Obama's invitation to indict Bush officials

[Parkbandit]

Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret.

Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama's victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.

If this analogy seems excessive, consider how Mr. Obama has framed the issue. He has absolved CIA operatives of any legal jeopardy, no doubt because his intelligence advisers told him how damaging that would be to CIA morale when Mr. Obama needs the agency to protect the country. But he has pointedly invited investigations against Republican legal advisers who offered their best advice at the request of CIA officials.

"Your intelligence indicates that there is currently a level of 'chatter' equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks," wrote Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, in his August 1, 2002 memo. "In light of the information you believe [detainee Abu] Zubaydah has and the high level of threat you believe now exists, you wish to move the interrogations into what you have described as an 'increased pressure phase.'"

So the CIA requests a legal review at a moment of heightened danger, the Justice Department obliges with an exceedingly detailed analysis of the law and interrogation practices -- and, seven years later, Mr. Obama says only the legal advisers who are no longer in government should be investigated. The political convenience of this distinction for Mr. Obama betrays its basic injustice. And by the way, everyone agrees that senior officials, including President Bush, approved these interrogations. Is this President going to put his predecessor in the dock too?

Mr. Obama seemed to understand the peril of such an exercise when he said, before his inauguration, that he wanted to "look forward" and beyond the antiterror debates of the Bush years. As recently as Sunday, Rahm Emanuel said no prosecutions were contemplated and now is not a time for "anger and retribution." Two days later the President disavowed his own chief of staff. Yet nothing had changed except that Mr. Obama's decision last week to release the interrogation memos unleashed a revenge lust on the political left that he refuses to resist.

Just as with the AIG bonuses, he is trying to co-opt his left-wing base by playing to it -- only to encourage it more. Within hours of Mr. Obama's Tuesday comments, Senator Carl Levin piled on with his own accusatory Intelligence Committee report. The demands for a "special counsel" at Justice and a Congressional show trial are louder than ever, and both Europe's left and the U.N. are signaling their desire to file their own charges against former U.S. officials.

Those officials won't be the only ones who suffer if all of this goes forward. Congress will face questions about what the Members knew and when, especially Nancy Pelosi when she was on the House Intelligence Committee in 2002. The Speaker now says she remembers hearing about waterboarding, though not that it would actually be used. Does anyone believe that? Porter Goss, her GOP counterpart at the time, says he knew exactly what he was hearing and that, if anything, Ms. Pelosi worried the CIA wasn't doing enough to stop another attack. By all means, put her under oath.

Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he'll soon learn otherwise. The Beltway's political energy will focus more on the spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame.

Above all, the exercise will only embitter Republicans, including the moderates and national-security hawks Mr. Obama may need in the next four years. As patriotic officials who acted in good faith are indicted, smeared, impeached from judgeships or stripped of their academic tenure, the partisan anger and backlash will grow. And speaking of which, when will the GOP Members of Congress begin to denounce this partisan scapegoating? Senior Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Richard Lugar, John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Pat Roberts and Arlen Specter have hardly been profiles in courage.

Mr. Obama is more popular than his policies, due in part to his personal charm and his seeming goodwill. By indulging his party's desire to criminalize policy advice, he has unleashed furies that will haunt his Presidency.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044375842145565.html

It's a horrible precedent that Obama is now setting.. one that will invite each new administration to prosecute previous administrations because they disagree with what they did.

[Back]

It's a horrible precedent that Obama is now setting.. one that will invite each new administration to prosecute previous administrations because they disagree with what they did.

lol. You sound like Miss California.

[Mtenda]

It's a horrible precedent that Obama is now setting.. one that will invite each new administration to prosecute previous administrations because they disagree with what they did.

It's called accountability for assanine actions. Sounds like a pattern we should have started long ago. If politicians were keeping each other in check maybe they wouldn't suck so bad.

[Methais]

It's called accountability for assanine actions.

Word is that those interrogations provided information that was able to be used to prevent a terrorist attack in Los Angeless that involved a plane being hijacked and flown into a building, and also an attack in London that was prevented.

Cheney has asked for Obama's crew to release all the documents of the interrogations which include the results and information learned, etc. and not just selectively releasing stuff like they are now.

Not surprisingly, Obama's people are refusing.

[Warriorbird]

He's actually angered a bunch of the really really liberal types with the amount he ISN'T going after Bush officials.

My Con Law professor feels 'betrayed.'

[thefarmer]

It's a horrible precedent that Obama is now setting.. one that will invite each new administration to prosecute previous administrations because they disagree with what they did.

Hasn't this happened before?

[Warriorbird]

Heck... some do it during the administration. 50 mil Ken Starr witch hunt later...

[Rocktar]

And the not so long march toward totalitarianism begins. Warned ya. And the saying goes:

"And the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[Warriorbird]

And the not so long march toward totalitarianism begins. Warned ya. And the saying goes:

"And the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

-Rocktinfoil

Riight. I actually believe in democracy myself. Jon Stewart summed it up best.


I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing. And I feel for you, because I've been there. A few times. In fact, one of them was a bit of a nail-biter. But see, when the guy that you disagree with gets elected, he's probably going to do things you disagree with. He could cut taxes on the wealthy, remove government's oversight capability, invade a country that you thought should not be invaded, but that's not tyranny. That's democracy. See, now you're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like a shit taco.

[Mabus]

No, no! The investigations into the president's sex life are far more important than, say, the potential fabrication of the case for war against Iraq,
Biden and Clinton voted to allow it. Most media pumped it up and were for it.

I was against the Iraq War.

torturing of captives
This is illegal, as it violates a ratified Treaty.

If they prosecute I hope they include all the informed members of Congress in the prosecution as well.

or the warrantless wiretapping of its citizens!
Obama voted to give retroactive immunity to the companies involved.

Nasty things, those facts.

Don't you know partisan politics when you see them?
As a member of neither major political party, I do.

[Daniel]

Holding people accountable for their actions through due process is a bad thing?

If this turns into a witch hunt I agree with you.

If this turns into an opportunity for people to account for the things they did, that others without the knowledge and perspective to appreciate are judging, then I don't agree with you.

Stating this is the march to a totalitarian regime...well that's just stupid.

[Parkbandit]

Holding people accountable for their actions through due process is a bad thing?

If this turns into a witch hunt I agree with you.

If this turns into an opportunity for people to account for the things they did, that others without the knowledge and perspective to appreciate are judging, then I don't agree with you.

Stating this is the march to a totalitarian regime...well that's just stupid.

Let's be honest.. most of the extreme liberals in this country won't be happy until George W and Cheney are hung. That's simply not going to happen and Obama knows it. He's not going after Bush or Cheney, he's going after the lawyers that wrote the opinions regarding waterboarding. He's trying to appease his base, but by doing so is setting a horrible precedent that will eventually pit outgoing administrations against incoming administrations.

[Daniel]

Let's be honest.. most of the extreme liberals in this country won't be happy until George W and Cheney are hung. That's simply not going to happen and Obama knows it. He's not going after Bush or Cheney, he's going after the lawyers that wrote the opinions regarding waterboarding. He's trying to appease his base, but by doing so is setting a horrible precedent that will eventually pit outgoing administrations against incoming administrations.

I'd like to think we would be trying to demonstrate some type of accountability for ourselves. You're right but the last part remains to be seen. We'll see how it goes.

[thefarmer]

He's trying to appease his base, but by doing so is setting a horrible precedent that will eventually pit outgoing administrations against incoming administrations.


Hasn't this happened before?

?

[ClydeR]

Word is that those interrogations provided information that was able to be used to prevent a terrorist attack in Los Angeless that involved a plane being hijacked and flown into a building, and also an attack in London that was prevented.

That's one of the best things anybody has written in this whole thread. I know what will happen now. One of the many extreme liberals who inhabit this board will surely pop in here to counter it with some silly claim about "timelines." Well, I'm going to head that off in advance, because a preemptive offense is the best defense.

A lot of liberals are cherry picking (http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/) the newly released reports from the Senate and White House. They say prior statements by President Bush and members of the Bush Administration were that Bush stopped the Los Angeles terrorist plan in 2002. But we didn't capture KSM until 2003. They put those two facts together and conclude that torturing KSM in 2003 could not possibly have revealed information that allowed us to stop the terrorist attack in 2002. As you have probably concluded on your own, those liberal critics lack imagination. Just because we thwarted a terrorist plan to fly airplanes into the Library Tower in 2002 doesn't mean there wasn't another plan to fly airplanes into the Library Tower in 2003. What probably happened is that Bush stopped the same terrorist plan twice.

I haven't heard anything about London, but I know Methais has a reliable source so I believe him.

[Daniel]

lol

[Mtenda]

:p

fucking genius

[Parkbandit]

?

Obviously you believe it has.. so feel free to present your argument.

I would say no, at least not to the degree that is being talked about now.

[Latrinsorm]

And the not so long march toward totalitarianism begins.Somehow I think that your definition of "totalitarianism", like your definitions of "socialism" or "communism", differs greatly from the word's actual definition.

[thefarmer]

Obviously you believe it has.. so feel free to present your argument.

I would say no, at least not to the degree that is being talked about now.

The second part answered my question easily enough, thanks.

[Parkbandit]

The second part answered my question easily enough, thanks.

I'm always here to help those who can't help themselves. You are most welcome.

[Valthissa]

I almost responded to a post by ClydeR.

I need to reconsider the time I spend on the internet.

C/Valth

[Rocktar]

No, no! The investigations into the president's sex life are far more important than, say, the potential fabrication of the case for war against Iraq, torturing of captives or the warrantless wiretapping of its citizens! Don't you know partisan politics when you see them?

Nope, the investigations into him lyng to a Federal grand jury are. That is a crime that will get you and me something like 2-10 in the federal big house. He got a slap on the wrist and censure.

As too the Iraq war, let's review the facts, shall we?

First, after the end of operation Desert Storm, Iraw said they had X amount of chemical and biological weapons. They said it, not us, not the UN, not that fucknut Hans Blix, IRAQ's own people in charge. Now, after a couple years jerking off Hans Blix and so on, we only find Y amount of the weapons which is much less than the X amount THEY said they had. Such things don't suddenly disappear like magic, so, it follows that we ask "where did they go?"

This is UN resolution violation number one.

Then, they use chemical weapons against the Kurds to suppress the revolution that Bush Sr agitated for and that we said we would support, but, when push came to shove and the people rose up, Clinton abandonded. USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS against their own people. This is not a "we think so" this is proven and the UN agreed and said so as well as Clinton administration officials.

Violation number 2.

The UN establishes the "No fly zone" to try and protect the Kurds and the Shiites I believe (could be the Sunni I am unsure, but they are the factions involved) without actually having to grow a spine and do much of anything. They are the Muslims in the south of Iraq who have different views than the ruling party and the religious faction that they mostly belong to. All along, by Clinton's own admission, they take pot shots at Coalition aircraft with guns and missiles.

Violation number 3.

Now, because the trade sanctions are working against Iraq and the people are suffering, in the UN’s magnanimous stupidity, they allow the formation of the “Oil for Food” program. This is corrupted by Saddam Hussein, hidden by Kofi Annan and is mostly a joke. Oil is sold on the international market, some of the proceeds are used to buy food and this placate the general population and so they settle down and don’t revolt against Hussein, some of it is used to buy parts and supplies of weapons grade materials used to build machinery to purify uranium and something like a billion dollars of cash is funneled off into Kofi and his son’s pockets. All of which has no oversight, no investigation and no disclosure of records. Welcome to the UN’s mush headed corruption in action.

Violation number 4.

New administration comes in and simply pushes the UN to enforce the rules that they themselves put into place. Whine all you want, the UN set the limits and the rules and the consequences. All the US did was to have an administration that wanted them to pack up what they said.

As to the prosecution of lawyers for giving opinions, well, this is a much more far reaching problem than just the idea that a new administration can prosecute the outgoing one for differences in ideology and political position. I can see this being used to prosecute or sue a lawyer for supporting a client that looses a court case. For example, a lawyer says “hey, we could sue and see if we can get anything for your accident” then loose due to whatever and then the other side of the lawsuit could sue for damages because of the poor legal advice given. In most cases, failed lawsuits already incur the costs of defense against them; this would take it a huge step farther. This is a very dangerous precedent. In addition, this could also extend to suing or prosecuting any authority that publicly announces an opinion that is later overturned, disagreed with or found to be in error.

At best, the lawyers in question should be guilty of poor legal interpretation.

As to the treaty avoiding torture and so on, I think we should withdraw. The people that we fight world wide have no compunction against decapitating our people on video and posting it on the internet, they have no reservation against physical, mental and sexual torture of our people they capture, why should we? In this war of ideology and that is what it is to them, regardless of what you and I may wish, trying to “rise above them” will simply get us dead in the end. They are in it to destroy western society, ideology and religion, we need to pull the wool out from over our eyes, recognize this and be as willing to defend it with any means necessary just as they are to destroy it with any means necessary.

[Gan]

There is a call for the list of congressmen/women who were brief and agreed to said interrogation techniques when they were used at the time.

I hope these folks are also held as accountable as everyone else is.

Overall, by giving the justice department the goahed to investigate this is fine. Thats what that institution is for. However, if legal advisors are prosecuted for giving advice that was legal at the time but now is not, especially at the white house level, then the precedence that will set will be negatively far reaching, especially for future administrations.

I've read article after article describing how this move could cripple Obama before he even has a chance to push through what he has a chance of pushing through in Congress. This will create divisiveness on a scale that will completely overshadow the divisiveness of the Bush administration.

Pandora's box has just been brought out of the closet. Lets see if it will be opened, if it has not been already.

[Drew]

Charge Bush. If we're going to charge his lawyers you have to charge the man in... charge.

[Ignot]

The people that we fight world wide have no compunction against decapitating our people on video and posting it on the internet, they have no reservation against physical, mental and sexual torture of our people they capture, why should we?

Resorting to this type of behavior brings us down to their level, it makes us just as bad as them. I would hope that we are a nation that has better values and morals then this.

[Gan]

We should just hug our captives until they tell us what we want to hear...

[Ignot]

I think there is a big difference between decapitating someone on live video and an interrogation.

[Deathravin]

I think there is a big difference between decapitating someone on live video and an interrogation.

Jules: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa... stop right there. Eatin' a bitch out, and givin' a bitch a foot massage ain't even the same fuckin' thing.

Vincent: It's not. It's the same ballpark.

Jules: Ain't no fuckin' ballpark neither. Now look, maybe your method of massage differs from mine, but, you know, touchin' his wife's feet, and stickin' your tongue in her Holiest of Holies, ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport. Look, foot massages don't mean shit.

[Methais]

Resorting to this type of behavior brings us down to their level, it makes us just as bad as them. I would hope that we are a nation that has better values and morals then this.


I think there is a big difference between decapitating someone on live video and an interrogation.

Pretty sure he's not saying to decapitate them and rape them with a cactus while sandpapering their balls off. He's saying they'd do shit like that to us without a second thought, so why should we not do whatever is necessary to get information out of them that can prevent more terrorist attacks?

[Warriorbird]

Right, right. Because it's totally valuable to torture people.

This is a Special Forces Officer schooling O'Reilly on torture. The link is from Kos because O'Reilly curiously enough dropped his link due to getting owned.

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001217/

[Ravenstorm]

I'm all in favor of charging people with war crimes from the top on down. Reading the memos makes it pretty clear that there were clearly war crimes committed and that official policy sanctioned t hem and tried to justify them legally through the most weasely, circular logic possible that most likely violates all legal standards.

That being said, this is not and should not be a left/right issue. Many on the 'right' have condemned what was done. And as Gan noted, several on the left were aware of it and agreed to it. They are just as guilty. War crimes are not acceptable for any country to engage in and that includes the US. Period.

[Keller]

Nope, the investigations into him lyng to a Federal grand jury are. That is a crime that will get you and me something like 2-10 in the federal big house. He got a slap on the wrist and censure.

It was because he was nice and good-looking.

[ElanthianSiren]

That being said, this is not and should not be a left/right issue. Many on the 'right' have condemned what was done. And as Gan noted, several on the left were aware of it and agreed to it. They are just as guilty. War crimes are not acceptable for any country to engage in and that includes the US. Period.

This.

[Parkbandit]

Charge Bush. If we're going to charge his lawyers you have to charge the man in... charge.

I agree. If we are going after the lawyers and advisers who said it didn't violate any laws, then we also must go after the politicians that voted to do it and all the politicians that actually signed for the "work" to be done. Hopefully, anyone who went along with it will also be paraded around.

[Parkbandit]

I'm all in favor of charging people with war crimes from the top on down. Reading the memos makes it pretty clear that there were clearly war crimes committed and that official policy sanctioned t hem and tried to justify them legally through the most weasely, circular logic possible that most likely violates all legal standards.

That being said, this is not and should not be a left/right issue. Many on the 'right' have condemned what was done. And as Gan noted, several on the left were aware of it and agreed to it. They are just as guilty. War crimes are not acceptable for any country to engage in and that includes the US. Period.


:rofl: at the use of "war crimes" when discussing water boarding.

Hyperbole much?

[Keller]

As to the prosecution of lawyers for giving opinions, well, this is a much more far reaching problem than just the idea that a new administration can prosecute the outgoing one for differences in ideology and political position. I can see this being used to prosecute or sue a lawyer for supporting a client that looses a court case. For example, a lawyer says “hey, we could sue and see if we can get anything for your accident” then loose due to whatever and then the other side of the lawsuit could sue for damages because of the poor legal advice given. In most cases, failed lawsuits already incur the costs of defense against them; this would take it a huge step farther. This is a very dangerous precedent. In addition, this could also extend to suing or prosecuting any authority that publicly announces an opinion that is later overturned, disagreed with or found to be in error.

The magnitude of your ignorance, multiplied by your propensity to claim authoritative knowledge, is hilarious.

1) Costs are rarely given; let alone given in "most cases".
2) Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure codifies some of the sanctions placed against Lawyers-Behaving-Badly. There are also companion criminal statutes. You better believe that if I give clearly inaccurate legal advice that I will face sanctions from the California Bar in addition to a suit from my client.
3) Lawyers are not "authorities". We give opinions. I've contributed to many opinions. We reach independent legal conclusions that our clients rely on. If we give them a bad opinion, you had better believe no court or administrative agency will give them a break because they can waive our opinion around. A lawyer's opinion is only as good as the lawyer. It seems, in this case, that the lawyers who wrote this opinion were either 1) bad or 2) influenced to write an erroneous opinion.


At best, the lawyers in question should be guilty of poor legal interpretation.

I think you mean at worst, but I agree with your current wording. That is the best they could hope for. Otherwise it would be a fraudulent opinion or some sort of undue influence on the part of the administration.


As to the treaty avoiding torture and so on, I think we should withdraw. The people that we fight world wide have no compunction against decapitating our people on video and posting it on the internet, they have no reservation against physical, mental and sexual torture of our people they capture, why should we? In this war of ideology and that is what it is to them, regardless of what you and I may wish, trying to “rise above them” will simply get us dead in the end. They are in it to destroy western society, ideology and religion, we need to pull the wool out from over our eyes, recognize this and be as willing to defend it with any means necessary just as they are to destroy it with any means necessary.

Why should we? Because we claim to be the leaders of the FREE world. Because we blazed the path from dictatorships to democracy. Because we believe in the rule of LAW and not the rule of men.

PS: Maybe I just don't know proper English, but I think you pull wool OFF from over your eyes, not out. Unless you have some sort of weird occular cavern while all other humans have eyeballs.

[Ravenstorm]

:rofl: at the use of "war crimes" when discussing water boarding.

Hyperbole much?

Torture is a war crime. And the US considered waterboarding torture until some people decided to inflict it on prisoners. Rationalization much?

[Sean of the Thread]

Terrorist equal prisoner of war?

[Parkbandit]

Torture is a war crime. And the US considered waterboarding torture until some people decided to inflict it on prisoners. Rationalization much?

Define the term "War Crime" and you will have all the rationalization you can handle.

[Keller]

Define the term "War Crime" and you will have all the rationalization you can handle.

Ipso facto, I assume it is a crime committed as part of a war.

[Deathravin]

Terrorist equal prisoner of war?

They decided to call it the war on terror. war = POWs.

[TheRunt]

Terrorist equal prisoner of war?

Not according to Eric Holder

'One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122731301791449521.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

[Warriorbird]

And yet these are the people Republicans are complaining about.

[ClydeR]

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.

That's right. They were all Arabs.

And they all were suspected of being terrorists or having knowledge about terrorist plans.

[ClydeR]

Define the term "War Crime" and you will have all the rationalization you can handle.

Wikipedia to the rescue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

(I've been spending a lot of time editing the Wikipedia website lately, which is why I haven't posted here as much. I change something to make it more balanced, and other people keep changing it back! It's a never ending struggle.)

[Stanley Burrell]

I think there is a big difference between decapitating someone on live video and an interrogation.

Never start with the head, the victim gets all fuzzy.

[Parkbandit]

(I've been spending a lot of time editing the Wikipedia website lately, which is why I haven't posted here as much. I change something to make it more balanced, and other people keep changing it back! It's a never ending struggle.)

You should stick to that site imo... wakopedia NEEDS YOU!!!

[Apotheosis]

..waste of time & money, political distraction from other things going on, democratic payback for Clinton, dangerous to our national security, and bad precedent to set for future administrations... will cause problems for executive branch in the future, which may be a good thing..

the most anyone will see from this is a slap on the wrist or a "won't do next time".


If anything, investigate how the house, senate, all those committees, AND the executive branch came to the MUTUAL decision to move forward with ANYTHING that had questionable ethics.

..not a snowball's chance in hell.


/my opinion based on a weeks worth of news from various sources.

[Rocktar]

The magnitude of your ignorance, multiplied by your propensity to claim authoritative knowledge, is hilarious.

The problem is Keller, that I didn't claim any great authority here, so you are transferring your own insecurities onto me. I simply postulated a path of action, as valid as any other hypothesis.


1) Costs are rarely given; let alone given in "most cases".

In which case, good, because that is at most what is deserved. Not the ability to criminally prosecute for a difference in opinion, which is being sought in this case.


2) Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure codifies some of the sanctions placed against Lawyers-Behaving-Badly. There are also companion criminal statutes. You better believe that if I give clearly inaccurate legal advice that I will face sanctions from the California Bar in addition to a suit from my client.

And there you have the crux of the matter. Clearly inaccurate advice vs. an opinion of the interpretation of the law is the problem and the this case where the disagreement comes from. To the best of my knowledge, there is no clear legal precedent or there would not be this debate. Until a precedent is set, there isn’t a legal fact, only an opinion and you should know what they say about opinions.



3) Lawyers are not "authorities". We give opinions. I've contributed to many opinions. We reach independent legal conclusions that our clients rely on. If we give them a bad opinion, you had better believe no court or administrative agency will give them a break because they can waive our opinion around. A lawyer's opinion is only as good as the lawyer. It seems, in this case, that the lawyers who wrote this opinion were either 1) bad or 2) influenced to write an erroneous opinion.

Well, that explains a lot, you are a lawyer. I agree that the client has no protection from using bad advice. The problem is still here that the clients have been absolved and the only reason the lawyers are being sought is because Obama wants to appease his voters. The lawyers issued opinions, since there isn’t a precedent, they can’t issue a clear statement of fact and are now going to be ruined all because they disagree legally with Obama and his people and for no other reason than the political buying of votes.



I think you mean at worst, but I agree with your current wording. That is the best they could hope for. Otherwise it would be a fraudulent opinion or some sort of undue influence on the part of the administration.

Actually, could go both ways, but your assessment is likely true, they will be ruined and thrown under the Obama political bus to pay off a political debt. And in the process we will begin the march onward to totalitarianism.


Why should we? Because we claim to be the leaders of the FREE world. Because we blazed the path from dictatorships to democracy. Because we believe in the rule of LAW and not the rule of men.

Ok, let me get this straight, just so I know your position. You feel we should limit ourselves to being gentlemen on the field of honor in a dual with an enemy that is going to slit our throat in the middle of the night before the dual is scheduled? In the most polite and civilized societies, self defense has always been a fair reason for action. This is clearly a case of self defense and we should be prepared to allow for that in the case of facing and defeating this enemy. Hell, if Clinton wasn’t such a spineless appeaser of international opinion, we would have never known all this and the world would be clearly different because Osama and Al-Qaida would all have been dead long ago.

I even know some people that have been working on killing them off for over 10 years before the September, 11th attacks. The threat they have posed has been known and identified for a long time, our inaction is our own undoing. I don’t want our sense of the moral high ground to add to that handicap. In the end, to fight killers, you become a killer and based on what we did in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and all kinds of other conflicts, we are the best the world has ever seen at it. They have declared a Jihad against us, we are the best and most dangerous population to ever rise to Jihad and we should show them that. They will show us no mercy and we should not, in weakness, offer them the chance to take advantage of our sense of moral superiority. In the end, dead is dead and between us and them I damn sure want it to be them and I don’t care much what must happen to them make that so.


PS: Maybe I just don't know proper English, but I think you pull wool OFF from over your eyes, not out. Unless you have some sort of weird occular cavern while all other humans have eyeballs.

Nah, it is a Southern saying that I picked up in my child hood.

[Methais]

I sure hope none of you people sympathizing with these terrorist "POWs" come here and QQ next time they attack us and kill another 4728340 people, because that's exactly what you're asking for.

I'm sure you'll be the ones acting the most shocked and outraged though, just before blaming it on Bush.

[Gan]

Pelosi briefed on waterboarding in '02 [UPDATED]


Nancy Pelosi denies knowing U.S. officials used waterboarding — but GOP operatives are pointing to a 2007 Washington Post story which describes an hour-long 2002 briefing in which Pelosi was told about enhanced interrogation techniques in graphic detail.
Two unnamed officials told the paper that Pelosi, then a member of the Democratic minority, didn't raise substantial objections.


Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen wrote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664_pf.html):
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.


Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

UPDATE: A Pelosi spokesman passes along her response to the article when it first appeared, claiming that Pelosi's successor on the intel committee -- Yep, Jane Harman -- lodged a protest with the CIA when she learned waterboarding was in use.
"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.


I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred."

Lower down in the article, the authors and their sources acknowledge Pelosi & Co. were severely constrained in what they could do with the information — and had no way of knowing how the techniques would ultimately used or abused in a pre-Abu Gharaib era.
Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.


"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'"


http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_briefed_on_waterboarding_in_02_.html


_________________________________________________
Hope you know a good defense attorney Nancy.




:lol:

[Methais]

The best part is that despite Obama now saying he doesn't want an investigation done (again), Pelosi is still pushing for them to do it.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=4578049&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/

[Warriorbird]

I sure hope none of you people sympathizing with these terrorist "POWs" come here and QQ next time they attack us and kill another 4728340 people, because that's exactly what you're asking for.

I'm sure you'll be the ones acting the most shocked and outraged though, just before blaming it on Bush.

This is almost a Godwin equivalent. We've never needed torture before in American history. Just because 24 makes you feel like we can 'do something' doesn't make it right or necessary.

Your response is 'why do you hate America?'

[Parkbandit]

Hope you know a good defense attorney Nancy.


They will either bury this in committee or find a defense for Nancy. If they can get Bush, they will.. but not at the expense of dragging poor, poor Nancy in front of a committee.

[Gan]

We've never needed torture before in American history.
What makes you think that America has never 'tortured' war criminals, POW's, or other enemy combatants before? How well did we know what our government did before it became so 'transparent' as it is today? How well did we know what other 'civilized' governments did back before this great age of communication?

Everyone acting like Bush invented 'torture' is fucking hillarious.

[Warriorbird]

Funny. I'm hearing a whole lot of rationalization with nothing in the way of facts in that post. Sounds like you're getting off on the idea of torture.

They waterboarded Khaled Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March of 2003. I'm sure it was totally beneficial and got us useful information.

[Androidpk]

I'm sure they did get a lot of information out of him, but how accurate is it all?

[Warriorbird]

Tortured people will say almost anything to get it to stop.

[Mabus]

FDR and Lincoln should also be brought up on charges of being war criminals.

Let history be cleansed before the Chosen One! (or at least for his rabid supporters)
;)

[Warriorbird]

So... you get off on the torture porn too. Rationalize on!

We killed the Japanese who waterboarded Americans in WW2.

[Mabus]

So... you get off on the torture porn too. Rationalize on!

Me?

I have said that I believe water-boarding to be torture. I have also said that it is illegal under our treaties.

They should all be prosecuted. Everyone involved.

But why stop there?

FDR interred US citizens and allowed atrocities against civilian populations.

Lincoln suspended Habeas corpus, allowed sacking and pillaging of civilian areas and allowed the deaths of thousands of POW's in camps.

Hell, let's get Wilson for the Sedition Act.

Then we can go after Truman for the atomic bombs used on Japan.

We can go after Clinton for the missile strikes on the Sudan.

The list can go on and on.

Purge our souls!

[Warriorbird]

For my own part I don't think we need to be prosecuting members of our government agencies, the military, and Dick Cheney.

The people who go on and on about how great it is and how justified it is make me wonder whether I should stick to that position though.

[Parkbandit]

So... you get off on the torture porn too. Rationalize on!

We killed the Japanese who waterboarded Americans in WW2.

:rofl:

You believe that the harshest torture the Japanese did in WW2 was waterboarding?

Pick up a fucking book for crying out loud.

[Parkbandit]

For my own part I don't think we need to be prosecuting members of our government agencies, the military, and Dick Cheney.

The people who go on and on about how great it is and how justified it is make me wonder whether I should stick to that position though.

I've always held the belief that if we have credible evidence that a criminal can divulge information leading to the safety of Americans.. then waterboard away. Seems like in this case, a few terrorist attacks were foiled because one guy felt like he might be drowning.

Boo fucking hoo.

If you don't involve yourself in criminal activities targeting civilians, you won't have to worry about getting waterboarded.

Are you trying to say that if we had one of the masterminds of 9-11 in our custody and we knew he knew about the plans, that we shouldn't waterboard that information out of him?

Shit.. I'll turn on the fucking faucet.

[Warriorbird]

First off... I didn't say that waterboarding was the harshest thing the Japanese did. That was you trying to dodge the bit where I pointed out that we killed the people who waterboarded Americans.

Second, we had KSM and we waterboarded him and it lead to people running around the desert on various wild goose chases. The administration was being diplomatic and not pursuing things further (which I respect) but with the release of documents that suggest at one point something reminiscent of 1984 some people who don't wack off to 24 (or use it as a philosophical framework) have naturally started a hue and cry of sorts.

Torture doesn't produce effective intelligence. Both the military and the CIA have published works on this. Eventually people will just try to say whatever they think you want to hear. After being waterboarded 183 times in March of 2003 I'm sure KSM would've said his real name was Barbara Bush.

[Goretawn]

They are not prisoners of war according to the Geneva Convention.

In principle, to be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured soldier must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireur (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Franc:tireur.htm)s, terrorist (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Terrorist.htm)s and spies (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Spies.htm) may be excluded. In practise these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly, yet are typically granted POW status if captured.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Prisoner: of:war.htm

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia) and members of other volunteer corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_volunteer), including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I));
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detaining_Power).
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation), who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

[Warriorbird]

Difficult to resolve from that alone. We naturally consider them terrorists but they refer to themselves as freedom fighters.

[Goretawn]

How is it difficult to resolve?

1. They are not members of an Armed Forces.
2. They are not commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
3. They do not have a distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
4. They do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
5. They are not members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detaining_Power).
6. They are not civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
7. They are not merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
8. They are not inhabitants of a non-occupied territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation), who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

They are terrorists, plain and simple.

Do I believe we should torture them, no. Do I believe that we should interogate them and "bleed them dry" of as much information as we can, hell yes.

Now, mark my words, we will pull out in 2011 unless Iraq asks us to stay in key areas. We will leave very few forces in place to assist training. The mass genocide will come again and we will have to go back in by 2016. My prediction.

[Warriorbird]

Mass genocide? Or merely Iraq going 'Fuck you, America. We never liked you. Now that you've given us Shiites control of the country we're going to go join Iran.'

We'll see.

...if they're not prisoners of war... they fall under unlawful combatants, according to article 5 of the Geneva Convetion, however. That'd mean they get to be tried as civilians. I'm not sure we want that either.

[Goretawn]

I would call the mass graves and use of chemical weapons on the Kurds an attempt at genocide, yes. I believe it will get very ugly within 2 months of us pulling out.

If they are tried as civilians, it will probably be done in Iraq. Iraq's back log is so horrible that it will take years to do so.

[Warriorbird]

If we hold them... we should theoretically try 'unlawful combatants' as civilians ourselves if we were following the Convention (which we aren't.) The Supreme Court held similar.

I don't think the Sunni will be able to retake the country. That doesn't mean that our happy go-lucky planned democracy will work out how it was envisioned however.

[Goretawn]

I agree about the Sunni not being able to retake the country. I think you will see a huge increase in violence upon the Sunni by the Shiite. Perhaps after they (try to) move against the Kurds (which would be a mistake). There will be a huge increase in political figures being assassinated, followed by the police, followed by the heads of the military, followed by.....

Again, it is my opinion. I truely hope I am wrong, but "Hope for the best. Plan for the worst."

[Parkbandit]

First off... I didn't say that waterboarding was the harshest thing the Japanese did. That was you trying to dodge the bit where I pointed out that we killed the people who waterboarded Americans.

Second, we had KSM and we waterboarded him and it lead to people running around the desert on various wild goose chases. The administration was being diplomatic and not pursuing things further (which I respect) but with the release of documents that suggest at one point something reminiscent of 1984 some people who don't wack off to 24 (or use it as a philosophical framework) have naturally started a hue and cry of sorts.

Torture doesn't produce effective intelligence. Both the military and the CIA have published works on this. Eventually people will just try to say whatever they think you want to hear. After being waterboarded 183 times in March of 2003 I'm sure KSM would've said his real name was Barbara Bush.

KSM had credible information regarding other terrorist activities that we foiled. Looks like Waterboarding worked like a charm. KSM gave us TONS of information regarding the workings of Al Quaeda. Looks like waterboarding worked like a charm.

So I guess "Torture doesn't produce effective intelligence" is a tad bit off, isn't it?

[Parkbandit]

Difficult to resolve from that alone. We naturally consider them terrorists but they refer to themselves as freedom fighters.

Not difficult at all to resolve, since the definition of what a prisoner of war is spelled out in detail.

[Warriorbird]

I think they're better treated to military courts than civilian courts. That necessitates them being POWs.

[Drew]

First off... I didn't say that waterboarding was the harshest thing the Japanese did. That was you trying to dodge the bit where I pointed out that we killed the people who waterboarded Americans.



But you're trying to dodge the point that we executed the Japanese who talked to our POWs. We straight up killed them. Any of the CIA operatives who talked to our captives are just as bad as the Japanese because we executed the Japanese who talked to our POWs.

[Tea & Strumpets]

But you're trying to dodge the point that we executed the Japanese who talked to our POWs. We straight up killed them. Any of the CIA operatives who talked to our captives are just as bad as the Japanese because we executed the Japanese who talked to our POWs.

I know from the Rambo movies that the Japanese put bamboo chutes under people's fingernails, so your analogy isn't a great one.

[Goretawn]

The American Soldiers were POWs and should have been afforded the rights granted to them under the Geneva Convention.

The "unlawful combatants" are not POWs, therefor are not afforder the rights granted by the Geneva Convention.

Again, I am not condoning torture. I am just stating fact.

The Japanese that actually tortured and unlawfully execute American prisoners are subject to punishement under the Geneva Convention.

POWs are only required to give their name, rank and serial number (SSN for U.S. Troops today). They are not to be interrogated.

There is no such restrictions on "unlawful combatants". (By restrictions, I do not mean they can be tortured. I mean they can be interrogated.)

Time for me to go home. I have enjoyed our discussion, Warriorbird, and the avatar brings back memories.

[Goretawn]

I know from the Rambo movies that the Japanese put bamboo chutes under people's fingernails, so your analogy isn't a great one.

Ummm, please tell me that was a joke. (Sorry, a bit too tired to grasp humor right now.) If not, wrong war/conflict. It was the Vietnamese that used bamboo under the fingernails. I am not sure if the Japanese did also.

[Goretawn]

Now I am really going home. Be well everyone.

[Gan]

I'm sure they did get a lot of information out of him, but how accurate is it all?

And I'm sure that all the info they received has been made public too...

[Gan]

We should go after JFK for trying to kill Castro. Oh wait, he's already dead, and a fucking hero for some reason!!11one

:facepalm:

[Warriorbird]

The "unlawful combatants" are not POWs, therefor are not afforder the rights granted by the Geneva Convention.

No. The Geneva Convention has a specific section for them. We just don't want to follow it because it says we should put them in the civilian court system.

[Warriorbird]

But you're trying to dodge the point that we executed the Japanese who talked to our POWs. We straight up killed them. Any of the CIA operatives who talked to our captives are just as bad as the Japanese because we executed the Japanese who talked to our POWs.

Not really. I don't think an investigation into all of this would be fruitful. I'm awful sick of the 'torture is great and totally moral!' crowd however.

[Methais]

This is almost a Godwin equivalent. We've never needed torture before in American history. Just because 24 makes you feel like we can 'do something' doesn't make it right or necessary.

Your response is 'why do you hate America?'

We've never had a terrorist problem to this magnitude either.

Your constant comparisons to 24 are also retarded. I'd be saying the same thing even if that show never existed. It's nothing more than a convenient way for you to dismiss the opinions of people that believe the safety of American lives comes before playing patty cake with terrorist captives. But since you think letting a bunch of Americans get blown up by terrorists because you don't wanna inconvenience a captive that has information about it and won't give up the information any other way, then I feel sorry for you. I'm sure your tune would change in a heartbeat if your mother was killed in one of those attacks though, or had her head sawed off on the internet.


I'm sure it was totally beneficial and got us useful information.

It provided information that prevented terrorist attacks on Los Angeles and London, which involved planes being hijacked and flown into buildings.

You're right, that information isn't useful or beneficial at all. What was I thinking?


I'm awful sick of the 'torture is great and totally moral!' crowd however.

Nobody's saying torture is great and totally moral. But when the chips are down and there are more terrorist attacks in the works, we need to do whatever is necessary to stop them.

All I get from your posts is "We have to be nice to them even if it costs innocent Americans their lives."

Stop being in denial.

[Warriorbird]

We've never had a terrorist problem to this magnitude either.

Your constant comparisons to 24 are also retarded. I'd be saying the same thing even if that show never existed. It's nothing more than a convenient way for you to dismiss the opinions of people that believe the safety of American lives comes before playing patty cake with terrorist captives. But since you think letting a bunch of Americans get blown up by terrorists because you don't wanna inconvenience a captive that has information about it and won't give up the information any other way, then I feel sorry for you. I'm sure your tune would change in a heartbeat if your mother was killed in one of those attacks though, or had her head sawed off on the internet.



It provided information that prevented terrorist attacks on Los Angeles and London, which involved planes being hijacked and flown into buildings.

You're right, that information isn't useful or beneficial at all. What was I thinking?



Nobody's saying torture is great and totally moral. But when the chips are down and there are more terrorist attacks in the works, we need to do whatever is necessary to stop them.

All I get from your posts is "We have to be nice to them even if it costs innocent Americans their lives."

Stop being in denial.

24 was used by the Vice President as well as a Supreme Court justice in attempting to justify torture. Given that high level reaching I think it is very relevant.

Patty cake is indeed what you're playing with a terrorist if you allow them to feed you false intel every day to avoid another session of fake drowning.

Your 'you don't believe in torture so you support terrorists!' line of reasoning is a lot more offensive than my suggesting you get your philosophy from a Fox show.

Your attempting to draw my mother into is you falling even lower.

The bit that you don't seem to get is somebody will say just about anything to avoid getting tortured more.

The 'we prevented attacks!' line is all fine and dandy when there's no actual evidence that torture did that. The reason the Obama Administration said that 'the intel was useful' is quite likely that they didn't want to dig into this sordid segment of American history and get all these things out into the light. It's sad to me that people are going to keep rationalizing.

If, heaven forbid, something terrible actually did happen to somebody in my family I would not want us to fall to the level of terrorists to attempt to deal with it. We're supposed to be the civilized ones.

[Methais]

Your attempting to draw my mother into is you falling even lower.

I think the point sailed way over your head.


If, heaven forbid, something terrible actually did happen to somebody in my family I would not want us to fall to the level of terrorists to attempt to deal with it. We're supposed to be the civilized ones.

That's easy for you to say when it's typed on an internet message board.

In response to this, I'm going to my friend's house now to eat some crawfish and suck the heads, which I will dedicate to diethx.

[Warriorbird]

That's the good way to eat crawfish.

I'm just not convinced that torture is a magical 'everything will be okay!' wand. I think it's indicative of a desire for 'things to work out' that only really works as television.

[Parkbandit]

That's the good way to eat crawfish.

I'm just not convinced that torture is a magical 'everything will be okay!' wand. I think it's indicative of a desire for 'things to work out' that only really works as television.

Who here claimed that torture was a magical "everything will be ok" wand?

[Valthissa]

source documentation for those reading this thread:

http://documents.nytimes.com/justice-department-memos-on-interrogation-techniques#p=1

Things that they say are not torture sound like torture to me. I think the document is definitive on the value of the interrogations.

People posting in this thread have me at a disadvantage - they seem to know the legal definitions of torture, case law, all relevant treaties and how they apply to these prisoners.

Me, I have no clue what I would have done in the aftermath of 9/11 if I were directly involved in these matters. I suspect that those reviewing my actions some years later would have found me overzealous in my efforts.

C/Valth

[Goretawn]

Thanks Valth.


No. The Geneva Convention has a specific section for them. We just don't want to follow it because it says we should put them in the civilian court system.

I am sure they will be judged in a civil court, just not ours. I don't think I want them judged in our court system. I believe we are a bit too lenient with such people.

[Deathravin]

I believe we are a bit too lenient with such people.

Is it a question of leniency or the fact there's not enough evidence to convict most of these people with actual crimes beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Warriorbird]

Speaking as a law student... American courts can be very theatrical. I oppose torture and I'd rather have them under military courts.

[Mabus]

Me, I have no clue what I would have done in the aftermath of 9/11 if I were directly involved in these matters. I suspect that those reviewing my actions some years later would have found me overzealous in my efforts.
I have to agree with you.

I want to state (again) that I do find water-boarding to be torture, and that torture is illegal by law in the USA.

That said, in any "ticking time bomb" scenario I would hope that our intelligence services would torture, maim, kill and use whatever means they could think of to save innocent lives.

I would also hope (and I do believe) that if their efforts avoided catastrophe, and their actions were found to be illegal, that they would be granted an executive pardon for their actions and/or retroactive immunity by the legislature.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Ummm, please tell me that was a joke. (Sorry, a bit too tired to grasp humor right now.) If not, wrong war/conflict. It was the Vietnamese that used bamboo under the fingernails. I am not sure if the Japanese did also.

It's safe to assume I'm joking when I use the Rambo movies as the basis for my opinion.

[Goretawn]

T&S, I see it now after a few hours of sleep. It was a long night followed by a longer day.


Is it a question of leniency or the fact there's not enough evidence to convict most of these people with actual crimes beyond a reasonable doubt?

Trust me, Soldiers are tired of insurgents being put in prison, only to be released a week or two later and one of their friends being killed in an ambush. They are being very methodical about cataloguing evidence to ensure it will not happen again. I can not give you a case by case basis, and I am sure mistakes have been made, but would you rather keep someone who may be innocent in prison for an extended stay or release someone who will come back and kill you while you sleep? (Yes, a bit extreme, but these are extreme times.)

[Deathravin]

Trust me, Soldiers are tired of insurgents being put in prison, only to be released a week or two later and one of their friends being killed in an ambush. They are being very methodical about cataloguing evidence to ensure it will not happen again. I can not give you a case by case basis, and I am sure mistakes have been made, but would you rather keep someone who may be innocent in prison for an extended stay or release someone who will come back and kill you while you sleep? (Yes, a bit extreme, but these are extreme times.)

I was actually asking a question. After re-reading it, it did have bias, but I really was curious.

Since you're asking my actual thoughts. I'd rather not let fear and anger cloud our judgment. Also I believe real life isn't as black and white as you want to believe it is. We must have a mantra: "there is no good and evil". The stories we grew up reading with the evil witch and the good princess is not real life. Even the bible is strewn with this idea of good vs. evil that simply doesn't exist.

[Methais]

That's the good way to eat crawfish.

I'm just not convinced that torture is a magical 'everything will be okay!' wand. I think it's indicative of a desire for 'things to work out' that only really works as television.

If you consider preventing planes from being flown into buildings in Los Angeles and London in real life as only working on television, then sure.


Is it a question of leniency or the fact there's not enough evidence to convict most of these people with actual crimes beyond a reasonable doubt?

I think it's more about the sentence given after a conviction. Most countries would probably sentence them to death, whereas in our country they'll get to sit in jail watching cable TV for the rest of their life.

[Back]

That is so hyperbole. How can you justify it?

[Warriorbird]

If you consider preventing planes from being flown into buildings in Los Angeles and London in real life as only working on television, then sure.

I don't believe either claim. The alleged 'attacks' were to occur in the summer and winter of 2002. KSM wasn't actually captured until December. The waterboarding occurred in March 2003.

Unless Al Qaeda has a time machine... he was confessing to stuff that fizzled or had already been stopped. It's sort of like the Godfather... where they hire the guy to confess to Michael's crimes. KSM became a regular confessing machine under waterboarding.

[Parkbandit]

That is so hyperbole. How can you justify it?

When you define "hyperbole", is it like your definition of "Pundit" and you change it to justify your position?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5202356/Obama-intelligence-official-says-interrogation-provided-high-value-information.html

The document from Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, was issued last week on the same day as the White House released secret Bush administration legal memos authorising the use of methods that Mr Obama has described as torture.

But a condensed version provided to the press omitted the detail about the value of the information – a move that has incensed Mr Obama's critics and opened him up to accusations of manipulation for political purposes.

Adml Blair's original note to his staff last Thursday said "high value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organisation that was attacking this country".

The memo is an embarrassment for Mr Obama because the conclusion reached by Adml Blair, who oversees the CIA and 15 other US intelligence agencies or departments, undermines a central plank of the White House argument – that the harsh techniques did not work.

Four memos, running to 126 pages, written by officials in Mr Bush's Justice Department contained explicit details of the CIA's methods of extracting information from al-Qaeda suspects between 2002 and 2005.

They revealed that emerged that the highly controversial technique of "waterboarding", a type of simulated drowning, had been used 266 times on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, two senior al-Qaeda prisoners.

After initially indicating he opposed any prosecutions, on Tuesday he said he was open to congressional investigations of Bush administration officials and possible criminal charges.

Also deleted from the condensed version of Adml Blair's memo was a statement in which he sympathised with his predecessors who approved the harsh tactics following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given," Adml Blair wrote.

In a statement issued after his full memo was leaked, Adml Blair said: "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.

"The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has called for the release of memos which he says demonstrate the effectiveness of the harsh techniques.

Former Bush administration officials have highlighted that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was water-boarded 183 times in a month, revealed a plot to crash a hijacked aircraft into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the tallest building on the West Coast of the US.

[Parkbandit]

I don't believe either claim.

I wouldn't expect you to, since it flies directly into the face of your position.

Let me ask though.. if it is proven true (If the Obama Administration releases the Top Secret memos regarding the information retrieved... even as Blair has already admitted that "high value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organisation that was attacking this country") will your opinion change of water boarding since it reportedly saved many innocent lives in Los Angeles and London?

[Keller]

I wouldn't expect you to, since it flies directly into the face of your position.

Let me ask though.. if it is proven true (If the Obama Administration releases the Top Secret memos regarding the information retrieved... even as Blair has already admitted that "high value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organisation that was attacking this country") will your opinion change of water boarding since it reportedly saved many innocent lives in Los Angeles and London?

Is water boarding torture?

If yes, then it will not change my opinion as I believe in the rule of law.

If no, then it doesn't matter what the "ends" were because we don't need to justify the "means".

[Warriorbird]

KSM admitting to stuff that already failed doesn't convince me of anything. It'd prove that Al Qaeda could travel through time... which is impossible.

Edit:

I don't doubt that they received a bunch of information from him... just not your 'magic bullet attack stopping' confessions. Confessing to things that already happened and sending Special Forces on wild goose chases were a fair portion of what he did. When you throw that on top of the pre-existing moral flaws, damage to American standing (diplomatic and otherwise) and martyrdom/terrorist fundraising... torture looks like an even worse option.

[Ravenstorm]

If yes, then it will not change my opinion as I believe in the rule of law.

Not to mention that not torturing someone doesn't mean we won't get the information in the end.

[Methais]

If yes, then it will not change my opinion as I believe in the rule of law.

If no, then it doesn't matter what the "ends" were because we don't need to justify the "means".

So you're saying that saving a bunch of innocent people from being killed by terrorists needs justifying if it's decided that water boarding is torture?


Not to mention that not torturing someone doesn't mean we won't get the information in the end.

Maybe if we bake them a cake and bring them 72 real virgins from the suburbs, they'll see what nice people we are and just abandon their jihad and tell us everything, since they're getting what they want now and not after they blow themself up right?

[Ravenstorm]

Maybe if we bake them a cake and bring them 72 real virgins from the suburbs, they'll see what nice people we are and just abandon their jihad and tell us everything, since they're getting what they want now and not after they blow themself up right?

Try not to be such a funking moron. Lots of information was obtained using 'regular' methods of interrogation and more than one interrogator has given first hand accounts of how torturing someone ended up causing more problems than it solved.

Not to mention that people were tortured not to prevent any attacks on the US but to link Al-Quaeda to Iraq in order to try to justify the invasion. (http://documents.nytimes.com/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment#p=72)

[Parkbandit]

KSM admitting to stuff that already failed doesn't convince me of anything. It'd prove that Al Qaeda could travel through time... which is impossible.

Edit:

I don't doubt that they received a bunch of information from him... just not your 'magic bullet attack stopping' confessions. Confessing to things that already happened and sending Special Forces on wild goose chases were a fair portion of what he did. When you throw that on top of the pre-existing moral flaws, damage to American standing (diplomatic and otherwise) and martyrdom/terrorist fundraising... torture looks like an even worse option.

We both assume, since we have only rumors and news "leaks" to go by. I do have to wonder why Cheney wants Obama to declassify the information and memos though.. since he is far more in the know.

If it saves lives by making some piece of shit terrorist think he's drowning, then I'm with the majority of the American people and say let the faucet run. Last I checked KSM is still alive.. which is more than I can say for the 3,000 people from 9-11.

[Keller]

So you're saying that saving a bunch of innocent people from being killed by terrorists needs justifying if it's decided that water boarding is torture?

No. I am saying it is illegal.

If I shoot an innocent person in the head to save a million innocent people, I am still guilty of murder.

[Gan]

No. I am saying it is illegal.

If I shoot an innocent person in the head to save a million innocent people, I am still guilty of murder.

Hopefully the jury will be made up of the million people you saved.

Then you would be found not guilty.

[Keller]

Hopefully the jury will be made up of the million people you saved.

Then you would be found not guilty.

You're so stupid. Juries are only made up of twelve people! Here, let me get some crayons and a Winnie the Pooh coloring book to make you feel better.

Whether or not they are punished, found guilty, etc does not really matter to me. I have a fundamental problem with our government listing waterboarding as a war crime in the prosecution of a foreign military officer, but then producing a BS opinion on how it is not actually torture. The rule of law should be absolute and should not (although it almost always is) bent to the convenience of the situation.

[Parkbandit]

You're so stupid. Juries are only made up of twelve people! Here, let me get some crayons and a Winnie the Pooh coloring book to make you feel better.

Whether or not they are punished, found guilty, etc does not really matter to me. I have a fundamental problem with our government listing waterboarding as a war crime in the prosecution of a foreign military officer, but then producing a BS opinion on how it is not actually torture. The rule of law should be absolute and should not (although it almost always is) bent to the convenience of the situation.


So.. if you have credible evidence that this guy in custody knows about an attack that is imminent in Washington DC and you believe that if you just put the screws to this guy a little bit, you would probably get the information you need to foil this attack.. you are saying that you wouldn't want the government to get that information from this guy?

I wish I had the convictions you have.. because I would be first in line to put my foot on this guy's neck for the information. If squeezing a piece of shit for information can save innocent lives, then I say squeeze away.

[Keller]

So.. if you have credible evidence that this guy in custody knows about an attack that is imminent in Washington DC and you believe that if you just put the screws to this guy a little bit, you would probably get the information you need to foil this attack.. you are saying that you wouldn't want the government to get that information from this guy?

I wish I had the convictions you have.. because I would be first in line to put my foot on this guy's neck for the information. If squeezing a piece of shit for information can save innocent lives, then I say squeeze away.

Would I torture him? Yes.

Is it illegal? Yes.

It's a subtle distinction, but people say I put the B in subtle.

[Parkbandit]

Would I torture him? Yes.

Is it illegal? Yes.

It's a subtle distinction, but people say I put the B in subtle.

So.. if the President's #1 job is to safeguard the safety of Americans.. and he makes that same decision you made.. should we prosecute him?

[Keller]

So.. if the President's #1 job is to safeguard the safety of Americans.. and he makes that same decision you made.. should we prosecute him?

Did he break the law?

[Stanley Burrell]

Actually, by not torturing innocents of outside ethnicities, we have 100%-factually prevented three thousand terror attacks since Obama has been in office. Which is as legitimate as saying "Although Fox News and The Drudge aren't directly sections of our covert intelligence agencies, they are licenced to be make what have to be true statements based on what can't possibly be spun fact, or flat out lies."

If you think being held in a cold dark room, possibly being poked with a stick; without representation, doesn't exist in the Obama administration, please get caught crawling into Area 51 with your Internet know-how of facts.

Also, we're releasing everyone from Gitmo and not possibly overseeing prison camp transfers.

Lkhgfdsa.

The world is still turning. Shut the fuck up, everyone, or I will blare Wu-Tang on my minivan louder than a mother. Damn you.

[Gan]

LOL at Keller getting his panties in a wad.

[Warriorbird]

Actually, by not torturing innocents of outside ethnicities, we have 100%-factually prevented three thousand terror attacks since Obama has been in office. Which is as legitimate as saying "Although Fox News and The Drudge aren't directly sections of our covert intelligence agencies, they are licenced to be make what have to true statements based on what can't possibly be spun fact, or flat out lies."

If you think being held in a cold dark room, possibly being poked with a stick; without representation, doesn't exist in the Obama administration, please crawl into Area 51 with your Internet know-how of facts.

Also, we're releasing everyone from Gitmo and not possibly overseeing prison camp transfers.

Lkhgfdsa.

The world is still turning. Shut the fuck up, everyone, or I will blare Wu-Tang on my minivan louder than a mother. Damn you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sUEe4TMlcg


LOL at Keller getting his panties in a wad.
-Gan

Mainly seemed like a pretty unemotional legal analysis.

[Gan]

I really hope Obama/Pelosi and company go after all these 'torturers'. Then we can mark off another failed campaign promise from the list.

Oh, and Keller, one has only broken the law if convicted... You should know that counselor.

[Keller]

LOL at Keller getting his panties in a wad.

You're a weird dude.

What are you talking about? The fact that laws are laws and therefore breaking them is illegal? I'm confused.

[Gan]

Mainly seemed like a pretty unemotional legal analysis.

Especially the part in italics.

[ClydeR]

Oh, and Keller, one has only broken the law if convicted... You should know that counselor.

Gan got you good on that one, Keller.

That principle is how we know that Richard Nixon never broke the law. Neither did Bonnie and Clyde for that matter.

[Keller]

Oh, and Keller, one has only broken the law if convicted... You should know that counselor.

So if I drive at a speed in excess of the speed limit I have not broken the law?

Do you teach your son that same lesson? It's only wrong if you get caught?

C'mon, Gan. It was months ago, get over it already.

[Keller]

Especially the part in italics.

I put it italics to make sure you recognized it was tongue-in-cheek. I guess I gave you too much credit.

[Gan]

Gan got you good on that one, Keller.

That principle is how we know that Richard Nixon never broke the law. Neither did Bonnie and Clyde for that matter.

Its funny how quickly the lines get blurred between morally and legally.

Edit:
Stay focused Keller. The question asked was, "Did he/they break the law?"

[Gan]

I put it italics to make sure you recognized it was tongue-in-cheek. I guess I gave you too much credit.

Please keep your tounge to yourself...

And, get over what?

[Keller]

Please keep your tounge to yourself...

And, get over what?

Ha!

And I don't know, maybe nothing. But it feels like you've been nit-picking anything I say for about 6 months now.

[Gan]

Delusions of persecution. Look it up.

Right, all of my posts in the last 6 months have been focused on you. :rofl:

Feel free to research your funny theory, my posts are available for all to see.

[Keller]

Delusions of persecution. Look it up.

Right, all of my posts in the last 6 months have been focused on you. :rofl:

Feel free to research your funny theory, my posts are available for all to see.

See, like this. I said you nit-pick my posts. Not that all of your posts nit-pick my posts.

How about I pull a Tsa'ah/Rocktar and tell you that YOU need to disprove me? :)

[Methais]

Not to mention that people were tortured not to prevent any attacks on the US but to link Al-Quaeda to Iraq in order to try to justify the invasion. (http://documents.nytimes.com/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment#p=72)

The part you're referring to starts with "This is my opinion", which you're presenting as fact, despite it not mentioning anyone being tortured, and then the next paragraph says:


Others involved in JTF-170 interrogation operations agreed that there was pressure on interrogation personnel to produce intelligence, but did not recall pressure to identify links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

What's next, you gonna say the NY Times is a totally unbiased newspaper and is right in the center?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment/0072.gif

[Gan]

See, like this. I said you nit-pick my posts. Not that all of your posts nit-pick my posts.

How about I pull a Tsa'ah/Rocktar and tell you that YOU need to disprove me? :)

And you called me wierd.

:lol2:

[Warriorbird]

The part you're referring to starts with "This is my opinion", which you're presenting as fact, despite it not mentioning anyone being tortured, and then the next paragraph says:



What's next, you gonna say the NY Times is a totally unbiased newspaper and is right in the center?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment/0072.gif

The curious thing about all of that is that Wolfowitz headed the Office of Special Plans. Their job was to make sure that the White House got unvetted intelligence. Kind of crazy when you consider that Wolfowitz and his cohort, Douglas Feith, had no intelligence experience at all.

That suggests to folks who don't drink all of the Kool-Aid that maybe they were after intelligence which illustrated specific political goals rather than 'more intelligence.'

Administration officials involved in questionable interrogations would also totally never cover anything up... y'know, like Abu Ghraib, or anything like that...

[Methais]

The curious thing about all of that is that Wolfowitz headed the Office of Special Plans. Their job was to make sure that the White House got unvetted intelligence. Kind of crazy when you consider that Wolfowitz and his cohort, Douglas Feith, had no intelligence experience at all.

The same could be said about Obama and his lack of executive experience. Yet here he is with the biggest executive job in the world.

I kinda hope they do go forward with the investigation, because with each day that passes, more info comes out showing that the people who are pushing for it the most (mainly Pelosi) and feigning outrage over it were fully aware of what was going on at the time and were on board with it.

I'd rather see Pelosi gone over Obama any day.

What do you put in your Kool-Aid anyway? LSD? If so come over this weekend. I haven't had a good trip in a while.