Torture question

[calfoxwc]

Of course not, if the deadly secrets he has only he knows, and will not tell til it's too late.

 

Who decides? The pres? and Chief of Staff?

 

Just because there are questions about how to proceed doesn't negate the reality of

 

once, sometime in a very serious situation, that time, you must have the information you

 

need to avoid another 9/11.

 

But, serious oversight must be included to avoid abuse of the policy.

 

And, using it as a political "gotcha" is very serious business against our country's

 

national security.

[PB&J]

In that scenario especially, with the ticking clock, wouldn't the suspect have even more reason to withhold information or give false information? He knows that within hours it will be done and he will be a "hero".

 

Terrorists in Iraq? Hell no, they are in allied countries, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia!

 

And seriously, the Chevy Chase show? You are one sick, sick bastard Inspecta.

[heckofajobbrownie]

"Would beating the shit out of a guy be considered torture?"

 

Clearly.

 

And you weren't tortured. You just got the shit beat out of you.

[calfoxwc]

The head of Al Quaeda in Iraq operates from Syria.

 

And, a terrorist might have two months to wait for the

 

diasaster to take place.

 

It isn't much of a rationalization to paint it as seconds ticking,

 

and saying the terrorist would be more likely to clam up for those final seconds.

[ballpeen]

So does anyone support torturing terrorists or terrorist suspects to get intelligence information?

 

Seems Cal does. Anyone else?

 

Depends on what you consider torture.

 

I would put someone in a room outfitted with a train horn. Just blast the thing at intermittent intervals and every time they try to sleep.

 

[Westside Steve]

Perhaps I should have asked "Should we" not "can we". Quite obviously we can, because we just did.

 

Should we be torturing people in order to acquire intelligence that isn't necessarily of the sort that saves lives?

 

Are you drawing a dstinction here?

 

 

I would think any information we'd try to get from Al Queda was for that purpose.

WSS

[Mr. T]

definition of torture is watching a babbeling pelosi on tv.

[calfoxwc]

That's the first definition.

 

The alternate definition is reading mz the pussy's

 

immature, ignorant little retorts that ruin

 

most any thread on the board.

 

But, it won't work.

 

Name, rank and serial number is all I'll give.

 

Cal, Sgt. Farmer, Cheerios.

[Guest mz.]

That's the first definition.

 

The alternate definition is reading mz the pussy's

 

immature, ignorant little retorts that ruin

 

most any thread on the board.

 

Jesus Christ are you delusional.

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Well, it looks like we tortured people, or ordered them to be tortured, in order to prove there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So we tortured people to get information that wasn't there.

 

It's clearly illegal to do this. Obviously you guys don't seem to have a problem with the illegality of it, so forget about that. Do you think we should be doing this?

 

Also, if someone might have information about an ongoing murder spree here in this country, should we torture that person to try and save those lives?

 

 

 

[ballpeen]

Well, it looks like we tortured people, or ordered them to be tortured, in order to prove there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So we tortured people to get information that wasn't there.

 

It's clearly illegal to do this. Obviously you guys don't seem to have a problem with the illegality of it, so forget about that. Do you think we should be doing this?

 

Also, if someone might have information about an ongoing murder spree here in this country, should we torture that person to try and save those lives?

 

Different rules Heck.

 

That aside....I will ask a question....do you think the majority of these detainees are good, innocent people?

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

That aside....I will ask a question....do you think the majority of these detainees are good, innocent people?

 

No. So what?

[ballpeen]

So what....what?

 

As stated, the same rules don't apply as they would to you and I, or even to a uniformed enemy.

 

I suppose we could apply the spy tag to them and just shoot them.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I thought this was about saving American lives.

 

Say someone had information about that VaTech murder spree, or Columbine, before it happened. Should we be able to torture it out of them?

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Well, aren't these detainees covered under the law as well?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, you're right. The Geneva Convention is law in the US. We signed it, and it was ratified by the Congress. Same with the UN Convention Against Torture, signed by President Reagan and ratified by the Congress. Detainees are protected by those laws.

 

I'm not suggesting you're for this. Don't worry. I just think it's funny that people realize that you can't do this to Americans because it's against the law, but don't seem to realize that doing it to some Iraqi is also against US and international law.

 

As for your question, I'm less concerned with what went on in Dick Cheney's brain, and what his motives were, than I am with what he did.

 

If I had to guess, I'd say he wanted to get information to help protect American lives. But it's also starting to become clear he wanted to get information to justify the Iraq War, and later to support the reasons for the Iraq War they'd already launched. Sure, he thought that war would save American lives because Saddam was a grave danger to the US and in league with Al Qaeda. And we all know how that turned out.

 

Oddly enough, the guy they got to admit that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda? He gave that up after being tortured.

 

 

[choco]

how quickly we've strayed from being the moral compass of the world.....

 

 

[ballpeen]

It can be argued they aren't protected under that, and under that, they could be held as spies, which allows their execution.

 

They are held under the Military Code of Justice.

 

I don't think anybody wants to torture anybody.....but we have been through all of this before and it is a bit stale.

 

Lets just say at this point, there are conflicting laws, or law process, and conflicting opinions over which law is germane and holds jurisdiction.

 

Either way, the situation is murky and no good solution is likely to be found since there is a Pandora's Box waiting with whichever process is deemed to hold the final weight.

[calfoxwc]

I believe the terrorists are NOT covered by the Geneva convention.

 

They aren't signees. They don't abide it. They aren't covered by it.

 

I don't believe the UCMJ covers them at all.

 

The UCMJ is the military law that our MILITARY lives by.

 

Terrorists don't abide by any rules except what they decide

 

gets non-Islamics murdered.

 

They have no rights. And, of all the detainees, I believe only two ? were waterboarded,

 

with good reason. Although it was for a bunch of times.

 

But it's extremely corrupt to only release memos that serve the left's interest.

 

Release all the memos or none. Find out the whole truth or keep it all a secret.

 

But to cherry pick and release only some that serve the left's Bush/Gitmo bashing?

 

CORRUPT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest mz.]

But it's extremely corrupt to only release memos that serve the left's interest.

 

Please note you're the only guy resorting to "left/right" shit in this and most of the conversations here.

 

[calfoxwc]

mz the pussy - don't you have the intelligence (rof,L) to

 

have a real comment on your own?

 

OR, is it you are only able to diss other's opinions?

 

Or, are you just terrified to actually think for yourself

 

without your teleprompter. (that teleprompter is Heck)

[Guest mz.]

mz the pussy - don't you have the intelligence (rof,L) to

 

have a real comment on your own?

 

Read the board, dipshit.

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

As I stated about this subject in an earlier thread, Obama made a wise choice. As Commander of the U.S. Armed Forces he has to at least make it appear to the troops that he is looking out for their welfare. He did the right thing. To release those pictures would serve no purpose except to those of you in here who want to keep kicking a dead horse (Bush/Cheney).

[calfoxwc]

I do, mzweaselnose.

 

But your opinions are not yours, you parrot Heck, or you parrot your special mod,

 

or, you snipe.

 

And, you just aren't very smart. I feel sorry for ya.

 

If you had a tractor, I don't think you could find the steering wheel.

[Guest mz.]

I do, mzweaselnose.

 

Weaselnose? Jesus Christ are you pathetic. You're a 60 year old man, for Christ's sake.

 

Oops. I used your lord's (lower case 'l') name in vain. TWICE in one post.

 

Sniping is a science, BTW.

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

I'm not 60. Should I have spelled out my age?

 

Tell ya what. Goooooooo Baaaaaaaaack, and reread

 

where Heck was wondering about ages.

 

And then, say you're sorry, which you sure the hell are.

 

Oh, lookee, mz the pussy has an immature pouty-pouty PHD ! WHOOPEE !

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest mz.]

Oops, 58, right?

 

But the Benjamin Button joke was "cute."

[Westside Steve]

Well, it looks like we tortured people, or ordered them to be tortured, in order to prove there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So we tortured people to get information that wasn't there.

But it could also be phrased like we were trying to find out if there was a connection.

That knowledge would be extremely useful.

 

Also, if someone might have information about an ongoing murder spree here in this country, should we torture that person to try and save those lives?

 

Yes.

Remember the recent case out west somewhere?

A college girl is missing. Her blood is found in a known sexual predators car.

He's brought in for questioning and lawyers up tight as a clam.

 

How about you Heck? Say you care about her.

Here's the waterboard, we're going to lunch.

 

WSS

[Guest mz.]

Telling somebody you feel sorry for them because they aren't very smart? Could you be any more condescending?

 

Too funny. I mean, if I was actually stupid I'd be quite offended.

 

And I'm glad you said it instead of me, 'spec.

[Guest mz.]

Back to reality for a sec: the torture tales are getting ugly.

 

Gitmo general told Iraq WMD search team to torture

 

It’s one thing if, as former Vice President Dick Cheney keeps saying, the United States brutally interrogated people to keep our kids safe from another strike by Osama bin Laden. If folks got tortured to provide a rationale for going to war with Iraq, though, that's a whole different story.

 

Recent news reports have suggested the possibility that the Bush administration might have endorsed torture to prove an Iraq-al Qaida link. And a recent report from the Senate Armed Services Committee shows that months after then-President Bush had declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq, an Army general working hand in glove with top administration officials tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to convince a unit charged with finding weapons of mass destruction to get tough on its prisoners.

 

In August and early September of 2003, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the man in charge of the Pentagon’s torture laboratory at Guantanamo Bay, was dispatched to Iraq, allegedly to Gitmoize operations there.

 

It seems to have worked, at least in one place. Soon after Miller visited with officials in charge of Abu Ghraib, guards there began to use working dogs, stress positions, extremely lengthy interrogations, isolation, yelling and nudity in order to try to wring information from prisoners -- all techniques that had been used at Guantanamo and that the world would later see in photos released from an investigation in to what had gone on at the prison.

 

But according to the Senate committee's report, before Miller met with the Abu Ghraib officials, he first made a little-known visit to the Iraq Survey Group, which was in charge of the hunt for WMDs in Iraq after the invasion.

 

Miller told the ISG they were “running a country club” by not getting tough on detainees, Chief Warrant Officer Brian Searcy, the ISG interrogation chief, told the Senate committee. Searcy said Miller suggested shackling detainees and forcing them to walk on gravel. Mike Kamin, another ISG official, told committee investigators that Miller recommended temperature manipulation and sleep deprivation.

 

Miller also told the ISG’s Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton that Dayton’s unit was “not getting much out of these people,” and complained that the ISG hand not “broken” their detainees psychologically. Miller offered to send along suggested techniques, Dayton recalled, that would “actually break” the prisoners.

 

Dayton demurred, saying his unit wasn’t changing anything and that lawyers would have to carefully vet anything Miller suggested. The ISG generally balked. One of its debriefers threatened to resign if Miller got his way. After the cool reception, Miller appears to have dropped the effort with respect to the ISG.

 

On his return from Iraq, Miller was sent directly to the Pentagon to personally brief then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Steven Cambone.

 

When interviewed by the committee, Miller couldn’t remember much about that visit. But in retrospect, it is pretty clear why the ISG wasn’t “getting much” out of their detainees on WMDs in Iraq: There weren’t any. Though with enough abuse, the detainees probably would have claimed otherwise.

 

via here.