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

JasperL said:

The question is whether what we did was "torture" or just some Orwellian phrase like EIT. Whether it's torture or not has NOTHING to do with whether the person on the receiving end had protections under the Geneva Convention under which we could be PROSECUTED for doing it. It's whether we could torture them without restraint and face no legal consequences.

And of course Cheney, Bush and Obama will not be prosecuted - I haven't suggested they should be, and this discussion isn't about that. If we want to talk legalities, then all we should be citing are various laws, treaties and court cases. Last time I checked, almost no one is doing any of that.

Click to expand...

Because it's already been settled....At least for us. A law was passed, the practice stopped, and we were years past this....Now, for political fodder Feinstein has opened the wound. And you did suggest that Bush, or Cheney, or Both should be prosecuted. But that's beside the point.

The point is Holder had Justice investigate, and prosecuted no one....why?

JasperL said:

So the report and not what it reveals is the issue. Shoot the messenger isn't actually a good defense.

Click to expand...

Yes it is. Feinstein is a traitor, unindicted. Releasing that report has caused enormous damage to the US. This is why we classify things. This is why the report was initially top secret.

But I hope the CIA is neutered, at least to some extent. An agency that is arrogant enough to hack into the computers of Senators, accuse THEM of a crime, lie about what was done, etc. is out of control and if there was any justice, and Obama had any backbone, we'd have seen some extremely senior leaders of the CIA out on their asses, and brought up on charges.

Click to expand...

Don't cry when it is your family murdered by a lone wolf.

JasperL said:

All you're saying is if they were not protected by Convention or law, it was LEGAL to torture them. Whether it's legal doesn't change what was done.

Click to expand...

Harsh interrogation is not torture.

"You really don't understand the difference between wartime intelligence gathering and peacetime criminal justice do you?"

That's not the point - it's either torture or it's not.

Click to expand...

You should have simply admitted that you either don't understand or don't care.

The legality of it doesn't affect that determination in the slightest. I understand the problem, it's obviously torture, so you have to find some way to justify it or distinguish it from what we did. If you want to say it's OK to torture in wartime, but not on domestic prisoners, fine. There are meaningful distinctions there - it's rational to draw that line and it's one that can easily be drawn. What is pathetic is saying that one is torture because it's illegal, but if it's legal it's not-torture.

Click to expand...

I have not made that case at all. You have.
I am not against torture in wartime under the right circumstances. But this situation is not that situation.

"Individual slaves did not. But their offspring did."

JasperL said:

LMAO. An entire people had their rights extinguished, for hundreds of years. It wasn't just individuals.

Click to expand...

Let's see a show of hands. How many black people, descendents of slaves, want a one way ticket back to their roots in Africa?

JasperL said:

You didn't look very hard - I had linked to the PHYSICIAN earlier. Sorry if you didn't keep up.

Click to expand...

You were sloppy in your "quote".

And my entire point was inserting food into the rectum wasn't medicine. If you agree, why demand a quote from a physician?

Click to expand...

You made it appear that you were making a claim that a doctor would make. I was challenging that you were a doctor.

JUG said:

Yes, and that's exactly the same loophole that's being used in this case. You can hold them if they're considered "enemy combatants". Thank you.

Click to expand...

Prisoners of war are held until the war is over. Unlawful enemy combatants are war criminals. They can be executed.

JasperL said:

What's funny is I KNOW without a shred of doubt that if Obama gets his OLC to write a memo legalizing seizing all your guns, it won't matter what the lawyers say. But you want to hang your hat on that same BS rationale in this discussion, when if it was something you opposed you'd care exactly ZERO what Holder's DOJ or an Obama flunky wrote in a memo or got some court to sign off on. You know this, so don't pretend otherwise.

Click to expand...

That would be grounds for a revolution.

This is not. He is welcome to have his cabinet draft a memo saying he can seize of of the ISIS weapons.

Misterveritis said:

Prisoners of war are held until the war is over. Unlawful enemy combatants are war criminals. They can be executed.

Click to expand...

I'm amused that you stick with international law to designate some combatants 'unlawful', but you are happy to ignore the law that the U.S. clearly is in breach of- the UN torture treaty.

You pick and choose, but you do it in such an abjectly worthless manner as to be amusing.

Threegoofs said:

I'm amused that you stick with international law to designate some combatants 'unlawful', but you are happy to ignore the law that the U.S. clearly is in breach of- the UN torture treaty.

You pick and choose, but you do it in such an abjectly worthless manner as to be amusing.

Click to expand...

We are a sovereign nation. We CAN pick and choose. We recognize the Geneva Conventions. Unlawful enemy combatants are war criminals. They are not protected.

Given that in your mind everyone tortures everybody it would appear that the UN torture treaty, whatever that is, is not very effective.

We interrogate to get information. That is not torture.

Misterveritis said:

We are a sovereign nation. We CAN pick and choose. We recognize the Geneva Conventions. Unlawful enemy combatants are war criminals. They are not protected.

Given that in your mind everyone tortures everybody it would appear that the UN torture treaty, whatever that is, is not very effective.

We interrogate to get information. That is not torture.

Click to expand...

In truth, if the CIA did torture terrorists in order to save the lives of innocent people, I could live with it.

Misterveritis said:

We are a sovereign nation. We CAN pick and choose. We recognize the Geneva Conventions. Unlawful enemy combatants are war criminals. They are not protected.

Given that in your mind everyone tortures everybody it would appear that the UN torture treaty, whatever that is, is not very effective.

We interrogate to get information. That is not torture.

Click to expand...

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.

Jack Hays said:

I don't care at all about cops and tasers. And the detainees subjected to EIT had every bit of the safeguards as JoG.

Click to expand...

Yes, the simplest example stumps you.

And I'm not aware that there is video of the treatment of the detainees in those black sites. Over 100 of them. Please point me to those videos so I can verify that the conditions for them were similar to what JoG faced here in America on some U.S. facility, with his friends or colleagues conducting the procedure.

Here's how the CIA described the waterboarding of one detainee: Abu Zubaydah was described as "hysterical" and "distressed to the level that he was unable to effectively communicate."-^ Waterboarding sessions "resulted in immediate fluid intake and involuntary leg, chest and arm spasms" and "hysterical pleas . In at least one waterboarding session, Abu Zubaydah became completely unresponsive,with bubbles rising through his open,full mouth." Accordingto CIA records, Abu Zubaydah remained unresponsive until medical intervention, when he regained
consciousness and expelled "copious amounts of liquid."

And according to the records, this is the overall environment in which the waterboarding happened: "The use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques-
including "walling, attention grasps, slapping, facial hold, stress positions, cramped confinement, white noise and sleep deprivation"—continued in "varying combinations, 24 hours a day" for 17 straight days, through August 20, 2002}^^ When Abu Zubaydah was left alone during this period, he was placed in a stress position, left on the waterboard with a cloth over his face, or locked in one of two confinement boxes. According to the cables,Abu Zubaydah was also subjected to the waterboard "2-4 times a day...with multiple iterations of the watering cycle during each application."'^^

You're telling me anyone who did this voluntarily as a learning exercise faced anything like similar conditions? Give me a break - you don't even believe it.

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.

JasperL said:

And I'm not aware that there is video of the treatment of the detainees in those black sites. Over 100 of them. Please point me to those videos so I can verify that the conditions for them were similar to what JoG faced here in America on some U.S. facility, with his friends or colleagues conducting the procedure.

Click to expand...

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.

Here's how the CIA described the waterboarding of one detainee: Abu Zubaydah was described as "hysterical" and "distressed to the level that he was unable to effectively communicate."-^ Waterboarding sessions "resulted in immediate fluid intake and involuntary leg, chest and arm spasms" and "hysterical pleas . In at least one waterboarding session, Abu Zubaydah became completely unresponsive,with bubbles rising through his open,full mouth." Accordingto CIA records, Abu Zubaydah remained unresponsive until medical intervention, when he regained
consciousness and expelled "copious amounts of liquid."

Click to expand...

Where is the problem?

And according to the records, this is the overall environment in which the waterboarding happened: "The use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques-
including "walling, attention grasps, slapping, facial hold, stress positions, cramped confinement, white noise and sleep deprivation"—continued in "varying combinations, 24 hours a day" for 17 straight days, through August 20, 2002}^^ When Abu Zubaydah was left alone during this period, he was placed in a stress position, left on the waterboard with a cloth over his face, or locked in one of two confinement boxes. According to the cables,Abu Zubaydah was also subjected to the waterboard "2-4 times a day...with multiple iterations of the watering cycle during each application."'^^

Click to expand...

Right. And?

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

j-mac said:

Because it's already been settled....At least for us. A law was passed, the practice stopped, and we were years past this....Now, for political fodder Feinstein has opened the wound. And you did suggest that Bush, or Cheney, or Both should be prosecuted. But that's beside the point.

The point is Holder had Justice investigate, and prosecuted no one....why?

Click to expand...

But we're obviously not 'past this.' We've got an entire political movement defending it, and Cheney is on our TV saying he'd do it all again in a heartbeat. That's the point of the study and the release, so if you all want to defend torture, we'll at least have a better idea of what it means, instead of the sanitized version put out by the liars and propagandists.

First of all, reread my comment - I did NOT suggest that Bush, Cheney OR OBAMA should be prosecuted - here's the quote: "I didn't say laws don't matter. Of course they matter with regard to whether we prosecute and jail Cheney and Bush and the people all up and down the line involved in torture, or Obama for the drone program, etc. But no one is talking about that, or at least I'm not."

And they didn't prosecute anyone probably because it would tear the country in two, and it would require prosecuting the POTUS and VP, who had their minions write the correct legal analyses that justified the program. And Congress was briefed on some unknown elements of the program. I've never argued otherwise.

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...

When was the last time it was safe for Americans to travel abroad? Was it during your lifetime? It is people like yourself, who may not even be American, who make the claim that Americans torture other people when the lawyers at the time clearly said it was not torture. It is Americans at home, of an obvious lean, who most sympathize with American enemies.

Terrorists are getting a pass while those who were protecting America are having to go through the wringer to save those who now attack them. Who would seriously want to have a career in the military or the CIA after the people they work for, and sacrifice for, treat them with such disrespect and thanklessness?

Those like yourself would simply have no idea of how do deal with terrorists or extract information. The world could be exploding while you're the only person in the room nervously fretting about the Geneva Conventions.

Misterveritis said:

Yes it is. Feinstein is a traitor, unindicted. Releasing that report has caused enormous damage to the US. This is why we classify things. This is why the report was initially top secret.

Click to expand...

What caused the damage was our torture program, and now what's causing more is a near entire right wing defending it.

Don't cry when it is your family murdered by a lone wolf.

Click to expand...

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.

Misterveritis said:

"Individual slaves did not. But their offspring did."

Let's see a show of hands. How many black people, descendents of slaves, want a one way ticket back to their roots in Africa?

Click to expand...

I'm not even sure what that means - it's surely a pathetic defense of a couple hundred years of slavery, and another century of blacks being second class citizens in the eyes of the law in the South.

Misterveritis said:

That would be grounds for a revolution.

This is not. He is welcome to have his cabinet draft a memo saying he can seize of of the ISIS weapons.

Click to expand...

Exactly - you'll hide behind the law when it suits you, and disregard the law when it doesn't. As I suggested.....

Misterveritis said:

We interrogate to get information. That is not torture.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting analysis that has appeared nowhere in all of history with regard to the serious determination of what torture is and isn't...

You're rationalizing, and not doing a great job of it.

Grant said:

When was the last time it was safe for Americans to travel abroad? Was it during your lifetime?.

Click to expand...

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.

j-mac said:

Well, I would say that is was interpreted differently. But ok...

Click to expand...

No, I agree that if you fight a war you should fight it to win. If that means dropping incendiaries or nukes on Japanese civilians then so be it. But while I make no apologies for it, there's a limit to my rationalization of it as something other than an obscenity. Suffice it to say Truman did what he thought was necessary to end the war and save lives on both sides. I won't second guess him on that.

But on the topic of this detainee specifically, I want to know why anyone cares what this guy thinks. It might be better if we just let him go so Obama can hit him with a missile and save us the cost of a trial or his continued detention on the taxpayer's dime. Because I, for one, am not buying his story that he headed to Afghanistan looking for work. I mean, here we have one of the poorest countries on the planet with no infrastructure and no jobs other than raising sheep or growing opium poppies and he went there looking for a job? Give me a ****ing break. No one goes to Afghanistan to find a job other than as a jihadist. And I doubt bin Laden just ran into this guy on a street in Kandahar and decided to hire him as a bodyguard. Osama bin Laden was very particular about the people he permitted within his inner circle, including his bodyguards. He denies involvement in terrorism but just happened to end up at Tora Bora with the rest of the al-Qaeda riffraff we captured there? Yeah, right.

What Times op-ed from Gitmo left out | New York Post

Ahlevah said:

No, I agree that if you fight a war you should fight it to win. If that means dropping incendiaries or nukes on Japanese civilians then so be it. But while I make no apologies for it, there's a limit to my rationalization of it as something other than an obscenity. Suffice it to say Truman did what he thought was necessary to end the war and save lives on both sides. I won't second guess him on that.

But on the topic of this detainee specifically, I want to know why anyone cares what this guy thinks. It might be better if we just let him go so Obama can hit him with a missile and save us the cost of a trial or his continued detention on the taxpayer's dime. Because I, for one, am not buying his story that he headed to Afghanistan looking for work. I mean, here we have one of the poorest countries on the planet with no infrastructure and no jobs other than raising sheep or growing opium poppies and he went there looking for a job? Give me a ****ing break. No one goes to Afghanistan to find a job other than as a jihadist. And I doubt bin Laden just ran into this guy on a street in Kandahar and decided to hire him as a bodyguard. Osama bin Laden was very particular about the people he permitted within his inner circle, including his bodyguards. He denies involvement in terrorism but just happened to end up at Tora Bora with the rest of the al-Qaeda riffraff we captured there? Yeah, right.

What Times op-ed from Gitmo left out | New York Post

Click to expand...

No doubt this is based upon your vast experience living in that region as a destitute inhabitant.

Threegoofs said:

No doubt this is based upon your vast experience living in that region as a destitute inhabitant.

Click to expand...

No experience necessary. Just the ability to read and a little common sense.

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...

Certainly Americans are safe in other democracies and I assumed it was needless to mention that. Yes, some American cities are unsafe and often little is being done about it.

But Americans are not the terrorists of the world, despite what you may have learned in school.