: carp

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/20/09 01:00 PM

LOL , your okay

Just in , 2 suspects water boarded 266 times <-- wtf ?
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/20/09 01:19 PM

I would think that after the first couple of times, the effectiveness would diminish - the victim knows it won't kill him.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/20/09 05:27 PM


Yeah I read that too, in the World News
(GAWD --- how HUMILIATING!)

I don't know how you can over ride that
basic survival instinct...
...that & fear of falling,
unless it becomes like the nasal/sinus
purification douche which Yogis practice.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/20/09 06:17 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
LOL , your okay

Just in , 2 suspects water boarded 266 times <-- wtf ?


Geez this is awful ! First they told us it was used sparingly... not repeated... they said it worked !

IF they tortured one guy 180+ time in March (forgot the year)... that's 6 times a day .. for 31 days !!! sick Doesn't seem to have worked, and it sure wasn't sparingly !!

How many LIES can they tell and how many LAWS can they break before we say Justice should be done.. screw the divide issue, screw the don't look back, screw let's move forward, ... we sure didn't say that at Neurenberg !! IF there is a Heaven and Hell, we all know where Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and Rummy deserve to be sent.

I am just fscking sick of the Bush Administration LIES and lack of any resemblance to following Laws! Nothing they told was was anywhere near the truth!! mad mad mad
Posted by: starmillway

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 09:44 AM


I just read:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/21/obama-administration-bush_n_189521.html

Obama has said he doesn't support charging CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, acting on advice from superiors that such practices were legal. But he also said that it is up to the attorney general whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote the memos approving these tactics.

Not sure I agree that the burden should all be on the attorneys who wrote the memos. Cheney/Bush should shoulder some of the blame!

Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 09:52 AM

Only some of the blame?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 09:55 AM

Quote:
Obama has said he doesn't support charging CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics...

I can't accept that the orders of superiors are a reason for non prosecution. If one is ordered to perform an act as blatantly illegal as torture the correct response is to refuse the order and report the matter to the police. Okay, shoot, what have we got... those giving the orders should be prosecuted and so should those carrying them out.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 10:23 AM

This is my first bone to pick with Obama. And it's a biggie. I respect his desire not to put the country through the Salem Witch Trials again. Look at the ageda we, as a country, had over Clinton's indiscretion — and that wasn't even close to crimes like torture. But that's the bone. This is about actual crimes. International crimes! If he doesn't have the stomach for it, then step aside and let Congress and the AG do what the law requires them to do — which is to investigate and prosecute if appropriate.

The good news is that Holder has said he's nowhere near settled on his next steps. This is the time for Obama to play good cop/bad cop. Let justice take its course and let Congress and the JD be the bad cops. And I think this will go higher up the food chain than just the Bybees and the Yoos.

But I've gotta say, I'm very disappointed that Obama is letting idealism trump the Rule of Law. This is too important to let pass.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 10:29 AM

Maybe he is deferring to Congress and the DoJ on this. He has stated that it is his desire not to prosecute, but is leaving the door open for other avenues.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 10:30 AM


Great News - he's open to prosecuting the law breakers.

those that say focus only on our current problems, don't believe we (USA) can walk and chew gum at teh same time ?? besides the DOJ will be handling the details... not Obama... criminy, what do these rat bass-terds have to do to receive the justice they deserve ?

IF I were Lyndie England's family I'd really be POed right now.. she and a few others were scapegoats just like Willaim Calley (My Lai). Sure what they did wasn't appropriate, but I have NO doubts they thought they were acting on orders... not a few "bad apples" as Bush and Cheney LIED to us about. mad

What's worse it shows Bush and Cheney for the COWARDS they are... sit there knowing they ORDERED this schitt, and let the troops take the fall... some "support the troops" mentality huh !?? mad
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 10:36 AM

The fact is, the door is open whether he likes it or not. The WH has little or no say in matters like this beyond expressing a POV. My concerns are that I'd prefer Obama would express more adherence to the law and fewer lofty thoughts in this case; and that his POV may exert too much gravitation pull on Holder and Justice after all.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 10:41 AM

From the NYTimes.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 10:55 AM

Looks like trying to stuff the "genie" back into the bottle. Many independent investigations are continuing, any of which could lead to criminal prosecutions.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 11:07 AM

Maybe all the torture fanboys should all give each other blowjobs. That'll get it done in a NY minute! eek blush
Posted by: carp

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 12:04 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Obama has said he doesn't support charging CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics...

I can't accept that the orders of superiors are a reason for non prosecution. If one is ordered to perform an act as blatantly illegal as torture the correct response is to refuse the order and report the matter to the police. Okay, shoot, what have we got... those giving the orders should be prosecuted and so should those carrying them out.

km


You forget that Cheney gained approval so what you think is illegal was not to them , in a sense it was legal and they were carrying out a lawful order

However Cheney seemed to forget that it is still illegal internationally - that dumb arse
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 12:41 PM

Quote:
in a sense it was legal and they were carrying out a lawful order


The Nuremberg trials made the "just following orders" defense invalid -- it was determined that no order to the contrary could justify the commission of a war crime ...

And since the Executive cannot autonomously change the laws of the land, an order to commit an illegal act is still illegal regardless from where the order originates ...

So, yes Cheney authorized the torture, but no, that does not automagically make it legal in any way, nor does that absolve those who actually committed the torture from prosecution or conviction. Key is right in that the proper course of action when presented with an illegal order is to refuse to obey it and report that order to the proper authorities.
Posted by: carp

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 01:11 PM

Quote:
Key is right in that the proper course of action when presented with an illegal order is to refuse to obey it and report that order to the proper authorities.


Yes and No

For all they knew was the DOJ , CIA and DOD told them it was legal via Cheney approvals . Thats it end of story

However
Gitmo is not on US soil but rather leased land from Cuba and the detainees are international - So with that someone should have popped the question , okay Cheney got it legal in the US but what about it internationally ? ? Duh . Maybe someone did ask and they were lied too ? who knows
Posted by: DLC

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 01:48 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Maybe all the torture fanboys should all give each other blowjobs. That'll get it done in a NY minute! eek blush


They don't mind that Steve, but they just don't want to wear the Blue Dress !! blush

laugh
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 02:04 PM

Carp, it was not legal in the U.S. Not ever. Just because Cheney "decided" is was does not rewrite U.S. or international law. Doesn't matter if the torture was rendered in Gitmo, in Belfast, or in Buffalo, NY. It was, is, and always will be ILLEGAL. <---Get it now (as you love to ask)?
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 03:01 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Carp, it was not legal in the U.S. Not ever. Just because Cheney "decided" is was does not rewrite U.S. or international law. Doesn't matter if the torture was rendered in Gitmo, in Belfast, or in Buffalo, NY. It was, is, and always will be ILLEGAL. <---Get it now (as you love to ask)?


INDEED!

GOOGLE'S OUR FRIEND. smile
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,030,000 for Israeli torture techniques

The Israeli Torture Template
Rape, Feces and Urine-Dipped Cloth Sacks
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen05102004.html

Torture: The Israeli
http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-hassan030106.htm

Israel admits torture
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/637293.stm

World: Middle East
Israeli 'torture' methods illegal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/439554.stm

ISRAELI TORTURE IS SYSTEMATIC AND "LEGAL"
http://www.middleeast.org/archives/1999_01_13.htm

Torture: Israel’s expanding export industry
http://blog.oup.com/2008/09/torture/
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 03:30 PM

You've posted this before. Is there some reason you feel the need for redundancy? Are you trying to imply that I condone the alleged torture by the Israelis? Or by anyone else for that matter? I do my best to ignore the majority of your posts, so repeating yourself to me is a waste of your time. In fact, if given the choice between reading your three-part carbon copies and waterboarding, I'd opt for the rag and the canteen. <--- Do YOU get it now?

Have nice day.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 03:36 PM

.
smile It WASN'T Necessarily for YOU to Read.

it's a point that needed making for a long time,
Reading about the Somali Pirates going to extremes
in order to gain the attention to their plight
brought it back to mind afresh...

What should they do instead? SUICIDE BOMBING?

Yes, NONE of the crap that's been allowed to fly
should be going on and wouldn't if people KNEW.


Not even saying "Punish ANYBODY" but it HAS TO STOP!


...and you have a nice day as well. smile
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 03:55 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Carp, it was not legal in the U.S. Not ever. Just because Cheney "decided" is was does not rewrite U.S. or international law. Doesn't matter if the torture was rendered in Gitmo, in Belfast, or in Buffalo, NY. It was, is, and always will be ILLEGAL. <---Get it now (as you love to ask)?


Be careful about BUILDING 75 Foot Gallows for someone else.
Esther 7:9-10

Posted by: carp

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 04:03 PM

You must have missed the Cheney interview where he said he got the approval from DOJ , they used wording like "enhanced interrogation" that made it legal . They did not use the word torture but rather other colorful extractions to weed their way around it . No torture laws were changed but enhanced interrogation was approved by DOJ <-- get it now laugh

As I mentioned , if you read it . Gitmo is not on US soil so even if Cheney got legal wording it is not legal in Gitmo let alone with foreign detainees even if they were on US soil

Again what Cheney paved the way for was enhanced interrogation <-- wtf is that ? what level is that on , harsh language or water boarding specific ?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 04:11 PM

Quote:
You must have missed the Cheney interview where he said he got the approval from DOJ
Saw the interview several times. You're buying the song and dance that by playing with words and making up your own convenient reality that it was somehow legal. And consider just how totally politicized the DoJ was under Cheney/Bush. If Cheney wanted the DoJ to legalize murder, but only on Thursdays btwn 1PM and 9PM and only in the case of left-handed perps using Englebert Humperdink tapes as the weapon, he'd have gotten "legal" memos saying Go for it!
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 04:47 PM

Quote:
You must have missed the Cheney interview where he said he got the approval from DOJ , they used wording like "enhanced interrogation" that made it legal


As a law-enforcement entity, DOJ doesn't have the power to change law, only enforce it -- it can no more change an illegal act into a legal one than Dick Cheney can. Calling 1st Degree Murder "Radical Life Non-Continuance" doesn't make the act itself any more legal, no matter how many lawyers you throw at it. Similarly, calling torture "enhanced interrogation" doesn't make that action any less against the law ...

And if you've been reading the memos, they're fairly specific about what exact actions they're trying to excuse under the guise of "enhanced interrogation," many of which are defined of torture under international law (and, since we ratified the international treaties regarding torture, our law as well) ...
Posted by: carp

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 06:07 PM

What you and steve are "missing"

Torture is still illegal and the law was not altered in anyway and I did NOT say the DOJ changed the law

Enhanced Interrogation was approved -via- special wording . Your both confusing the two terms

We all know that Enhanced Interrogation = torture but like I said they worded it in such a way to make it seem legal , what we have here is a wording dilemma

I went looking for your so called link to international law that specifically says water boarding is torture ? all I found was just broad statements on what is torture

wiki - did go and journey off to other links but if you have a better one - Thanks

Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 06:48 PM

Quote:
what we have here is a wording dilemma
Good luck with that rationale. We'll see soon enough who missed what.
Posted by: carp

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 07:12 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Quote:
what we have here is a wording dilemma
Good luck with that rationale. We'll see soon enough who missed what.


Well even Obama is pushing that one on , back to the DOJ to sort it all out . What we seen was 5 Memos , I mean Memos that is nothing compared to what they did or tried to do as legal documents ? ? Thats the meat and potato stuff

Keep in mind that Obama specialty was Constitutional Law , this is International Law <-- So yes I would throw this "Hot Potato" onto some other poor slob desk to figure out laugh and stay the f__k out of it .
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 08:14 PM

I love it! The power of language is just awesome.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 10:27 PM

Quote:
We all know that Enhanced Interrogation = torture but like I said they worded it in such a way to make it seem legal , what we have here is a wording dilemma


So what on earth is your point?

Illegal acts were committed but those who authorized them used language to make them seem legal? And? Still doesn't make them legal. Nor does that exonerate those who either authorized those acts nor those who actually carried them out.

You're right: I'm still "missing" your entire point, I guess ...

Quote:
went looking for your so called link to international law that specifically says water boarding is torture ?


First of all, I never mentioned waterboarding specifically, but since it took all of three seconds to find a wiki link (since that seems to carry weight with you) here you go:

So called link Wiki has on Waterboarding ... it's the first hit on a google search for "waterboarding defined as torture." First six words in the citation: "Waterboarding is a form of torture."
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/21/09 10:31 PM


wazzat? ...like calling it "alleged torture" in an attempt
to disqualify it, even in the face of hundreds of
documents condemning it as having been exactly that?

wot a twist! to be suddenly pinning it ALL on the past
"badministration" even in the face of evidence proving
from whence the template for the techniques originated?

Looking back, who better would've known the effectiveness
of such things as using sexual contact by female guards
upon Muslim men, to the point of causing them to prefer
suicide rather to ever facing their family again, or of
the Muslim absolute terror of dogs, or of the unbearable
humiliation of being treated as if they were dogs.

Now bleating for "justice" or "revenge" is just too weird.
REDUNDANTLY I reiterate: be careful what you wish for,
...or of erecting gallows intended for someone else.

Posted by: steveg

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 04:22 AM

And this is what I really appreciate about this guy... He considers, he speaks, he listens, he re-considers, he sets ego and swagger aside and modifies his POV if appropriate. Some might call that flip-flopping, or pandering, or even weakness. I call it open-minded and flexible. I still wish had had adopted this position from the git-go, but IMHO, better late than never. If Bush was The Decider Obama is The Listener. And if you're not listening, you're not making the best possible decisions.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 05:27 AM

A major part of the listening is his other moniker, "No Drama Obama." He doesn't announce decisions for the sake of a big splash. He makes decisions which in the long run are best for the country.

Hard to get used to but I am getting there. He knew it would be better if the DOJ leads the investigation. Better to also treat the DOJ as a separate entity and not like another department of the White House. He also believes it better if a nonpartisan congressional investigation is begun. If Republicans want to remain above water they better start acting like nonpartisans who want what is best for the country and stop listening to Karl Rove pouting, "THESE TORTURE TECHNIQUES ARE NOW RUINED!"

I want Cheney in Leavenworth today. I now realize the rule of law will require a long drawn out process. I am now OK with that.


Posted by: Jim_

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 05:59 AM

Originally Posted By: DLC
Matt, there is not ONE shred of evidence that all this torture saved ONE single attack on us...

Only one that believes that is Dick Cheney ( and a few other misled) ... the justification is all hypotheticals, "bait and switch", and "smoke and mirrors" !!


Even John McCain is dead set against it - he KNOWS it doesn't help us or serve our needs ..


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/21/obama.memos/index.html
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 06:08 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
And this is what I really appreciate about this guy... He considers, he speaks, he listens, he re-considers, he sets ego and swagger aside and modifies his POV if appropriate. Some might call that flip-flopping, or pandering, or even weakness. I call it open-minded and flexible. I still wish had had adopted this position from the git-go, but IMHO, better late than never. If Bush was The Decider Obama is The Listener. And if you're not listening, you're not making the best possible decisions.


He needs to be more than an un-Bush. Just listening isn't good enough. Here's a pretty good synopsis of what a productive listener needs to be.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/21/bacevich.obama.foreign/index.html
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 06:42 AM

Good article. It very much underlines Obama's strategy here of not just playing to the crowd who wants him to be "UnBush". His economy of decisions, what I would have once thought as inaction, is him not just being UnBush but of his taking the most pragmatic path.

I was annoyed by his slow and plodding path on torture. I wanted him to unbush the government with a straight razor and hang the scoundrels. I can see now that his more thoughtful approach is the best path.

Are you becoming a Obamaphile Reboot?



Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 06:49 AM


Read his bio as well... thanx...

Good to have people like him advising the new president.
I posted an interview by a like-minded chap who is also
a new adviser with a new approach, to our new president.

It's hopeful to have hands-on people driven by listening,
deciding, then taking appropriate action, rather than the
reactionary "bull in a china-shop"/"let the chips fall
where they may"/"Fukkem if they don't like it" approach
the World has come to EXPECT of America.



Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 07:12 AM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
A major part of the listening is his other moniker, "No Drama Obama." He doesn't announce decisions for the sake of a big splash. He makes decisions which in the long run are best for the country.

Hard to get used to but I am getting there. He knew it would be better if the DOJ leads the investigation. Better to also treat the DOJ as a separate entity and not like another department of the White House. He also believes it better if a nonpartisan congressional investigation is begun. If Republicans want to remain above water they better start acting like nonpartisans who want what is best for the country and stop listening to Karl Rove pouting, "THESE TORTURE TECHNIQUES ARE NOW RUINED!"

I want Cheney in Leavenworth today. I now realize the rule of law will require a long drawn out process. I am now OK with that.



"Though the mills of God grind slowly,
yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting,
with exactness grinds He all."

Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 08:21 AM

Originally Posted By: DLC
I am just fscking sick of the Bush Administration LIES and lack of any resemblance to following Laws! Nothing they told was was anywhere near the truth!! mad mad mad
Sí, sí, y…

… now it turns out there where other memos about the legality of the torture plans which gave a different opinion than that of the DoJ. These were ignored and later were attempted destroyed by the WH…

Their appearance now apparently protects Condi.

Here, here… (Rachel Maddow video)

Posted by: Celandine

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 09:23 AM


Unfortunately,

we are left assuming the worst..
(if it indeed can get any worse)
wondering if what survived the
"PURGE" was this bad, shuttering
to think of what did not.

AH! The Good ol'Days under
THE BIG DUBYA! (Daddy WarBucks)
when the paperr shreaders were
going full-tilt grinding up EVIDENCE
of the IRAN/CONTRA DEAL.


*a few papers they missed wink
Posted by: DLC

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 11:39 AM

I never said they didn't gain some useful information, but did that lead to saving ANY American lives or thwart an attack. There's still no direct evidence of the latter.

His is still speculation... "The Bush-era interrogation techniques that many view as torture may have yielded important information about terrorists...."

keep digging ! wink
Posted by: DLC

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 12:19 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
If Bush was The Decider Obama is The Listener. And if you're not listening, you're not making the best possible decisions.


No I think Obama is the "Analyzer", the "Thinker", instead of the swaggering, flaunting, biased "gut reactor" we had for 8 years. wink
Posted by: carp

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 12:41 PM

From your link

Quote:
United States government released a memorandum written in 2002 by the Office of Legal Counsel that came to the conclusion that waterboarding did not constitute torture and could be used to interrogate subjects.


Last line from the 2002 memorandum

Quote:
In the absense of prolonged mental harm,no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture within the meaning of the statute.


Quote:
Illegal acts were committed but those who authorized them used language to make them seem legal?


Thats exactly what I mean . Read the 2002 memorandum they try to justify waterboarding that it does not cause long lasting mental or physical harm so therefor its not torture <-- ah ha the power of interpretation , even when everyone else calls it torture

fwiw; I went looking in the Geneva Convention for water boarding which there was no mention
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 12:47 PM

Quote:
Keep in mind that Obama specialty was Constitutional Law , this is International Law...

He'd appreciate the relationship between the two because the question arises whether the constraints of international conventions are binding in US domestic law. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo happened because advice was given that that interrogation methods could be defined without reference to international treaties when in fact the Convention Against Torture 1984 (CAT) provides an absolute prohibition against torture as therein defined in all circumstances.

A lot of the advice relied uppn is in the public domain and so open to critical analysis. Gonzales for example produced a memo from John Yoo to the effect that since the US was not a party to the Rome Statute it was not bound by its provisions and that US nationals could not be prosecuted at the ICC. The second point which is wrong does not follow from the first point which is right. The ICC exercises jurisdiction over individuals not states and US nationals can be prosecuted if they commit torture in any territory which is a party to the Statute or which otherwise accepts the jurisdiction of the Court.

Yoo went on to assert that CAT was only applicable in US law if both defined torture in exactly the same terms. That was to say that where US law and international law conflict, US law takes precedence. In fact the opposite is true. It's fundamental principle that where international law and domestic law conflict international law prevails because were it otherwise there'd be no point in nations agreeing to the terms of a treaty in the first place.

The error of analysis that national law trumps international law also catches out Jay Baybee whose advice it was that torture in US federal law was limited to actions "of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure". Where the pain is mental, Baybee claimed, torture was limited to actions causing "lasting psychological harm as seen in mental disorders". The President, he said, was free from censure by Congress and was unconstrained by international requirements as to torture because they had not been adopted by the legislature. Harold Koh, Dean of Yale Law School however said that Baybee's analysis was a load of rubbish <---.

km



Posted by: Jim_

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 12:48 PM

Originally Posted By: DLC
I never said they didn't gain some useful information.
Yes you did, go back and read your first or second post I believe it is. (3) Lastly -torture has been proven NOT to work for any purpose but to inflict pain and revenge. For interrogation, it's worthless.

As far as thwarting an attack or saving lives, that's one of those circular arguments I don't care to get into since neither of us has any inside info. I was just referring to what was in the article about useful information being gained, not our armchair speculation on how that info was used.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 01:01 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
<-- ah ha the power of interpretation , even when everyone else calls it torture


Yes we all have different interpretations. Generally my interpretation leans towards procedures that physically alter the person. However waterboarding 200+ times on two people in a month is pretty damned ridiculous. Whomever thought that would accomplish anything needs to have the same done to them.

Regardless of people's interpretations, which acts are and aren't allowed by international law should be clear. If not, the language needs to be looked at and re-written to be more clear.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 01:03 PM

Quote:
I never said they didn't gain some useful information

That would have been correct had you done so, of course. To 'gain' information means learning something you wouldn't otherwise have known when if fact establishing a rapport with a person is known to be more effective than torture at getting him to open up.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 01:22 PM

Originally Posted By: SgtBaxter
Originally Posted By: carp
<-- ah ha the power of interpretation , even when everyone else calls it torture


Yes we all have different interpretations. Generally my interpretation leans towards procedures that physically alter the person. However waterboarding 200+ times on two people in a month is pretty damned ridiculous. Whomever thought that would accomplish anything needs to have the same done to them.

Regardless of people's interpretations, which acts are and aren't allowed by international law should be clear. If not, the language needs to be looked at and re-written to be more clear.


Correct

I went looking in the Geneva Convention which their definition of torture is very broad and non specific , like any harm or humiliation yada yada . Their definitions leaves the door open for all kinds of different interpretations .

So yes they need to close some gaps
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 01:29 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
I never said they didn't gain some useful information

That would have been correct had you done so, of course. To 'gain' information means learning something you wouldn't otherwise have known when if fact establishing a rapport with a person is known to be more effective than torture at getting him to open up.

km


Here ya go interrogations worked

Quote:
"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means," Blair said in a written statement.


I tend to agree like how about carefully crafted Trick Questions ? but I guess the language barrier gets in the way
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 02:25 PM

Quote:
Here ya go interrogations worked

You've missed the point - if establishing a rapport works at least equally well there's no gain from torture.

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 02:39 PM

OK you got me... blush

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my meaning... true sometimes you can get some limited information and rarely a big juicy one that does pay off in a major, but many more times the information is unreliable, there are cases where CIA and our guys went galavanting all around the globe and the information was a hoax. That's the point I was trying to make. More times than not the information is VERY questionable. SO IMHO the torture isn't worth the payoff, it's a poor bang for a lot of bucks and huge PR image loss. In addition, It aids your enemy in recruiting new blood...

I heard on CNN they found out some info about Al Quada's organizational structure... maybe it helps but I don't see where this was a major breakthrough after 180+ water boardings.
I just think this type of interrogation is over the line. Even McCain thinks so... but the henious thing to me is Bush & Cheney lying about it all and letting foot soldiers take a fall for following their orders !! Sorry that's the kind of schitt the Nazis did... I don't want my country to have ANY policy anywhere near that kind of action. In addition, why weren't many of these "suspects" brought to a tribunal for a hearing ? That's also UnAmerican to me. Don't gimme the enemy combatant schitt.. these are human beings FIRST, and should be treated like we'd like our own treated. HUMANELY ! IF proven guilty then give them what they deserve, but don't just capture them and sit on them for years and never bring a shred of evidence forward they're guilty (or not). IF you have the evidence - present it !
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 02:48 PM

None of it justifies the means. And Cheney declaring that they obtained good intelligence - let me present WMD in Iraq and yellow cake in Niger. Cheney couldn't tell good intelligence from bad. In Cheney's twisted mind, good intelligence is only what he wants to hear.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 04:21 PM

Quote:
Thats exactly what I mean.


Um ... nokay. Still missing your point, I guess.
Posted by: carp

Re: Hip, hip, HOORAY! - 04/22/09 04:31 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Quote:
Thats exactly what I mean.


Um ... nokay. Still missing your point, I guess.


I made many points so I am not sure which one your missing ?

Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 04:38 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Here ya go interrogations worked

You've missed the point - if establishing a rapport works at least equally well there's no gain from torture.

km


HuH ?
There is no gain from getting information from torture due to a person under duress . I would tell you anything you want to hear , the information you get would be highly skeptical under torture
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 04:43 PM

See carp, KM does to language exactly what the legal eagles at Justice did. If you think what he does is illegitimate in any but the most legalistic of terms, the same is true for the Justice Dept.'s redefinition of practices long known to be torture.
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 04:44 PM

Quote:
None of it justifies the means.


True

Quote:
And Cheney declaring that they obtained good intelligence


True - click on the CNN link above

Quote:
let me present WMD in Iraq and yellow cake in Niger


True - Well not sure about the yellow cake but Saddam did use WMDs - Anyway Iraq did have WMDs and did use them at one time , its a no brainer

Quote:
Cheney couldn't tell good intelligence from bad


True

Hey your batting a 100 laugh


Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 04:48 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
See carp, KM does to language exactly what the legal eagles at Justice did. If you think what he does is illegitimate in any but the most legalistic of terms, the same is true for the Justice Dept.'s redefinition of practices long known to be torture.


Right YoYo

We have the truth , they have their interpretations laugh
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 05:30 PM

Originally Posted By: carp

True - Well not sure about the yellow cake but Saddam did use WMDs - Anyway Iraq did have WMDs and did use them at one time , its a no brainer


Right, you would have to have no brain in order to believe that still. <--get it? LOL ;-)


Kurds were gassed by our WMD we gave to Saddam in what decade? Right, more than ten years before Bush became President.

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Do we still bring it up today like a parrot?
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 09:46 PM

Quote:
Kurds were gassed by our WMD we gave to Saddam in what decade


So explain to me what decade that WMDs were allowed ? ?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/22/09 10:39 PM

Quote:
KM does to language exactly what the legal eagles at Justice did.

Yeah, but they got it wrong.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 01:45 AM

1980-1988 = Iran-Iraq War, during which the US friendly with Iraq and along with other western nations facilitated Saddam's WMD programs, supplying biochemical samples and with the US largely covering for him in the UN for using chemical weapons during the war ...

After the first Gulf War in 1990 the UN pretty much dismantled Saddam's WMD capability and destroyed his stockpiles of biochemical weapons ...
Posted by: steveg

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 03:33 AM

Is it an affliction or legal illness? sick
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 03:53 AM

Originally Posted By: carp
Quote:
Kurds were gassed by our WMD we gave to Saddam in what decade


So explain to me what decade that WMDs were allowed ? ?


When the United States wanted them allowed. During the Iraq War with Iran we were pals with Saddam. We gave him the gas and he gassed the Kurds. (See 6of1 for dates). <--get it now?

Let me draw a picture so you don't forget.

This is not a photoshop.
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

Don and Ron were great pals with Saddam. Many years later Don hunted Saddam down and hung him. This cost us many trillions of dollars and the lives of many soldiers and the respect of the world was lost but Don got his man.

Even Don no longer believes Saddam had any WMDs. He is embarrassed and is hiding away hoping people do not come after him years later with a rope.

Good luck with that Don.

Posted by: Celandine

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 05:40 AM

At the risk of pishing off whatzisname by repeating myself:

DADDY WARBUCKS was RR's VICE Pres.

RR was a BRAINDEAD PUPPET.


btw: read the above IRAN/CONTRA Link
Daddy WARbucks ALSO Armed IRAN wink

"Junior" is a 3rd Generation WAR PROFITEER
The INfamous PRESCOTT BUSH was Daddy WARbuck's Ol'Man!

**Godwin's Corollary grin
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 10:36 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Is it an affliction or legal illness? sick


I'd say it's an occupational hazard.
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 12:54 PM

Well the photo shows them shaking hands where the WMD in the photo ?

If I remember correctly Iraq bought components of the gas from a 3rd party American company which Iraq blended with other gases bought from other countries . Thats how you hide stuff . Now if the US knew about the American company supplying parts for those WMDs is another question

The short answer the US did not "directly" supply Iraq with ready to use WMDs - However it is widely known that the US did give Iraq satellite battlefield images and other intelligence on Iran
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 01:22 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
1980-1988 = Iran-Iraq War, during which the US friendly with Iraq and along with other western nations facilitated Saddam's WMD programs, supplying biochemical samples and with the US largely covering for him in the UN for using chemical weapons during the war ...

After the first Gulf War in 1990 the UN pretty much dismantled Saddam's WMD capability and destroyed his stockpiles of biochemical weapons ...


Yes and No

Disarmament time line

If you read the time lime you can see Iraq was playing that age old shell game with the inspectors . Yes they manage to destroy some WMDs and some facilities , Iraq claims to have destroyed some WMDs and and some facilities but they cannot provide proof that they did or did not ?

Quote:
July 1, 1995
In response to UNSCOM's evidence, Iraq admits for first time the existence of an offensive biological weapons program, but denies weaponization.


Just a slice of the time line - In a sense UNSCOM can never say at 100% that Iraq has no WMDs
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 02:12 PM

So, get them from under your bed and turn them over. None have ever been found. You can't turn over something you don't have.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 02:27 PM

Originally Posted By: carp

Just a slice of the time line - In a sense UNSCOM can never say at 100% that Iraq has no WMDs


And that is the end of an argument based on semantics. Are you taking lessons from KM?

It is impossible to prove a negative. Take these two statements:

1)The Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist.
2) There are no WMD in Iraq.

Both are completely impossible to verify. But to an ordinary sentient human who has cognitive skills and who has been awake for most of the past decade it is quite easy to be very sure that both statements are true.

I am not going to start a war because no one believes in my invisible pink unicorn. But most wars are predicated on the same type of idiocy like my belief in a different invisible deity than your invisible deity.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 02:42 PM

Well, you wanted to know when Iraqi WMDs were acceptable, the '80s would be your decade ... and yes, the samples they used for weaponization were provided by the CDC amongst others ...


Quote:
Yes and No


According to Scott Ritter, who was in charge of inspections for the UN before Blix took over -- and who vehemently believed Iraq had a WMD program in 1998, in 2002 revised his estimation:

"He says he would ''be surprised if there is anything in Iraq worth finding,'' claiming inspection efforts between 1991 and 1998 resulted in the Iraqis giving up 90 to 95 percent of their most deadly weapons, rendering Saddam ''fundamentally disarmed'' -- if still unrepentantly evil." very interesting source on Ritter

Add to that that Blix and company never really found anything, and that neither did we after invading Iraq and looking for WMDs -- I think it would be safe to interpret all of that to mean Iraq had no substantial capability a few years after the first gulf war ...
Posted by: steveg

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 02:48 PM

So, are you saying that the great unseen Pink One has the WMD? shocked
Posted by: steveg

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 02:49 PM

Yeah, but to whom is it hazardous? eek
Posted by: DLC

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 03:15 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Well, you wanted to know when Iraqi WMDs were acceptable, the '80s would be your decade ... and yes, the samples they used for weaponization were provided by the CDC amongst others ...


I think the biological pathogens came from Fort Dietrick, MD - that's where the BioWeapons program was (and has been for 5 decades). We didn't have a BioTerrorism group at CDC until after 2000. I know 3 people who helped organize it.

Remember the same 3 that were told of the Iraq invasion 22 months in advance (April 2001) ! mad
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 04:52 PM

Originally Posted By: MacBozo
So, get them from under your bed and turn them over. None have ever been found. You can't turn over something you don't have.


The point is that Iraq shows proof that they had bits and pices everywhere that they do have them and the UN cannot say for sure they got them all

Read the time line
One instance the inspectors were locked out for 5 days and then let in - of-course the facility was spotless clean after the 5 days
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 04:58 PM

Originally Posted By: DLC
Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Well, you wanted to know when Iraqi WMDs were acceptable, the '80s would be your decade ... and yes, the samples they used for weaponization were provided by the CDC amongst others ...


I think the biological pathogens came from Fort Dietrick, MD - that's where the BioWeapons program was (and has been for 5 decades). We didn't have a BioTerrorism group at CDC until after 2000. I know 3 people who helped organize it.

Remember the same 3 that were told of the Iraq invasion 22 months in advance (April 2001) ! mad


I believe the pathogens came from a American company based in Euro at the time
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 05:09 PM

Quote:
Add to that that Blix and company never really found anything,


Blix and Ritter were only shown by Iraq what they wanted them to inspect - Read the time line its riddled with inspections constantly being blocked or inspectors asked to leave the country then let back in after Iraq clean up .

If you don't have anything to hide , why hide it

Quote:
and that neither did we after invading Iraq and looking for WMDs


That only means we did not find WMDs yet - keep in mind that Iraq is about the size of California <-- it would be easy to hide shiit all over the country , do you think its gonna be a building with a sign on it laugh most likely in an underground bunker deep under the sand
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 05:18 PM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
Originally Posted By: carp

Just a slice of the time line - In a sense UNSCOM can never say at 100% that Iraq has no WMDs


And that is the end of an argument based on semantics. Are you taking lessons from KM?

It is impossible to prove a negative. Take these two statements:

1)The Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist.
2) There are no WMD in Iraq.

Both are completely impossible to verify. But to an ordinary sentient human who has cognitive skills and who has been awake for most of the past decade it is quite easy to be very sure that both statements are true.

I am not going to start a war because no one believes in my invisible pink unicorn. But most wars are predicated on the same type of idiocy like my belief in a different invisible deity than your invisible deity.


Correct

Hence why I get sorta peeved when people proclaim that Iraq did not have WMDs - No one can say for sure , even when Iraq admits to having them and theres evidence that they do have them and yet nobody can find them ? So that means that Iraq never had them <-- thats a whole bunch of Bullshiit
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 07:13 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
So, are you saying that the great unseen Pink One has the WMD? shocked


Yes, and she is quite peeved that Saddam is still getting the credit for making them all vanish when it was her ethereal pinkness (mhhnbs) who did the hiding.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 11:39 PM

Quote:
do you think its gonna be a building with a sign on it


No, I think that after six years of people with an --> extremely <-- vested interest in finding even documentary evidence, anecdotal evidence, *something* to back up their rationale for invading a sovereign state -- that they have found *nothing,* to the point where they couldn't even fabricate something credible, presents a pretty strong case that nothing was there to find in the first place.

But since a negative can't be proved, no one can prove you're wrong. Of course, you can't prove you're right, either. And right now, the preponderance of evidence isn't on your side.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/23/09 11:57 PM

Quote:
even when Iraq admits to having them and theres evidence that they do have them and yet nobody can find them ?


At the time of the invasion Iraq claimed it had no WMDs -- and inspectors at the time and in the years since the invasion haven't found any evidence of any credible capability ... so where did Iraq admit they had them, and what evidence exists they did? Remember, we're talking 2003, not a decade or two earlier ...

Quote:
So that means that Iraq never had them <-- thats a whole bunch of Bullshiit


No one ever said they *never* had them -- to the contrary it's been proven they did have them with the assistance of the US and other states ...

The question is wether they had a credible, threatening capability at the time we invaded. The evidence since then (and some would say before that as well) suggests they didn't.

As you say, no one can prove absolutely that they didn't, since proving a negative is impossible. It's up to you, then, as someone who apparently believes they did have that capability, to prove it. Unfortunately, "if you have nothing to hide why hide it?" or "it could be buried under the sand" isn't proof.
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/24/09 01:36 PM

If you go back and read the time line its all in there - Iraq itself admits to having bio programs , UN itself admits to destroying facilities and WMDs . Iraq itself admits that they to destroyed facilities and WMDs , keep in mind that neither the UN nor Iraq can prove that Iraq did destroy those weapons and facilities , still remains a big question ?

Now just because UN says they cannot find anymore WMDs - all that means is that they are NOT looking in the right places . Keep in mind that the UN also said it found evidence and bits and pieces of WMDs scattered through out the country , what this suggest is Saddam dismantled the facilities and WMDs so he could easily pick up the pieces hidden through out the country and simply reassemble them

So at that time UN was not looking for a fully operational facility or WMDs but rather small bits and pieces to be reassembled later - IMO
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/24/09 01:44 PM

They still found nothing substantial before W rushed to invade - before they could definitely say that there were no WMDs which would have made W look like an idiot.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/24/09 01:47 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
At the time of the invasion Iraq claimed it had no WMDs -- and inspectors at the time and in the years since the invasion haven't found any evidence of any credible capability ... so where did Iraq admit they had them, and what evidence exists they did? Remember, we're talking 2003, not a decade or two earlier ...


Of course Iraq would claim not to have weapons, just the way a pot head pulled over on the side of the road would say they didn't have a joint in their pocket.

Part of what was tough for me with the issue was Iraq worked a bio program right underneath the inspectors noses in the '90s, so the U.N. inspectors are hardly infallible, and if someone wants to hide something enough it usually can be done. Sure the equipment was better in 2003 than in 1993, but the equipment in 2013 will be better than it was in 2003, so what?

I've also subsequently read that Saddam himself was mislead as to his own capabilities by scientists who couldn't produce what he wanted, but didn't want to be shot either.
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/24/09 01:57 PM

Correct they did not find anything substantial - You think Saddam is that stupid ? and he did make Bush look like an idiot . IMO if Bush had some brains he should have not executed Saddam but rather "waterboarded" his arse to find out where he hid them WMDs laugh

I betcha - Saddam dismantled everything into little bitty parts and hid them through out the country thus making it next to impossible for the UN to find them all .

Thats my best bet and I am sticking with it laugh
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/24/09 03:47 PM

Quote:
Of course Iraq would claim not to have weapons.


I was responding to Carp's claim that Iraq admitted they had WMDs, which wasn't the case. There are two possible explanations why Iraq refused to admit to having such programs -- up to the reader to decide which one has the most evidence going for it.

Quote:
Sure the equipment was better in 2003 than in 1993


What equipment? There wasn't any to be found in 2003.

Quote:
I've also subsequently read that Saddam himself was mislead as to his own capabilities


I've also read theories that Saddam knew he didn't have any substantive capability left, but wanted the world to think he did for various reasons (prestige, a bargaining chip, leverage, etc.). Apparently he was fairly surprised the US actually invaded and couldn't fathom why we still weren't backing him against Iranian influence in the region ...

But who really know what was going on in that dude's head?
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/24/09 03:51 PM

Quote:
Iraq itself admits to having bio programs


Yeah, about a decade earlier. At the time of the invasion, they admitted no such thing. And as it turned out, no one has since discovered evidence to the contrary ...

Quote:
all that means is that they are NOT looking in the right places


As I mentioned to Sarge, there are two possibilities, one of which the current evidence supports, the other not so much. If you wish to believe the one rather than the other, that's cool. Just seems to be more a matter of belief than fact ...
Posted by: DLC

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/24/09 05:46 PM



Quote:
What equipment? There wasn't any to be found in 2003.


NOT directed to you personally but to the discussion in this thread.

When the Bush propaganda machine started that WMD mantra I thought we'll lets see the evidence.. Kennedy had satellite photos of missile installations in Cuba and that occurred 40 years earlier. Even HE was able to make his case. With all the advances in surveillance and espionage techniques, surely Bush et al could make a case or even 1/2 a case. All the evidence they put up was disproven, the bioweapons trucks, the Al tubes, the yellowcake, the drones... and all the while they kept shifting the issue. That threw up HUGE red flags for me, and in a matter of months I thought it became obvious they had made their decision and were trying to find or manufacture an excuse to justify their agenda which was already in progress. Then in 2004, I learned through colleagues at CDC that indeed as early as April 2001 Bush /Cheney/ Rummy had decide to invade Iraq.

Now we find out that one purpose of the torture (which that also had planned from the beginning 2002) was to get a confession (true or not) that Saddam had links to 9/11 to justify the invasion. IT FITS the pattern !! . So I can't understand why everyone can't see the obvious... there never was any WMDs in 2001-2 and the LIED to set this war up. Remember it was Bush who pulled the UN inspectors in Jan-Feb 2003, it wasn't Saddam.

In addition look at all the "facts" they told us that turned out to be LIES! The last one was that Abu Gharib was a " few bad apples". Criminy... WTF does it take ?? shocked
These schiesters make Madlof look like a choir boy !!

Do we allow them to get away with it, and just walk away. They spent years and $60 million trying to nail Clinton and finally did over a BJ ! That was NOTHING compared to these crimes.
These crimes broke both US and international laws, we have broken treaties over these torture revelations. ONE we helped craft says that the member countries MUST investigate any incidents of torture of their prisoners... they don't have a choice. So if we gloss this over, that treaty is worthless. What will this torture policy do for our servicemen and women if they are captured ? There is definitely an impact on our FUTURE and the HONOR of our country. This is not about revenge or retribution or Banana Republic BS ... it's about obeying LAWS !! . . . and holding those that break them accountable !! . . . .even ex-Presidents and ex_VPs.

But as usual those objecting are using the same smoke and mirrors they did with the WMDs and the Iraq invasion. Fool me once.... fool me twice .... fool me 100 times..... ah, you're a fool !!
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/24/09 07:08 PM

Quote:
Yeah, about a decade earlier. At the time of the invasion, they admitted no such thing. And as it turned out, no one has since discovered evidence to the contrary ...


You cannot expect an perceived enemy to admit to anything - Its sear insanity to think so - Do you think Saddam was going to suck our dicks ? ? Come on Pal .. Part of Saddams problem is National Iraqi Pride . Gheeees

Quote:
As I mentioned to Sarge, there are two possibilities, one of which the current evidence supports, the other not so much. If you wish to believe the one rather than the other, that's cool. Just seems to be more a matter of belief than fact ...


LOL

Did you even read that Time Line I posted - The facts are all there blow by blow
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/24/09 08:08 PM

Quote:
You cannot expect an perceived enemy to admit to anything - Its sear insanity to think so


I'm not the one who said Saddam admitted to having WMDs in 2003 -- that was you.

Quote:
Did you even read that Time Line I posted - The facts are all there blow by blow


So where are the WMDs? All you have are guesses and suppositions.

Meanwhile, six+ years of searching -- not to mention years of UN inspections finding nothing -- have resulted in ZERO evidence of a credible WMD program. So believe what you may, guess all you want, speculate as you will -- the evidence to date doesn't support your belief ...
Posted by: carp

Re: Three cheers for torture! - 04/25/09 12:47 PM

Quote:
I'm not the one who said Saddam admitted to having WMDs in 2003 -- that was you.


Not me that was Saddam

Quote:
have resulted in ZERO evidence of a credible WMD program


Go read the time line its all there pal I cannot read that for you - It's there black and white

Od course not you think Saddam is going to have a fully operational program for the UN to inspect ? The UN said they found evidence scattered through out the country , its there in the time line