POL - HOORAH! This is the way the US troops should be!!

[Flasch186]

Good for them. Much like the heros we behaved as in WWII, this IS how we should behave, and be portrayed as. Good for them!! I love this!!

BOOO to the Iraqi's who were in charge. I hope they are caught and brought to justice!!



Iraq official acknowledges new detainee abuse

Tuesday, November 15, 2005; Posted: 12:00 p.m. EST (17:00 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Many of the more than 160 detainees who were held at an Iraqi Interior Ministry building were physically abused, Iraq's deputy interior minister said Tuesday.

"I saw signs of physical abuse by brutal beating -- one or two cases were paralyzed, and some cases of skin peeled off various parts of the body," the official, Hussein Kamal, told CNN.

"I have never seen such a situation like this during the past two years in Baghdad. This is the worst and cannot be denied."

Kamal blamed a lack of jail cells in Iraq.

"A major problem we face is that there are not enough places to contain these detainees after the preliminary investigation is through with them," he said.

The U.S. military found the detainees Sunday when they entered a building controlled by the ministry while looking for a missing 15-year-old boy.

Brig. Gen. Karl Horst of the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division said Monday the prisoners were found "in need of medical care -- so I brought medics in."

Kamal said the facility housed 161 detainees. "There were other registered names in that facility who were interrogated by the Special Investigation Unit, then sent to court," he said.

The U.S. military did not confirm the condition in which they found the detainees, but Iraqi police said they had been tortured. Kamal confirmed human rights abuses had taken place.

He added that the ministry cannot deny "knowledge of previous abuse cases where human rights were broken during the past two years."

The U.S. military has taken charge of the building and the detainees, he said.

Horst said Monday he had brought in a legal team to go through the detainees' files and a joint U.S.-Iraqi investigation was under way.
Three Marines killed near Syria

Three U.S. Marines died Monday fighting in Operation Steel Curtain in western Iraq, the U.S. military said.

Makeshift bombs killed two Marines in Ubaydi, near the Syrian border. A third Marine was shot to death, the military said.

Since the start of the Iraq war, 2,069 U.S. service members have died.
Seven police officers killed

Two bombings in eastern Baghdad killed two police and wounded 13 others Tuesday, while two incidents in the northern city of Kirkuk left five police dead, authorities in both towns said.

A car bomb killed two officers at an eastern Baghdad restaurant during breakfast, Iraqi emergency police said. The bomb wounded six other officers and a civilian.

Later Tuesday, a roadside bomb wounded six civilians on the road leading to Zayouna police station.

In Kirkuk, a roadside bomb hit a police patrol in the center of the city, killing two officers, said Maj. Gen. Torhan Abdulrahman, the police chief.

In other violence, gunmen killed three officers and wounded one as they patrolled the city's center.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Good for them. Much like the heros we behaved as in WWII, this IS how we should behave, and be portrayed as. Good for them!! I love this!!

Personally, I wouldn't doubt that our troops (as a whole) behave just the same as troops from WWII... problem is that 1% that don't...

60 years ago, the 99% that behaved got the press.. nowadays.. the 1% that don't behave get the press...

[sachmo71]

I...nevermind.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Personally, I wouldn't doubt that our troops (as a whole) behave just the same as troops from WWII... problem is that 1% that don't...

60 years ago, the 99% that behaved got the press.. nowadays.. the 1% that don't behave get the press...

that makes way to much sense for a 'far' left wingers mind to comprehend.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Personally, I wouldn't doubt that our troops (as a whole) behave just the same as troops from WWII... problem is that 1% that don't...

60 years ago, the 99% that behaved got the press.. nowadays.. the 1% that don't behave get the press...

ABSOLUTELY not true. Take ALL of American society. percentage wise, no one behaves the same as the peope raised in the 30's and 40's did because our society has changed exponentially since then. Your statement is flawed except that you do place the caveat of "as a whole".

I would say on the whole, everything has changed based on all sorts of things out of our control, % of single parent families, media, exposure, drugs, money, etc. Not saying either goo dor bad, but, of course,few behave the same as those who were raised back then did (as a whole)

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

ABSOLUTELY not true. Take ALL of American society. percentage wise, no one behaves the same as the peope raised in the 30's and 40's did because our society has changed exponentially since then. Your statement is flawed except that you do place the caveat of "as a whole".

For starters, we aren't talking about society as a whole. We are talking about American Troops. While society has changed and people behave differently, the one thing that has changed drastically is the media and how information is obtained by society. (We get it quicker and there is a hell of alot of it.. and whether or not you want to admit it or not, media as a whole loves negative press). Commanders have to be (need to be) more PR savvy nowadays because they can't insulate events.. you don't think that trickles down?

Hell, look at a movie... Saving Private Ryan. Soldier shoots German soldiers that were trying to surrender. Didn't hear a whole lot of WWII vet claiming that couldn't/didn't happen. Fast forward, American Soldiers shoots a wounded Iraqi insurgent.. and all hell breaks lose. Difference being the media playing it up.

But, if you want to talk about society has a whole behaving less civilized than our 40s counterparts... Since there is a war on terrorism, why haven't we put all Muslims in internment camps.. much like the Japanese-Americans?

My point is, you are making a pretty big leap/assumption going from WWII, we did no wrong to Iraq, we can do no right...

[gstelmack]

"Flyboys" would be an interesting read for all those who think this kind of stuff didn't happen in WWII on our side. Mustang is 100% spot on with this.

[Schmidty]

I prefer the term "HOORAY!".

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Havok

that makes way to much sense for a 'far' left wingers mind to comprehend.

Wait, weren't the soldiers putting a stop to the type of treatment that today's 'far' right (i.e., the administration) is pushing to be legal? Shouldn't the anti-left be condemning these soldiers showing compassion for terrorists?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Wait, weren't the soldiers putting a stop to the type of treatment that today's 'far' right (i.e., the administration) is pushing to be legal? Shouldn't the anti-left be condemning these soldiers showing compassion for terrorists?

I wouldn't go so far as to "condemn" them ... but I'm not particularly inclined toward handing out roses and/or medals over this either.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Mustang

For starters, we aren't talking about society as a whole. We are talking about American Troops.

I agree completely with what you've said and I will add to the quote above that the military has actually taken the lead in some situations ahead of society, especially with integration.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mustang

For starters, we aren't talking about society as a whole. We are talking about American Troops. While society has changed and people behave differently, the one thing that has changed drastically is the media and how information is obtained by society. (We get it quicker and there is a hell of alot of it.. and whether or not you want to admit it or not, media as a whole loves negative press). Commanders have to be (need to be) more PR savvy nowadays because they can't insulate events.. you don't think that trickles down?

Hell, look at a movie... Saving Private Ryan. Soldier shoots German soldiers that were trying to surrender. Didn't hear a whole lot of WWII vet claiming that couldn't/didn't happen. Fast forward, American Soldiers shoots a wounded Iraqi insurgent.. and all hell breaks lose. Difference being the media playing it up.

But, if you want to talk about society has a whole behaving less civilized than our 40s counterparts... Since there is a war on terrorism, why haven't we put all Muslims in internment camps.. much like the Japanese-Americans?

My point is, you are making a pretty big leap/assumption going from WWII, we did no wrong to Iraq, we can do no right...

while you are not incorrect in your assumption it is inaccurate to forget about the 18 years someone is raised prior to getting into the military as if it has no bearing on how a person will behave after 18, military or not. One person a long time ago argued that the abusers were not following doctrine but were going against it, thereby following behaviors or weakness deeloped while younger and then exploited or exposed when put in the situations they were. Falling victim to gang mentality.


I'm the one who pointed this out as they DID do some good in Iraq. Everyone knows that some are doing good in Iraq, BUT just as with society...the military is simply a microcosim and just as in society the number of reported abuses, Percentage wise went up, so did that in the military. It would be naiive to think otherwise.

The military IS a microcosim of society. If a society is wrought with ethnic anger, ie. Serbia, the military likely will not be void of such anger. If our children are growing up with more cases of violence, aner, etc. so will those same children in the military. Statistics-wise

[Havok]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Wait, weren't the soldiers putting a stop to the type of treatment that today's 'far' right (i.e., the administration) is pushing to be legal? Shouldn't the anti-left be condemning these soldiers showing compassion for terrorists?

far left.... far right... they both suck

[st.cronin]

The number of war crimes/war atrocities that US and UK WWII veterans have been accused of is actually mind-blowing. I am almost positive that soldiers today are better trained, and morally superior.

[Warhammer]

This thread is a good example of pre-conceived notions on both sides of the fence.

I want to bring up a few things:

1) Kids were paddled a heck of a lot more back then, then they are now. The result is they do not respect authority. Now, let me say this before everyone attacks this. I have no studies to back this up. Only my own anecdotal evidence from raising my children and watching how other children react to my wife and I after seeing us discipline our children (both nieces and nephews and children of friends).

2) Our moral standards have slipped significantly since the 40s. I attribute a lot of this to the principle of the lowest common denominator. In many government institutions (schools for example), people are judged upon a universal standard, but on one in which even the lowest, basest of the group can pass. This reduces the standards of society as a whole.

3) The breakdown of the family. I am willing to bet that families in the 40s and 50s ate most of their meals together. Those today do not, by and large. As a result, the children do not see how other people interact as much, and as a result do not know how to act around other. Or, the parents, because they do not spend too much time with their children, give in to their child's attempts to manipulate them. This results in more selfish children, who must get their way.

The flip side of all of this is the military has not changed THAT much. Discipline is still paramount. If you are told to do something, you do it. Also, part of the military training is how to conduct yourself. The concept of an officer and a gentleman is still true.

The best statement in this thread though is Mustang's. Torture, shooting of prisoners, etc. happened on both sides in WWII. Yes, we did commit those crimes, however, it was not widespread. Additionally, and I won't win any friends by saying this, I do believe that torture is warranted in certain circumstances. If chopping off someone's nose is required to find out where a bomb is, I am all for it. Also, some forms of torture are not necessarily damaging to the body. For example, the use of lights and sound to get results should be classified as torture, but it does not damage the body. Rather, they are used as a means to weaken the will, which should be used in order to get the information we need to win the battles in Iraq, and thereby the War on Terror.

Note: To all those who like to nitpick posts, I have been on the road all day, so if there are bits of incoherency in this, chalk it up to that.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The number of war crimes/war atrocities that US and UK WWII veterans have been accused of is actually mind-blowing. I am almost positive that soldiers today are better trained, and morally superior.

It is quite common for the people of an occupied country to claim many more atrocities than actually happen. Think of it as a game of "Telephone" on a nationwide scale.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The number of war crimes/war atrocities that US and UK WWII veterans have been accused of is actually mind-blowing. I am almost positive that soldiers today are better trained, and morally superior.

compared to the number(s) involved in the conflict from start to finish? Percentage wise?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

It is quite common for the people of an occupied country to claim many more atrocities than actually happen. Think of it as a game of "Telephone" on a nationwide scale.

That's why I said 'accused.' I realize that some accusations are probably false. I don't think there is any real question that today's soldiers are better selected and better trained, for the most part, than the soldiers of WWII. For all the talk of manpower shortages these days, it was much worse in WWII.

None of this is meant as a criticism of the Greatest Generation; what they accomplished was an inspiration. What I was pointing out is that our view of that Army has very much been romanticized, particularly in contrast to today's Army; compare The Longest Day with Jarhead, or Four Kings.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Wait, weren't the soldiers putting a stop to the type of treatment that today's 'far' right (i.e., the administration) is pushing to be legal? Shouldn't the anti-left be condemning these soldiers showing compassion for terrorists?

I think you are stretching what the administration is pushing to be legal. The Admin is on the record several times, condemning torture. It really is only the left saying the administration is advocating the legalization of torture. The administration is not.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think you are stretching what the administration is pushing to be legal. The Admin is on the record several times, condemning torture. It really is only the left saying the administration is advocating the legalization of torture. The administration is not.

Pardon you, Cheney has asked for an exemption from stated torture laws for the CIA.

[Dutch]

Pardon you, Cheney has asked for an exemption from stated torture laws for the CIA.

Do you have any links to Cheney asking for these exemptions?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do you have any links to Cheney asking for these
exemptions?

This is about as close as I think you're going to get -- it was reportedly the subject of a closed-door session with members of Congress, according to some who participated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/...cheney_torture

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think you are stretching what the administration is pushing to be legal. The Admin is on the record several times, condemning torture. It really is only the left saying the administration is advocating the legalization of torture. The administration is not.

Actually, the record is quite clear of the administration being in favor of torture as it has normally been defined. If you'll recall, their definition of torture is anything that doesn't result in 'death or organ failure'. One thing (among others such as water boarding and broken bones) that falls under this catagory is putting bamboo shoots under someone's fingernails. In the years since Vietnam, I have always heard that that was torture. John McCain said it was. Now the administration says it isn't.

A recent bill was passed 90-9 by the Senate to limit interrogation techniques to what is already in the field manual, i.e., saying that current law must be followed. Bush has threatened to veto it. Bush has yet to veto a single bill during his presidency.

And what did NSA Stephen Hadley say the other day?

In an important clarification of President George W. Bush's earlier statement, a top White House official refused to unequivocally rule out the use of torture, arguing the US administration was duty-bound to protect Americans from terrorist attack.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do you have any links to Cheney asking for these exemptions?

Bush defends detainees policy
'We do not torture,' president says

Monday, November 7, 2005; Posted: 3:59 p.m. EST (20:59 GMT)


PANAMA CITY, Panama (AP) -- President Bush vigorously defended U.S. interrogation practices in the war on terror Monday and lobbied against a congressional drive to outlaw torture.

"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again," Bush said. "So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law."

He declared, "We do not torture."

Over White House opposition, the Senate has passed legislation banning torture. With Vice President Dick Cheney as the point man, the administration is seeking an exemption for the CIA. It was recently disclosed that the spy agency maintains a network of prisons in eastern Europe and Asia, where it holds terrorist suspects.

The European Union is investigating the reports, which have not been confirmed by the White House.

"Our country is at war and our government has the obligation to protect the American people," Bush said. "Any activity we conduct is within the law. We do not torture."

Bush pointedly noted that Congress as well as the White House has an obligation to protect U.S. citizens.

Not only is the Republican-controlled Congress challenging an element of Bush's policy, but the Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a challenge to the administration's policy on military tribunals for foreign terror suspects. The case, which won't be decided for months, is a major test of presidential wartime powers.

The United States is holding hundreds of foreign terrorism suspects, also, at the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Bush spoke at a news conference with Panamanian President Martin Torrijos on the last day of a five-day Latin America trip. Bush was ending the day in Virginia, where he was to campaign for Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore just ahead of Election Day.

On another issue, Bush ducked a question about the CIA leak investigation, declining to say whether he has lived up to his campaign pledge in 2000 to abide by the spirit of federal ethics laws.

"We take this investigation very seriously and we'll continue to cooperate during the investigation," he said.

Bush expressed his condolences to victims of a tornado that hit Indiana over the weekend.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do you have any links to Cheney asking for these exemptions?

GOP senator criticizes White House torture stance
Bill would ban inhumane treatment of detainees

Sunday, November 6, 2005; Posted: 2:17 p.m. EST (19:17 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A leading Republican senator said Sunday that the Bush administration is making "a terrible mistake" in opposing a congressional ban on torture and other inhuman treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, considered a potential presidential candidate in 2008, said many Republican senators support the ban proposed by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War.

The ban was approved by a 90-9 vote last month in the Senate and added to a defense spending bill. The White House has threatened a veto, but the fate of the proposal depends on House-Senate negotiations that will reconcile different versions of the spending measure. The House's does not include the ban.

Vice President Dick Cheney has lobbied Republican senators to allow an exemption for prisoners held by the CIA if preventing an attack is at stake.

"I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture," Hagel, R-Nebraska, said on "This Week" on ABC. "Why in the world they're doing that, I don't know."

McCain, citing the Senate vote as well as support from the public and from former Secretary of State Colin Powell and others with military service, said he will push the issue with the White House "as far as necessary."

"We need to get this issue behind us," McCain said on "Fox News Sunday." "Our image in the world is suffering very badly, and one of the reasons for it is the perception that we abuse people that we take captive."

Mistreatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and allegations of mistreatment at the U.S.-run camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have drawn withering criticism from around the world. Human rights organizations also contend that the United States sends detainees to countries that it knows will use torture to try to extract intelligence information.

When the White House failed to kill the anti-torture provision while it was pending in the Senate, it began arguing for an exemption in cases of "clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States."

The president would have to approve the exemption, according to the administration proposal, and any activity would have to be consistent with the Constitution, federal law and U.S. treaty obligations.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he supports the vice president's efforts to gain a CIA exemption. While contending that the administration opposes torture, Hatch said, "They're going to everything in their power to make sure that our citizens in the United States of America are protected."

Appearing with Hatch on CBS's "Face the Nation," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, said cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners "is not what America is all about. Those aren't the values that we're fighting for."

Sen. Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said his vote against the ban doesn't mean he favors torture. He rejected Durbin's comments as "not really relevant to what we are trying to do to detain and interrogate the worst of the worst so that we can save American lives."

Roberts said that success with detention and interrogation depends on the detainee's fear of the unknown. He suggested that passing a law and putting U.S. policies into a manual would tell detainees too much about what to expect.

"As long as you're following the Constitution and there's no torture and no inhumane treatment, I see nothing wrong with saying here is the worst of the worst. We know they have specific information to save American lives in terrorist attacks around the world. That's what we're talking about," Roberts said.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

It is quite common for the people of an occupied country to claim many more atrocities than actually happen. Think of it as a game of "Telephone" on a nationwide scale.

Please read the book "Flyboys" which documents this stuff on both sides of the war in the Pacific. A well-researched good read with an interesting take on this (he delves into the mindset that leads to these types of atrocities).

[Dutch]

Flasch,

No, I'm asking to see direct quotes from Cheney and in context. The AP tends to sensationalize it's politics.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

No, I'm asking to see direct quotes from Cheney and in context.

Like I said earlier, as far as I can tell, this has only been done behind closed doors and the most specific sourcing I've seen identified is "participants in the discussion".

It's all "allegedly" I suppose, although I tend to believe it -- easy for me to say I guess since I wholeheartedly agree with what he's allegedly proposing.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Actually, the record is quite clear of the administration being in favor of torture as it has normally been defined. If you'll recall, their definition of torture is anything that doesn't result in 'death or organ failure'. One thing (among others such as water boarding and broken bones) that falls under this catagory is putting bamboo shoots under someone's fingernails. In the years since Vietnam, I have always heard that that was torture. John McCain said it was. Now the administration says it isn't.

A recent bill was passed 90-9 by the Senate to limit interrogation techniques to what is already in the field manual, i.e., saying that current law must be followed. Bush has threatened to veto it. Bush has yet to veto a single bill during his presidency.

And what did NSA Stephen Hadley say the other day?

Well just the fact that you bring up the infamous "torture memo" indicates that your mind is cloudy on the subject itself. The memo in question didn't state the administration's position on torture in any way shape or form. It was written in response to a request to clarify, among other things, what constituted torture in International Law. It is an opinion piece that includes a section indicating International Law might not consider something to be torture unless it met a specific set of conditions.

I had heard that Cheney was asking for a CIA exemption at one point, but that what acts he was seeking to have exempted was never disclosed. The omission of that detail implies that he was seeking a "carte blanche" exemption. That may have been the case, but that doesn't seem to be a very reasonable request. Especially in light of the fact that the President has routinely denounced the use of torture.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Flasch,

No, I'm asking to see direct quotes from Cheney and in context. The AP tends to sensationalize it's politics.

Oh, well, nevermind then...I didnt know you attended the Arles school of innocence until admitted guilt. Why have investigators or police officers or accusers of any kind...If it doesnt come directly out of the horse's mouth than it didnt happen. Well in that same theatre as described before, if smoke is billowing out and billowing out then perhaps, there is a fire. Unreal, why have trials then? If the accused doesnt admit guilt then how can they be guilty. Why investigate the leak(s), if the leaker never says I did it, then it must not have happened.

Im sorry but the "unless I hear it from Cheney or Bush, then I dont believe it" stance is ridiculous. Imagine if after Clinton said that he did not have sex with that lady, that everyone threw up their hands and said, "See. He must not have done it." Thats horse pooh going both directions!! left and right, its still horse pooh to say that.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Like I said earlier, as far as I can tell, this has only been done behind closed doors and the most specific sourcing I've seen identified is "participants in the discussion".

It's all "allegedly" I suppose, although I tend to believe it -- easy for me to say I guess since I wholeheartedly agree with what he's allegedly proposing.

well at least we can agree that we believe it likely did occur

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Oh, well, nevermind then...I didnt know you attended the Arles school of innocence until admitted guilt. Why have investigators or police officers or accusers of any kind...If it doesnt come directly out of the horse's mouth than it didnt happen. Well in that same theatre as described before, if smoke is billowing out and billowing out then perhaps, there is a fire. Unreal, why have trials then? If the accused doesnt admit guilt then how can they be guilty. Why investigate the leak(s), if the leaker never says I did it, then it must not have happened.

Im sorry but the "unless I hear it from Cheney or Bush, then I dont believe it" stance is ridiculous. Imagine if after Clinton said that he did not have sex with that lady, that everyone threw up their hands and said, "See. He must not have done it." Thats horse pooh going both directions!! left and right, its still horse pooh to say that.

I'm not so sure that is what Dutch was looking for.

From my perspective there is a big difference between someone quoting Cheney saying that he wants an exemption to anti-torture laws for the CIA, and Someone quoting someone who said Cheney is seeking such an exemption. I'm not saying that Cheney didn't do it. I'm saying that when the request is talked about secondhand, the details are lost. We don't know if Cheney asked if the CIA could make a prisoner stand in a deep knee bend for 47 hours, shove bamboo chutes under their fingernails, or if he asked if we could use loud music lights and other things to deprive them of sleep. Without the details of the request, the worst case is assumed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm saying that when the request is talked about secondhand, the details are lost.

And it bears noting that being exempt from the regulation (as Cong. Roberts pointed out in order to leave a little doubt in some minds") is vastly different than actually authorizing a specific act(s).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Oh, well, nevermind then...I didnt know you attended the Arles school of innocence until admitted guilt. Why have investigators or police officers or accusers of any kind...If it doesnt come directly out of the horse's mouth than it didnt happen. Well in that same theatre as described before, if smoke is billowing out and billowing out then perhaps, there is a fire. Unreal, why have trials then? If the accused doesnt admit guilt then how can they be guilty. Why investigate the leak(s), if the leaker never says I did it, then it must not have happened.

Im sorry but the "unless I hear it from Cheney or Bush, then I dont believe it" stance is ridiculous. Imagine if after Clinton said that he did not have sex with that lady, that everyone threw up their hands and said, "See. He must not have done it." Thats horse pooh going both directions!! left and right, its still horse pooh to say that.

Originally Posted by Associate Press

Vice President Dick Cheney has lobbied Republican senators to allow an exemption for prisoners held by the CIA if preventing an attack is at stake.

They obviously got this view from somewhere. How do they know Dick Cheney lobbied Republican senators to allow torture? Under what circumstances did Cheney figure for exemptions? Did he say it or not? And you don't think that's important or relevant to the article or the accusations?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And it bears noting that being exempt from the regulation (as Cong. Roberts pointed out in order to leave a little doubt in some minds") is vastly different than actually authorizing a specific act(s).

So you're suggesting the request might have been to make CIA personnel immune to prosecution for alleged acts of torture, while possibly not authorizing them to actually torture prisoners. That is certainly a possibility, I guess. This type of request would be in the same spirit as refusing to grant authority to the International War Crimes Court over U.S. millitary personnel.

The deal is, without hearing the request made in context, there is simply no way to know what was requested, or whether we should be outraged by the request or regard it with indifference.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

They obviously got this view from somewhere. How do they know Dick Cheney lobbied Republican senators to allow torture? Under what circumstances did Cheney figure for exemptions? Did he say it or not? And you don't think that's important or relevant to the article or the accusations?

exactly, they got that info. from somewhere. Like Glen pointed out, maybe it wasn't blanket BUT Im sure they didnt conjure up the words, Cheney CIA Torture and Exemption and play Boggle with it until it came out right. A Senator, in that room, heard it, leaked it, and the ADMIN has made a point of NOT denying that accusation, leading up to the charged press conference with Scott McLellan avoiding that question to reiterate the Administration's stance on torture. "We do not condone Torture." "We do not condone torture." But when asked if they asked for a CIA exemption he said, "The adminstration does not condone torture." Remember that emotional exchange? I do. I feel sorry for Scott, consistently getting hung out to dry. anyways, you extrapolated on my point.....they got that info from somewhere and wehere there is smoke there is fire. I think I have excellent credit here of pointing out that something will eventually bear fruit, and it seems to more times than not. That will bear fruit BUT......it takes away from my original thought which was kudos to the Armed forces that behave according to the moral stndard we stand upon.

[Mustang]

Personally, I don't believe an administration could come out and say they are against torture because personally, in the strictest definition of torture, I don't think you can interrogate someone without torturing them in some way, shape or form.

Torture is excruciating physical or mental pain.. You are trying to get the subject to crack under stress... things like sleep deprivation, loud noises, environmental manipulation, mutt and jeff, staring,isolation, false flagging, fearing up, etc... these are all interrogation techniques one can use and depending on the person, forms of torture. Person X may not care that you are staring at him for 30 minutes.. another person may get extremely aggitated. Hell, even being nice to someone can be used. Imagine a room full of Kurds being extremely nice and accomodating to Saddam.. don't think he would be wondering WTF was going on?

But, if you want to be specific and talk about physical harm (limb or organ damage).. then state so.. but, to ask the Administration to come out and specifically make a blanket statement that they are against torture would be forcing them to lie really...

Just my 2 cents. Probably not going to be a popular 2 cents but.. oh well.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Personally, I don't believe an administration could come out and say they are against torture because personally, in the strictest definition of torture, I don't think you can interrogate someone without torturing them in some way, shape or form.

Torture is excruciating physical or mental pain.. You are trying to get the subject to crack under stress... things like sleep deprivation, loud noises, environmental manipulation, mutt and jeff, staring,isolation, false flagging, fearing up, etc... these are all interrogation techniques one can use and depending on the person, forms of torture. Person X may not care that you are staring at him for 30 minutes.. another person may get extremely aggitated. Hell, even being nice to someone can be used. Imagine a room full of Kurds being extremely nice and accomodating to Saddam.. don't think he would be wondering WTF was going on?

But, if you want to be specific and talk about physical harm (limb or organ damage).. then state so.. but, to ask the Administration to come out and specifically make a blanket statement that they are against torture would be forcing them to lie really...

Just my 2 cents. Probably not going to be a popular 2 cents but.. oh well.

And knowing me, I dont care so much if they torture or not per se BUT I do care about being lied to. and again, I feel that Im being lied to and manipulated. On the one hand theyre against it on the other theyre asking for exemptions. I cannot stand duplicity or hypocrisy or dishonesty.

If they want to torture Al Qaeda operatives (not suspects) Im not sure Im Absolutely against that but I AM against being lied to. Apparently the EU feels the same way cuz Im pretty damn sure some of those countries "torture" but they are now investigating our apparent lies regarding the fact.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I cannot stand duplicity or hypocrisy or dishonesty.

I'm curious. Have you ever lied? Have you ever been hypocritical? If so, how can you say you can't stand them if you have practice it in the past?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by duckman

I'm curious. Have you ever lied? Have you ever been hypocritical? If so, how can you say you can't stand them if you have practice it in the past?

Alright, long story....

When I was in high school I had low self esteem. I would exaggerate or lie whenever it would seem to be needed or not even then. Just for attention. Therefore my life was surrounded by lies and lies to help keep the lies from being found. You end up lying more to cover or lie for a lie. Anyways....As I grew up and began to find myself and get comfortable in my own skin I would still sometimes fall into the trap. Then I watched the Matrix and it had a profound effect on me. I realized that I wasnt being true to myself and everytime I lied I would be falling into a trap. So from that day forward I have done my very best, made it a concious effort, to ALWAYS tell the truth. Some things come into conflict with that, especially working in a corporation but even there I speak my mind. I found out yesterday that my nickname around the office is "The Preacher". I actually take pride in that. Anyways, to answer your question, EVER told a lie? Yes, therefore I know what damage it can cause yourself and others. Ima n expert. Ever been hypocritical? Yes, again, lying leads one down that path.

But for the past 10 years or so, I have made it an absolute in my life that all of my circle knows, I will tell the truth at all times. If you dont want to hear it than dont ask my opinion, or be on a board with me It is a beautiful place to be. I sleep so well at night knowing that nothing is floating out there that could bite me. It is a piece of mind, that I have treasured for 10 years BUT......

I am now ultrasensitive to lying, disloyalty, hypocrisy, and unethical behavior. Its who I am and I cannot stand by and allow it without exposing it, vomiting from it, and speaking out against it. This is why I always say:

"I'd rather meet a KKK member in white robes than a KKK member in a suit and tie. I know which one to look out for."

[Mustang]

I want to sleep well at night so, yes dear.. your ass does look large in those jeans.


And I'll have to go rewatch the Matrix because.. I must have missed something.

[Leonidas]

Could someone please tell me again why we are gloating over Iraqis torturing Iraqis?

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Could someone please tell me again why we are gloating over Iraqis torturing Iraqis?

Who is gloating?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Could someone please tell me again why we are gloating over Iraqis torturing Iraqis?

Wasnt the intention and I will continue to commend the soldiers mentioned in here. thanks

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Then I watched the Matrix and it had a profound effect on me. I realized that I wasnt being true to myself and everytime I lied I would be falling into a trap.

The Matrix?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

The Matrix?

yup, the Matrix (the original though - no sequels involved)

[Flasch186]

movies have profound effects on me....Life Is a House convinced me or nudged me over the edge to move home from L.A.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

The Matrix?

Trevor, the matrix isn't perfect.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

exactly, they got that info. from somewhere. Like Glen pointed out, maybe it wasn't blanket BUT Im sure they didnt conjure up the words...

What words?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What words?

Cheney CIA Exemption Torture....they didnt grab them out of a hat, like you said.