Sanctioned Torture?

[mddem2004]

The Bush Administrations recent efforts to exempt the CIA from the prohibition on the use of torture in the interogation of foreign nationals sickens my heart.

By doing so we are now the only government on the face of the earth that seeks the legal use of such methods. Didn't they learn anything from Abu Ghareb? Don't they realize that our own military discredits information derived from such tactics as unreliable? Can't they see that this only further inflames the rest of the civilized world against us? And don't they realize that this only makes our own troops fair game for the same torturous treatment not only in this War on Terror, but in future conflicts as well?

I ask you to ask yourself, by engaging in the practice of "disappearences", no matter how despicable the terror suspect may be, what would make our CIA any different than Chiles secret police under Penochet? Or the Gestapo under the Nazi's? Or even the KGB under Soviets? No different in my view.

Folks, once we debase ourselves by allowing this administration to engage in these pratices with the cover of legality, once we lose the Morale High Ground in this War on Terror....there is no getting it back. Ever.

There have already been deaths of those held by the CIA both in Afghanistan and Iraq that have been ruled as homicides because of the practices sanctioned with a wink and a nod by this administration. I for one say "No More".

And one final question to you if I may. For those that voted for this President because of his perceived "high morale standards" or because he espoused good "Christian values", I ask you, how is the sanctioning of torture either Moral or in keeping with the Christian Faith? Or any faith for that matter? Not Very where I come from.

Legalized torture is Not an American Ideal, it is Not keeping with the values this country stands for, and it is something our government can Not sanction if we ever want to ultimately win this War on Terror. We should all remind Mr. Bush of these things. He seems to not know.   

[Jake]

I really am sad that we use torture. Every night, I fall asleep crying because a group of Taliban fighters are being forced to listen to Barney songs while being forced to kneel for a couple of hours. It breaks my bleeding heart.

[mddem2004]

I really am sad that we use torture. Every night, I fall asleep crying because a group of Taliban fighters are being forced to listen to Barney songs while being forced to kneel for a couple of hours. It breaks my bleeding heart.

If that truly is the extent of our interrogation techniques why do we need undisclosed locations in eastern europe to play our Barney songs to them? Never heard of Barney's songs killing anyone either.

[Jake]

Because American judges may have a problem with some of our methods. Not because they may be wrong, but because a number are human trash who choose to rule against American interests in order to comply with international laws. Also, those were examples, I'm sure non-compliant prisoners are beaten around, possibly killing one or two. Again, I cry for them every night.

[mddem2004]

It would appear that 90 Senators oppose the sanctioning of torture as well, 46 of them Republican, if the latest numbers hold on the McCain Amendment barring the use of torture....including by the CIA.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Bush adminstration is trying really hard to indefinitely delay the release of the Abu Chraib pictures. Of course the media will ignore all but the most boring ones, as usual.

[riceowl]

...Haven't we already seen the Abu Ghraib pictures?

(Or as Rosie O'Donnell would say...ABU GERRAB?!?!)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

...Haven't we already seen the Abu Ghraib pictures?

(Or as Rosie O'Donnell would say...ABU GERRAB?!?!)

You saw the most kosher of them. They keep delaying the release of some of the others. Here is one of the rulings.
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/05-06267.PDF

[Jake]

One question, why do we need to see the rest of them?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

One question, why do we need to see the rest of them?

Because you've only seen the most tame, fascist.

[Jake]

And?

How does seeing the less "tame" of the pictures do anything except embarass the United States, our government, and our military?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And?

How does seeing the less "tame" of the pictures do anything except embarass the United States, our government, and our military?

We can't stop the war crimes without first knowing about them. I'm sure if Saddam had used MK-77 on civilians that would have been a huge reason given for invading.

[??????????]

I have yet to see any evidence of actual "torture".

[J. J.]

And?

How does seeing the less "tame" of the pictures do anything except embarass the United States, our government, and our military?

We can't stop the war crimes without first knowing about them. I'm sure if Saddam had used MK-77 on civilians that would have been a huge reason given for invading.

Oh, so you consider MK-77 worse than mustard gas.  You'd prefer that we use crossbows, right?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And?

How does seeing the less "tame" of the pictures do anything except embarass the United States, our government, and our military?

We can't stop the war crimes without first knowing about them. I'm sure if Saddam had used MK-77 on civilians that would have been a huge reason given for invading.

Oh, so you consider MK-77 worse than mustard gas.  You'd prefer that we use crossbows, right?

When was the mustard gas? (That's a real question, I'm not denying that there was mustard gas)

[J. J.]

And?

How does seeing the less "tame" of the pictures do anything except embarass the United States, our government, and our military?

We can't stop the war crimes without first knowing about them. I'm sure if Saddam had used MK-77 on civilians that would have been a huge reason given for invading.

Oh, so you consider MK-77 worse than mustard gas.  You'd prefer that we use crossbows, right?

When was the mustard gas? (That's a real question, I'm not denying that there was mustard gas)

1980-88 is when it was used.  There were stockpiles through the late 1990's.  When was it destroyed is my question (though some small quatities in shells were found).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I have yet to see any evidence of actual "torture".

What would convince you?

And?

How does seeing the less "tame" of the pictures do anything except embarass the United States, our government, and our military?

We can't stop the war crimes without first knowing about them. I'm sure if Saddam had used MK-77 on civilians that would have been a huge reason given for invading.

Oh, so you consider MK-77 worse than mustard gas.  You'd prefer that we use crossbows, right?

When was the mustard gas? (That's a real question, I'm not denying that there was mustard gas)

1980-88 is when it was used.  There were stockpiles through the late 1990's.  When was it destroyed is my question (though some small quatities in shells were found).

Some of that was before Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam, and all of it was before George HW Bush decided not to invade. Why didn't we take him out then, if humantiarian reasons are so important? Why did Rumsfeld decide that Saddam isn't such a great guy?

[??????????]

I have yet to see any evidence of actual "torture".

What would convince you?

Seeing something more damning then sexually posed photos or fake execution pictures (the electrocution one).

[J. J.]

I have yet to see any evidence of actual "torture".

What would convince you?

And?

How does seeing the less "tame" of the pictures do anything except embarass the United States, our government, and our military?

We can't stop the war crimes without first knowing about them. I'm sure if Saddam had used MK-77 on civilians that would have been a huge reason given for invading.

Oh, so you consider MK-77 worse than mustard gas.  You'd prefer that we use crossbows, right?

When was the mustard gas? (That's a real question, I'm not denying that there was mustard gas)

1980-88 is when it was used.  There were stockpiles through the late 1990's.  When was it destroyed is my question (though some small quatities in shells were found).

Some of that was before Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam, and all of it was before George HW Bush decided not to invade. Why didn't we take him out then, if humantiarian reasons are so important? Why did Rumsfeld decide that Saddam isn't such a great guy?

We didn't have the requirements that he depose of them.  He only refused to under Clinton, who was basically too busy having oral sex to do much about it.  The stiff part of Clinton was not his backbone.

[opebo]

I have yet to see any evidence of actual "torture".

What would convince you?

Seeing something more damning then sexually posed photos or fake execution pictures (the electrocution one).

He wants to see a lynching, jfern.  You know these Southerners.

[J. J.]

I have yet to see any evidence of actual "torture".

What would convince you?

Seeing something more damning then sexually posed photos or fake execution pictures (the electrocution one).

He wants to see a lynching, jfern.  You know these Southerners.

No, but putting a noose around a terrorist's neck in an attempt to make think he's going to be hung, and not injuring him probably is not torture.

[opebo]

I have yet to see any evidence of actual "torture".

What would convince you?

Seeing something more damning then sexually posed photos or fake execution pictures (the electrocution one).

He wants to see a lynching, jfern.  You know these Southerners.

No, but putting a noose around a terrorist's neck in an attempt to make think he's going to be hung, and not injuring him probably is not torture.

No, that's clearly torture.

[J. J.]

I have yet to see any evidence of actual "torture".

What would convince you?

Seeing something more damning then sexually posed photos or fake execution pictures (the electrocution one).

He wants to see a lynching, jfern.  You know these Southerners.

No, but putting a noose around a terrorist's neck in an attempt to make think he's going to be hung, and not injuring him probably is not torture.

No, that's clearly torture.

Why, he's uninjured, just intimitated?  Is a guard scowling at a prisoner "tortured?"  How about if a guard says, "Your mamma wears combat boots?"  What about keeping him in a cell lit 24/7?  Shaving his head?

Are these things torture?

[??????????]

I have yet to see any evidence of actual "torture".

What would convince you?

Seeing something more damning then sexually posed photos or fake execution pictures (the electrocution one).

He wants to see a lynching, jfern.  You know these Southerners.

Lynching terrorists would be a bit to much work. I'd favor a bullet to the head.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Lynching terrorists would be a bit to much work. I'd favor a bullet to the head.

Being a fiscal conservative, I agree.  I don't want to house them, clothe them, feed them, buy them Koran's or anything.  When we get what we want - 1 piece of lead is as much as I want to spend.