• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gitmo inmate: My treatment shames American flag [W:508,759]

Grant said:
They got the information they sought and that's what counts.
Click to expand...
That's what the CIA tells us, nice to know someone believes them.

"People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf".
Click to expand...
Pretty good quote. Not exactly what Orwell said, but close enough.
I'm amazed that you would conflate sadistic, demented CIA apparatchiks with warriors who put their lives on the line in combat.
How much courage does it take to abuse a shackled prisoner?
I'm doubtful that the putz who came up with the rectal feeding idea was anything but a cretinous weirdo.
I will say that referring to torture as "enhanced interrogation" is truly Orwellian, though.
 
Threegoofs said:
We tortured.
Click to expand...

The United States is a civilized nation and has not authorized the torture of anyone. The U.S. is a signatory to the 1994 Convention Against Torture. After U.S. negotiators had agreed to most of the terms of that treaty and the Senate had ratified those terms, they were codified in sections 2340 and 2340A of the U.S. Code. Those statutes and other U.S. laws make torture a crime. During the months after the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Dept.'s Office of Legal Counsel did extremely thorough studies of the enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that the Defense Dept. had proposed using in special cases. The OLC concluded that all the techniques, which were described in detail and have been published online, were well within all applicable U.S. laws.

We have attacked other nations for little reason and decimated their civilian populations.
Click to expand...

Please be specific. What nations are you claiming the U.S. attacked for little reason? Which nations' civilian populations are you claiming the U.S. has "decimated?"

We are the terrorists, if you stick to the real definition.
Click to expand...

Evidently we are under your personal definition. I don't accept that as valid, and I doubt many other people do, either. It is interesting to see how many people on this thread are eager to run their country down.

And we are in breach of a treaty
Click to expand...

We are? Which treaty are you claiming the U.S. has violated, and what are the specific violations?
 
Grant said:
Those videos were destroyed and largey for the reasons you just described. America's enemies would also like to look at those videos to know who the interrogators were so they could seek revenge on them and, possibly, their families.The CIA really doesn't care whether you agree with the conditions or not. They had more important work to do.


Where is the problem?
Right. And?

I suppose the lesson here is, "Don't murder, or conspire to murder, innocent Americans'.
Click to expand...

Those are descriptions of torture. For those aren't hiding behind self delusion and say they're fine with torturing terrorists, fine. I'm opposed for lots of reasons, but at least that's an honest position. What's chicken crap is pretending that what we did was somehow not torture. If any American was subjected to the totality of the procedures we inflicted on some detainees, not one person would label their treatment as anything other than torture.
 
matchlight said:
The United States is a civilized nation and has not authorized the torture of anyone. The U.S. is a signatory to the 1994 Convention Against Torture. After U.S. negotiators had agreed to most of the terms of that treaty and the Senate had ratified those terms, they were codified in sections 2340 and 2340A of the U.S. Code. Those statutes and other U.S. laws make torture a crime. During the months after the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Dept.'s Office of Legal Counsel did extremely thorough studies of the enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that the Defense Dept. had proposed using in special cases. The OLC concluded that all the techniques, which were described in detail and have been published online, were well within all applicable U.S. laws.
Click to expand...

Of course what actually was done to detainees diverged from the techniques as described.

And I'm glad that if the people doing the procedures decide it's not torture, but just a legitimate interrogation technique that looks like torture and was something we have called torture for a century, that makes it not-torture. I'm quite sure in the reverse situation - techniques on U.S. personnel held by our enemies - we'll be sure to read the legal analyses of those who held our people to determine if what they did was torture under that country's laws, and if that country's lawyers say "no" (it was legal under local law!!) well, it's not "torture"!!
 
upsideguy said:
Your moral flexibility is impressive!
Click to expand...

The difference between us is that I do not rest my arguments based on bedwetting, hand-wringing feelings. You should try it. Knowing what you believe and why does make a difference. When in doubt our default position should be to protect American citizens first, protect the innocent who may be harmed by our actions second, recognize that sometimes bad things happen to bad people so worse things won't happen to American citizens and other innocent people.
 
Misterveritis said:
Interrogations are not torture.

I have been very consistent, as have you. You have been gleefully anti-American from your first post in this thread. I believe that winning trumps politeness. We make them uncomfortable and we keep them uncomfortable to get the information we believe they have.
Click to expand...

Gleefully anti-American?

Why has the US government been so gleefully pro-torture and anti-human? Riddle me that.
 
whysoserious said:
As I said to your cohort (what's it feel like to be affiliated with a guy like j-mac), if you are so sure liberals are ******s, why not go to a rally full of liberals and yell it out? Head to one of those "I can't breath" rallies, wear a sign that says liberals are all ******s, and then report back to me and let me know how it worked out.

It's easy for you to act tough on the Internet, guy. No one is impressed by you.
Click to expand...

A rally full of liberals? Isn't that called a mob or a riot? Where's that liquor store? No justice no drink!
 
JasperL said:
It really does not come down to that. It's a way to justify something, or rationalize it, or to engage in self delusion about what we did, but that's not a dividing line.
Click to expand...
I can see the difference. You cannot. My vision is fine. Your's is clouded by your emotions.
 
Threegoofs said:
We recognize the Geneva Concentions because it's a signed treaty.

We recognize the UN Convention against Torture because it's a signed treaty.

We violated it, though, and that will lead to several Americans not being able to travel freely abroad, because of the chance or arrest and trial. Sorry to break the news to you.
Click to expand...

We can put a stop to that nonsense. Any nation seizing citizens is a hostile country and should be dealt with harshly. We can stop funding the united nations. That bunch of cutthroats, liars perverts and thieves would fall apart. We need to begin defunding every leftist pet project that is not useful to further American causes and make life better for American citizens.
 
JasperL said:
BTW, I also doubt if JoG got to experience this: "On November ,2002,a detainee who had been held partially nude and chained to a concrete floor died from suspected hypothermia at the facility." Or being kept awake for 180 hours, or sleeping in a small box, or on good days a coffin, always in solitary confinement. Etc.
Click to expand...
I think the subject who died fits into the first phase of unpreparedness to take on this large task. I believe one other subject died but I have not been able to confirm it.

No big deal.
 
JasperL said:
What caused the damage was our torture program, and now what's causing more is a near entire right wing defending it.
Click to expand...
This tells me that you are just as much a traitor as Feinstein.


Funny that you're defending the CIA against hacking into the computers of lawmakers, accusing the people they hacked of a crime, lying about it, then doing nothing internally when caught. You are a blind partisan, so don't care when it's the democrats on the receiving end. I'm positive your tune would be different if it was Issa's committee, and DOJ doing the hacking. You should at least pretend to have the slightest bit of impartiality.

As to the lone wolf, we've been targeted by terrorists for over a decade. They don't need any further motivation because all this was known by them, and has been serving as a recruiting tool since about 2003, which is one of the downsides of the torture program. I have no doubt right wingers will blame anything and everything bad on this report, and ignore all the history from 2001 to this point, but that's just because it doesn't have to have any basis - just blame it on democrats and the base will believe it.[/QUOTE]
You will pay a price.
 
Henry David said:
Gleefully anti-American?

Why has the US government been so gleefully pro-torture and anti-human? Riddle me that.
Click to expand...

It is written into our declaration of independence. :) "We hold these thruths to be self evident that all men are scum."
 
Misterveritis said:
I can see the difference. You cannot. My vision is fine. Your's is clouded by your emotions.
Click to expand...

Please explain how in the world whether something is torture or not depends on the "purpose." All that means is, with your definition, if we do it, it's not torture because we have a just "purpose." It's not supported by anything - no law or theory could possibly hinge the decision on something as subjective as its "purpose."

Besides, what's a valid purpose that would excuse any technique - ripping out fingernails, electric shocks to the genitals, breaking bones one at a time, waterboarding - as not-torture? Who makes that determination - the person getting tortured/not-tortured or the government doing the torture/not-torture. You're surely not suggesting the government doing it gets to decide are you, although that's what's happening in the case of the U.S.?
 
Misterveritis said:
This tells me that you are just as much a traitor as Feinstein.
Click to expand...

First of all, without the acts, there would be nothing to reveal. And anyone who thought we could have an extensive rendition and brutal interrogation program going on for years without it being disclosed is criminally stupid.

Second, I guess your definition of 'traitor' is someone who doesn't blindly accepts what his government does, and criticizes it when it does wrong. Of course, what it really means is someone who disagrees with far right wingers on what is a wrongdoing by government.
 
Misterveritis said:
I think the subject who died fits into the first phase of unpreparedness to take on this large task. I believe one other subject died but I have not been able to confirm it.
Click to expand...

Read the report - I don't have to know exactly what JoG went through to be 100% positive his experience was NOTHING like that of the detainees, with regard to waterboarding and all that went with it. At the very least, KSM had 15 sessions, of more than 10 "applications" per session. In some cases 4 'sessions' per day. Towards the end, they used their hands to keep an inch of water suspended above his mouth so it was impossible to breath anything but water. He was ingesting enough water the medical personnel worried about water poisoning and advised that they use saline. One detainee at least went completely unresponsive - passed out from lack of oxygen, aka was drowned and brought back to life.

The brutal interrogation went on for months, in several cases weeks nearly 24/7, and when they weren't being waterboarded, shackled with their hands over their head in a standing position, or stuffed into a small box, or doused with water in a cold room, etc. Months or years entirely in solitary confinement, completely dark, etc. Some officers witnessing the techniques or doing it were brought to tears, because they weren't sociopaths, and they recognize this wasn't just an interrogation, but treating a human being like a rabid dog.

No big deal.
Click to expand...

Ok, I guess if a person dying is 'no big deal' that says a lot. But if you read the report, you'll note that people in charge who had NO idea what the hell they were doing was more the norm than the exception.
 
JasperL said:
Of course what actually was done to detainees diverged from the techniques as described.
Click to expand...

I doubt you know that any of those techniques was ever applied other than in the way approved. And even if one was, that is no more than to say individual persons took actions for which they could be punished--not that the United States made it policy.

and was something we have called torture for a century
Click to expand...

I'm not part of your "we," and neither are many people I've discussed this with. Who has called what actions torture for a century? The enhanced interrogation techniques that were used had not even been proposed until about twelve years ago. And why would it matter what incorrect descriptions of an act someone made? Whether any action the U.S. authorized rose to the level of torture or not is a legal question, just as whether the act of killing a person is justifiable homicide or manslaughter or murder is a legal question. The fact you or anyone else assert that an act is "torture" does not make it that.

I'm quite sure in the reverse situation - techniques on U.S. personnel held by our enemies - we'll be sure to read the legal analyses of those who held our people to determine if what they did was torture under that country's laws, and if that country's lawyers say "no" (it was legal under local law!!) well, it's not "torture"!!
Click to expand...

I think your statements about this would be more convincing if you had at least read and understood the OLC memos analyzing the question whether any of the enhanced interrogation techniques was torture under U.S. law.
 
matchlight said:
The United States is a civilized nation and has not authorized the torture of anyone. The U.S. is a signatory to the 1994 Convention Against Torture. After U.S. negotiators had agreed to most of the terms of that treaty and the Senate had ratified those terms, they were codified in sections 2340 and 2340A of the U.S. Code. Those statutes and other U.S. laws make torture a crime. During the months after the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Dept.'s Office of Legal Counsel did extremely thorough studies of the enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that the Defense Dept. had proposed using in special cases. The OLC concluded that all the techniques, which were described in detail and have been published online, were well within all applicable U.S. laws.
Click to expand...

And we tortured. Its pretty obvious, given the last report and the descriptions of the interrogations that have come out over the years. Yes, some guys came up with a legal rationale, and it will probably be good enough to protect the culprits from getting prosecuted in the US, but just because someone defines torture in a convenient way does not mean its not torture. In fact, the UN disagrees, as does virtually everyone who wasnt involved with this OLC decision.

matchlight said:
Please be specific. What nations are you claiming the U.S. attacked for little reason? Which nations' civilian populations are you claiming the U.S. has "decimated?"

Evidently we are under your personal definition. I don't accept that as valid, and I doubt many other people do, either. It is interesting to see how many people on this thread are eager to run their country down.
Click to expand...

You must be unfamiliar with the Iraq war. You should read up on it sometime.

And its not my personal definition of torture. Its the one the world accepts - the UN has clearly stated that this was torture.

matchlight said:
We are? Which treaty are you claiming the U.S. has violated, and what are the specific violations?
Click to expand...

Funny how you seem not to know this, since its been discussed multiple times, and you refer to it above. It is the UN Convention against torture. Lets revisit what Reagan said when he signed it:

“The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of [this] Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called ‘universal jurisdiction.’ Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution,” – Ronald Reagan’s signing statement on the ratification of the UN Convention on Torture.
Click to expand...

Note that if the US wont track down torturers on its own soil, the UN authorizes any signatory nation to do so when torturers are found in its territory. Thats why a whole lot of people, including GW Bush and Dick Cheney, probably wont be needing passports in the forseeable future.
 
OrphanSlug said:
The point of the report was to give us that black-eye, it was never the point to make suggestions. The report itself was a political stunt with real implications for us internationally. But we are here now, we cannot unring this bell thanks to the idiots on the hill. However, we did all these things. Why does no one want to talk about that?

And you should care what the international community thinks, how we have decided to engage the majority of the planet is what really puts us in danger. The fact that we did these things, and now more know about it in detail is what puts us in danger. It is more than the report, it is our willingness to ignore our own principles of law when running around the planet telling the rest of the world what to do.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard much about Gruber in the past couple of days. I wonder why that is.
 
Mason66 said:
I haven't heard much about Gruber in the past couple of days. I wonder why that is.
Click to expand...
Gruber's presence hangs over the Leftists heads like the Ghost of Christmas present and every post they make can be measured on the Gruber scaled. Some have actually hit a 10.
 
Threegoofs said:
We recognize the Geneva Concentions because it's a signed treaty.

We recognize the UN Convention against Torture because it's a signed treaty.

We violated it, though, and that will lead to several Americans not being able to travel freely abroad, because of the chance or arrest and trial. Sorry to break the news to you.
Click to expand...

Do you think, on the same basis, that Obama will be able to travel freely abroad when he leaves office?
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL. Have you ever left your county? Your view is s bit myopic.

I travel internationally regularly, and I feel safer than traveling in major US cities.

We tortured. We have attacked other nations for little reason and decimated their civilian populations. We are the terrorists, if you stick to the real definition. And we are in breach of a treaty, and people should be punished.
Click to expand...

With those views, I'm surprised, as a man of honour, you haven't renounced your citizenship at this point.
 
Threegoofs said:
And we tortured. Its pretty obvious, given the last report and the descriptions of the interrogations that have come out over the years. Yes, some guys came up with a legal rationale, and it will probably be good enough to protect the culprits from getting prosecuted in the US, but just because someone defines torture in a convenient way does not mean its not torture. In fact, the UN disagrees, as does virtually everyone who wasnt involved with this OLC decision . . . And its not my personal definition of torture. Its the one the world accepts - the UN has clearly stated that this was torture.
Click to expand...

Your assertion that the U.S. engaged in torture does not become any more true by your repeating it. Unless you have read and understood the OLC memos, as I have, your dismissive opinions about their legal conclusions are nothing but prattle. Your assertion that "virtually everyone who wasn't involved" with the OLC memos thinks they "defined torture in a convenient way" is not supported by facts. And I could not care less what "the world" accepts or does not accept. What any foreigner, at the United Nations or anyplace else, thinks about matters of U.S. law national security is not relevant. It is all the less relevant when this country's national security is involved.

You must be unfamiliar with the Iraq war. You should read up on it sometime.
Click to expand...

I don't get my knowledge from reading Mother Jones or watching MSNBC. And the slanderous assertions you made about this country--which you could not back up when I challenged you to--are laughable. Sounds like anti-American propaganda out of an old issue of Soviet Life.

Note that if the US wont track down torturers on its own soil, the UN authorizes any signatory nation to do so when torturers are found in its territory. Thats why a whole lot of people, including GW Bush and Dick Cheney, probably wont be needing passports in the forseeable future.
Click to expand...

Comic book stuff. You again ducked the question by not specifying what particular actions by the United States allegedly violated the UN Convention Against Torture. Once again, you don't have facts to back up your assertion.

I'm sure President Bush and Vice-President Cheney feel completely free to travel to whatever nations they please. No foreign nation that signed that treaty would ever dare try to arrest either of them.
 
CanadaJohn said:
With those views, I'm surprised, as a man of honour, you haven't renounced your citizenship at this point.
Click to expand...

Im surprised that as a Canadian, you think your opinion matters. :confused:

In the real world, what we generally do is work to improve the country, rather than throwing a hissy fit and stomping off.

I think the torture that the US did was awful, shameful and should never be repeated again. And making that clear is the first thing one needs to do - because I would hope this nation will never accept this type of behavior again.
 
matchlight said:
Your assertion that the U.S. engaged in torture does not become any more true by your repeating it. Unless you have read and understood the OLC memos, as I have, your dismissive opinions about their legal conclusions are nothing but prattle. Your assertion that "virtually everyone who wasn't involved" with the OLC memos thinks they "defined torture in a convenient way" is not supported by facts. And I could not care less what "the world" accepts or does not accept. What any foreigner, at the United Nations or anyplace else, thinks about matters of U.S. law national security is not relevant. It is all the less relevant when this country's national security is involved.



I don't get my knowledge from reading Mother Jones or watching MSNBC. And the slanderous assertions you made about this country--which you could not back up when I challenged you to--are laughable. Sounds like anti-American propaganda out of an old issue of Soviet Life.



Comic book stuff. You again ducked the question by not specifying what particular actions by the United States allegedly violated the UN Convention Against Torture. Once again, you don't have facts to back up your assertion.

I'm sure President Bush and Vice-President Cheney feel completely free to travel to whatever nations they please. No foreign nation that signed that treaty would ever dare try to arrest either of them.
Click to expand...

It was torture according to the UN, to the people who were actually carrying it out, to any reasonable observer. Clinging to your technical judicial analysis is sweet, but not too relevant.

The US tortured. Theres a 4000 page report out there describing it. I know you like to pretend it isnt happening, but no one else wants to accept your delusions.

And Cheney and Bush probably dont feel free to travel, much like multiple other CIA agents that have been convicted in other nations already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom