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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_torture

[MrBigglesworth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. :D


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]

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

Who is gloating?

[Flasch186]

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]

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]

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]

The Matrix?

Trevor, the matrix isn't perfect.

[Dutch]

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]

What words?

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

[Dutch]

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

All I said was they got the idea from somewhere, it could have been from a hat, but it doesn't appear to be from the words of Dick Cheney. Interesting conclusion then that Dick Cheney said the CIA should torture people, I think.

[Flasch186]

All I said was they got the idea from somewhere, it could have been from a hat, but it doesn't appear to be from the words of Dick Cheney. Interesting conclusion then that Dick Cheney said the CIA should torture people, I think.

he didnt say that they should, he is simply "spearheading" and "administration push to have the CIA be exempt from Torture" laws. Me and John McCain disagree with what he is pushing for, along with most Americans.

FYI,

Ex-CIA boss: Cheney is 'vice president for torture'

Friday, November 18, 2005; Posted: 7:42 p.m. EST (00:42 GMT)



LONDON, England (CNN) -- Former CIA chief Stansfield Turner lashed out at Dick Cheney on Thursday, calling him a "vice president for torture" that is out of touch with the American people.

Turner's condemnation, delivered during an interview with Britain's ITV network, comes amid an effort by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, to pass legislation forbidding any U.S. authority from torturing a prisoner. McCain was tortured as a Vietnam prisoner of war.

Cheney has lobbied against the legislation, prompting Turner to say he's "embarrassed that the United State has a vice president for torture. I think it is just reprehensible."

Turner, a retired Navy admiral who headed the intelligence agency from 1977 to 1981 under President Jimmy Carter, stood firm on his earlier remarks Friday and, in a CNN interview, scoffed at assertions that challenging the administration's strategy aided the terrorists' propaganda efforts.

"It's the vice president who is out there advocating torture. He's the one who has made himself the vice president in favor of torture," said Turner, who from 1972 to 1974 was president of the Naval War College, a think tank for strategic and national security policy.

Cheney has fought McCain's legislation, pushing for an exception for the CIA in cases that involve a prisoner who may have knowledge of an imminent attack. (Read about McCain's anti-torture campaign)

Torture diminishes the country's image and moral stature, forcing other nations to look at the United States "in a very different light," Turner said, adding that such tactics also open the door to retribution.

"We military people don't want future military people who are taken prisoner by other countries to be subjected to torture in the name of doing just what the United States does," he said.

Turner, who supported Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, went on to say that "the vice president is out of tune with the American people, who don't want our country tarred with the label of being one that tortures."

A statement from the vice president's office said that the United States "does not torture." It also stated that Cheney's views are "reflected in the administration's policy.

"Our country is at war, and our government has an obligation to protect the American people from a brutal enemy that has declared war upon us." (Watch special on Cheney's remarks over the years)

The United States has enacted several intrusive procedures since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to protect the country from terrorists, but torture, Turner said, is an unacceptable method.

"Torture is beyond the pale. It is going too far," he said.

[Dutch]

The only thing Cheney is quoted as saying is "We do not torture." How the hell do you get from there to here?

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

Quoting what people actually say is very important and most articles show a wealth of what opponents say, like yours you cite. I understand that's not your fault, but doesn't Cheney deserve a better rebuttal in an article that is accusing him of "wanting torture"?

[st.cronin]

I don't have any special insight on this, but it would surprise me if the US/Cheney/CIA is involved in what we would consider Torture. It's possible that they're asking for exceptions because of liasons with some shady allies, or it's possible that they're asking for an exemption for some other reason, such as a specific technique that they want to be free to use but which we (laypeople) would not neccesarily consider torture.

[Flasch186]

The only thing Cheney is quoted as saying is "We do not torture." How the hell do you get from there to here?



Quoting what people actually say is very important and most articles show a wealth of what opponents say, like yours you cite. I understand that's not your fault, but doesn't Cheney deserve a better rebuttal in an article that is accusing him of "wanting torture"?

So every article ever written on anything that doesnt have a quote from the horse's mouth is horse shit? Thats horseshit. Now across many days multiple articles and statements cited people from within the walls of the meeting, from statements made at the White House, and Now statements made from someone who spent much time at the CIA.

I guess, you again fall under the title of, if it doesn't resound well with me and my "side" I will deny, deny, deny until they actually admit it. Well needless to say, Im open minded enough to see the forest for the trees on both sides of the aisle. Surely, while I lean more left than you, I am able to see the good from both sides....and expose the bad. Their rhetoric on this specific issue is self-evident.

[Flasch186]

I don't have any special insight on this, but it would surprise me if the US/Cheney/CIA is involved in what we would consider Torture. It's possible that they're asking for exceptions because of liasons with some shady allies, or it's possible that they're asking for an exemption for some other reason, such as a specific technique that they want to be free to use but which we (laypeople) would not neccesarily consider torture.

this could be very true.....my problem is not the asking of the exemption, thats a different issue. My problem is the hiding, the secrecy, the shadiness. Just tell me the truth. You might be surprised by my reaction.

[st.cronin]

this could be very true.....my problem is not the asking of the exemption, thats a different issue. My problem is the hiding, the secrecy, the shadiness. Just tell me the truth. You might be surprised by my reaction.

I absolutely do not expect transparency from the CIA or my government on certain matters. Certain things must remain obscure if we are to remain strong.

Surely you can see that, right?

[Dutch]

I guess, you again fall under the title of, if it doesn't resound well with me and my "side" I will deny, deny, deny until they actually admit it.

I'm not asking for anybody to admit it. I'm asking for what Cheney said that leads reporters to say "He's spearheading the charge" to allow torture. If he's in charge of trying to re-instate torture (or whatever) shouldn't he be allowed to defend himself with what he means by this?

The only thing I see Cheney say is "We do not torture."

That tells me the guy said nothing of the sort like "I want to legalize torture."

[duckman]

Surely you can see that, right?
This is Flasch we're talking about.

[st.cronin]

This is Flasch we're talking about.

I know Flasch is lefthanded, but he's also bright and reasonable.

[Flasch186]

I absolutely do not expect transparency from the CIA or my government on certain matters. Certain things must remain obscure if we are to remain strong.

Surely you can see that, right?

We're not talking about what the CIA says or Does, we're talking about what the
administration says or does, or doesnt say or do. There are things the CIA does that no one should know about, but unfortunately, this administration seems to have put the CIA in the breast pocket and carried it around with them. I think that that is one of the problems....there isnt enough seperation between them.

[st.cronin]

We're not talking about what the CIA says or Does, we're talking about what the
administration says or does, or doesnt say or do. There are things the CIA does that no one should know about, but unfortunately, this administration seems to have put the CIA in the breast pocket and carried it around with them. I think that that is one of the problems....there isnt enough seperation between them.

Ok, I think I see where you're coming from - except that at times in the past, the CIA has been accused (and, from what I can deduce, been guilty of) operating with too LITTLE oversight.

I think ultimately responsibility for the CIA rests with the Executive branch (I could be wrong - I know there is some congressional oversight as well), so I don't really see what difference it makes how close they are.

[duckman]

I think ultimately responsibility for the CIA rests with the Executive branch (I could be wrong - I know there is some congressional oversight as well), so I don't really see what difference it makes how close they are.
Yes, the CIA is a part of the Executive branch. The military is too. Should we have transparency in the military too?

[Flasch186]

Ok, I think I see where you're coming from - except that at times in the past, the CIA has been accused (and, from what I can deduce, been guilty of) operating with too LITTLE oversight.

I think ultimately responsibility for the CIA rests with the Executive branch (I could be wrong - I know there is some congressional oversight as well), so I don't really see what difference it makes how close they are.

The only time the CIA exposes its deeds is when that oversight committee calls a representative of the CIA before them to explain something. Even then there are certain things they cannot answer. Unfortunately, this time, the administration has chosen to politicize torture and bring it to the forefront causing respected Senators like McCain to feel compelled to authoran anti-torture legislation, which should be unneccesary with the Geneva Conventions on the books. It is this, request for exemption, that Cheney has spearheaded that is appalling. He should just STFU, behind closed doors, so that Scott McLellan doesnt have to look like an asshat anymore.

[Dutch]

The only time the CIA exposes its deeds is when that oversight committee calls a representative of the CIA before them to explain something. Even then there are certain things they cannot answer. Unfortunately, this time, the administration has chosen to politicize torture and bring it to the forefront causing respected Senators like McCain to feel compelled to authoran anti-torture legislation, which should be unneccesary with the Geneva Conventions on the books. It is this, request for exemption, that Cheney has spearheaded that is appalling. He should just STFU, behind closed doors, so that Scott McLellan doesnt have to look like an asshat anymore.

You don't even know what the guy said and you want him to shut up?

[st.cronin]

It seems to me that it's the enemies of the administration who are politicizing torture, and have been for some time now.

[Flasch186]

You don't even know what the guy said and you want him to shut up?

Dutch, it cannot be debated with you (Arles school of debate graduate) If you dont read it as a direct quote you dont believe it. does that transcend politics and also apply to anything? If a killer doesnt admit his guilt do you believe he is not guilty unless he admits it? I am able to see the whole picture, I wish you could too.

[duckman]

I am able to see the whole picture, I wish you could too.
:rolleyes:

[Flasch186]

It seems to me that it's the enemies of the administration who are politicizing torture, and have been for some time now.

we'll just have to disagree on which came first, the chicken or the egg, on this one.

[MrBigglesworth]

Dutch is right. I mean, a politician that takes the popular stand in public and then works behind the scenes on his real agenda? Outlandish! How could anyone ever think such a thing? That has never before happened in the history of the world. Who cares if all the circumstantial evidence points to it, it's what he says that matters. There's no reason to lie!

I took a lot of psych courses in college. What happens is that people get emotionally attached to a decision that they have made, where their entire self-esteem is intertwined with that decision. They can't admit being wrong, or their self-esteem is effected negatively. The result is that reason and logic no longer apply. It's pointless to argue using reason and logic, because that is no longer what their decision is based on. You end up debating the inconsequential. So you just have to keep beating them over the head with a simple narrative: Cheney loves torture. They've seen all the same news stories you have. They have been exposed to all the facts. It doesn't take you to remind them of them. You just need to wait until it becomes so obvious that it can't be denied anymore. A third of Bush voters have already reached that point, as his popularity is down to 35%.

[Dutch]

Dutch is right. I mean, a politician that takes the popular stand in public and then works behind the scenes on his real agenda? Outlandish! How could anyone ever think such a thing? That has never before happened in the history of the world. Who cares if all the circumstantial evidence points to it, it's what he says that matters. There's no reason to lie!

I took a lot of psych courses in college. What happens is that people get emotionally attached to a decision that they have made, where their entire self-esteem is intertwined with that decision. They can't admit being wrong, or their self-esteem is effected negatively. The result is that reason and logic no longer apply. It's pointless to argue using reason and logic, because that is no longer what their decision is based on. You end up debating the inconsequential. So you just have to keep beating them over the head with a simple narrative: Cheney loves torture. They've seen all the same news stories you have. They have been exposed to all the facts. It doesn't take you to remind them of them. You just need to wait until it becomes so obvious that it can't be denied anymore. A third of Bush voters have already reached that point, as his popularity is down to 35%.

Did your college classes say this only applies to Republicans?

[duckman]

Did your college classes say this only applies to Republicans?
I was thinking the exact same thing after reading that.

[MrBigglesworth]

Did your college classes say this only applies to Republicans?
Cheney loves torture.

[Glengoyne]

Dutch, it cannot be debated with you (Arles school of debate graduate) If you dont read it as a direct quote you dont believe it. does that transcend politics and also apply to anything? If a killer doesnt admit his guilt do you believe he is not guilty unless he admits it? I am able to see the whole picture, I wish you could too.
Flasch,

I don't think Dutch is looking for a direct freaking quote. I know I'm certainly not. I would like some of the sources of the information to place it in some context. Because without context, Cheney might be asking for an exemption on a specific practice, say sleep deprivation or it might be that he is wanting an exemption from prosecution for CIA agents. Not because he wants them to be able to shove bamboo chutes beneath suspect's fingernails, but because he doesn't want some over zealous prosecutor to go after one for keeping a suspect awake by using loud music.

The point Dutch and a few others are making is that when no context is provided in the story, then readers are left to draw the, seemingly natural, conclusion that he is condoning torture, or seeking to. You have wholeheartedly jumped to this conclusion, and can't see that particular tree in the forest you keep suggesting Dutch is wandering around in. I'm beginning to think you are actually stuck in that particular tree.

I'm not looking for a direct quote. I'm looking for a little more information. In my mind the only thing shady going on are the articles that seem to be leaving out important details. It doesn't seem likely that Cheney is seeking a carte blanche allowance for torture when all the administration is saying publicly is that we don't torture, and we don't condone torture.

[Flasch186]

Flasch,

I don't think Dutch is looking for a direct freaking quote. I know I'm certainly not. I would like some of the sources of the information to place it in some context. Because without context, Cheney might be asking for an exemption on a specific practice, say sleep deprivation or it might be that he is wanting an exemption from prosecution for CIA agents. Not because he wants them to be able to shove bamboo chutes beneath suspect's fingernails, but because he doesn't want some over zealous prosecutor to go after one for keeping a suspect awake by using loud music.

The point Dutch and a few others are making is that when no context is provided in the story, then readers are left to draw the, seemingly natural, conclusion that he is condoning torture, or seeking to. You have wholeheartedly jumped to this conclusion, and can't see that particular tree in the forest you keep suggesting Dutch is wandering around in. I'm beginning to think you are actually stuck in that particular tree.

I'm not looking for a direct quote. I'm looking for a little more information. In my mind the only thing shady going on are the articles that seem to be leaving out important details. It doesn't seem likely that Cheney is seeking a carte blanche allowance for torture when all the administration is saying publicly is that we don't torture, and we don't condone torture.


Ahhhh, but I dont think that that is what Dutch was saying. If it is, than I can understand wanting to know the context to find out if a specific form of torture was being asked for BUT I think he was saying, or arguing, that Cheney is NOT asking for an exemption from something that, right now, is considered torture...but is not asking at all. THAT I do not believe.

I believe that the smoke points to those words existing and that there is some merit there. Sure, I can see your point BUT I dont think that that is what Dutch was saying. you do? I didnt read that in any of his statements.

[Flasch186]

its still evolving, but again, I will be proven right:

Powell aide: Torture 'guidance' from VP
Former staff chief says Cheney's 'flexibility' helped lead to abuse

Sunday, November 20, 2005; Posted: 5:18 p.m. EST (22:18 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former top State Department official said Sunday that Vice President Dick Cheney provided the "philosophical guidance" and "flexibility" that led to the torture of detainees in U.S. facilities.

Retired U.S. Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, who served as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, told CNN that the practice of torture may be continuing in U.S.-run facilities.

"There's no question in my mind that we did. There's no question in my mind that we may be still doing it," Wilkerson said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"There's no question in my mind where the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to do so originated -- in the vice president of the United States' office," he said. "His implementer in this case was [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department."

At another point in the interview, Wilkerson said "the vice president had to cover this in order for it to happen and in order for Secretary Rumsfeld to feel as though he had freedom of action."

Traveling in Latin America earlier this month, President Bush defended U.S. treatment of prisoners, saying flatly, "We do not torture." (Full story)

Cheney has lobbied against a measure in Congress that would outlaw "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of prisoners, calling for an exception for the CIA in cases that involve a detainee who may have knowledge of an imminent attack.

The amendment was included in a $491 billion Pentagon spending bill that declared 2006 to be "a period of significant transition" for Iraq. (Full story)

Proposed by Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, the amendment was approved in the Senate last month by a 90-9 vote. It was not included in the House version of the bill.

The White House has said that Bush would likely veto the bill if McCain's language is included, calling the amendment "unnecessary and duplicative."

Rumsfeld told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that the White House was in negotiations with the Senate over the amendment.

"There's a discussion and debate taking place as to what the implications might be and what is supportable and what is not," he told the program. "But the fact of the matter is the president from the outset has said that he required that there be humane treatment."

Cheney has come under mounting criticism for his position. Last week, Stansfield Turner, a military veteran who served as director of the CIA during the Carter administration, labeled him the "vice president for torture." (Full story)

In a statement responding to Turner's remark, Cheney said his views "are reflected in the administration's policy. Our country is at war and our government has an obligation to protect the American people from a brutal enemy that has declared war upon us."

"We are aggressively finding terrorists and bringing them to justice and anything we do within this effort is within the law," the statement said, adding that the United States "does not torture."
Rumsfeld denies 'cabal' charge

Bush administration officials, including Rumsfeld and military officials, have denied that instances of torture were ever officially condoned. Some personnel accused of torture have been convicted and sentenced for prisoner abuse.

"All the instructions I issued required humane treatment," Rumsfeld told ABC. "Anything that was done that was not humane has been prosecuted."

But Wilkerson argued last month in a speech that Cheney and Rumsfeld formed a cabal that "made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."

Wilkerson told CNN Sunday he does not know "if the president was witting in this or not."

"I voted for him twice," he said. "I prefer to think that he was not."

Earlier, on the same CNN program, Rumsfeld dismissed as "ridiculous" the claim that he was involved in a cabal.

Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said they had no recollection of Wilkerson having attended meetings with Rumsfeld or Cheney.

"In terms of having first-hand information, I just can't imagine that he does," said Rumsfeld. "The allegation is ridiculous."

"I was in every meeting with the joint chiefs. I was in every meeting with the combatant commanders. I went to the White House multiple times to meet with the National Security Council and with the president of the United States. I have never seen that colonel," added Pace.

"They made my point for me," responded Wilkerson. "The decisions were not made in the principals' process, in the deputies' process, in the policy coordinating committee process. They were not made in the statutory process."

Wilkerson said his "insights" came from Powell "walking through my door in April or March of 2004 and telling me to get everything I could get my hands on with regard to the detainee abuse issue -- ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] reporting, memoranda, open-source information and so forth -- so that I could build some kind of story, some kind of audit trail so we could understand the chronology and we can understand how it developed."

While he acknowledged having no proof that the United States is torturing detainees, Wilkerson said, "I can only assume that, when the vice president of the United States lobbies the Congress on behalf of cruel and unusual punishment and the need to be able to do that in order to get information out of potential terrorists... that it's still going on."

He said U.S. officials should realize they are involved in "a war of ideas" that cannot be advanced with torture.

"In a war of ideas, you cannot damage your own ideas, your own position by seeming to do things that are in contradiction of your values," he said.

Rumsfeld told ABC that the military has "overwhelmingly treated people humanely."

"The history of the United States military is clear. Torture doesn't work. The military knows that. We want our people treated humanely," he said.

[Glengoyne]

Flasch,

I'm thinking he is just a guy who used to be someone important who read the same stories we all have, and has jumped to the same conclusion about Cheney that you, Giggles, and many on the left have. It is just that because he used to be someone, he gets to spread his assumptions around in a format that reaches more people.

[Flasch186]

Flasch,

I'm thinking he is just a guy who used to be someone important who read the same stories we all have, and has jumped to the same conclusion about Cheney that you, Giggles, and many on the left have. It is just that because he used to be someone, he gets to spread his assumptions around in a format that reaches more people.

Ok, but we've been down this road before. when I tell you something will flesh out 9 time out of 10 it does. Its a comin....Just like the Plame story, its going back in front of the grandjury soon. I will add it to my list of items I said would flesh out that did.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I am able to see the whole picture, I wish you could too.

Now if only you were equally capable of discernment, logic, reason, or simple common sense.

[Glengoyne]

Ok, but we've been down this road before. when I tell you something will flesh out 9 time out of 10 it does. Its a comin....Just like the Plame story, its going back in front of the grandjury soon. I will add it to my list of items I said would flesh out that did.
I don't know who is keeping that batting average for you, but really they need to check their math. I'm not saying that you aren't perceptive and insightful, just that you aren't THAT insightful. I'm thinking there is some selective remembering going on.

[Flasch186]

okay...we'll see.

[MrBigglesworth]

Now if only you were equally capable of discernment, logic, reason, or simple common sense.
If there is anything that screams discernment, logic, and reason better than ad hominem attacks, I don't know of it.

[Flasch186]

I told ya....Cheney now had the motive to go ask for a CIA exemption from the definition of torture under the new bill. Here is Goss saying some of the things they do would be banned by the new bill that Cheney is asking for that exemption. So here's the motive, now we just need Cheney to admit he asked for the exemption and Ill be right again. I admit, Cheney hasnt come outright and admitted that he asked for the exemption, but the deck of cards is almost in place....youve got the leaks that he did behind closed doors (multiple leaks), youve got the motive now....were just missing the admittance.



Goss: CIA Doesn't Torture Detainees
Monday, November 21, 2005



WASHINGTON — The CIA's interrogation methods are "unique" but don't involve torture, agency chief Porter Goss says, although he won't specify just what techniques are used to extract information from prisoners.

In an interview published Monday in USA Today, Goss reiterated the Bush administration's defense of its interrogation practices in the war against terrorism.

"This agency does not do torture. Torture does not work," Goss said. "We use lawful capabilities to collect vital information and we do it in a variety of unique and innovative ways, all of which are legal and none of which are torture."

The Senate has passed a ban on the torture of suspected terrorists in U.S. custody. The bill would restrict techniques used to interrogate foreign terrorism suspects and would ban "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of anyone in U.S. custody. The bill was sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself a former prisoner of war in Vietnam.

Without elaborating, Goss suggested that some techniques that would be restricted under McCain's bill have yielded valuable intelligence. He said it was important that the United States have flexibility in dealing with terror suspects in other countries.


"An enemy that's working in an amorphous network that doesn't have to worry about a bunch of regulations, chain of command, rule of law or anything else has got a huge advantage over a stultified, slow-moving bureaucratic, by-the-book" organization, Goss argued. "So we have to, within the law and within all the requirements of our professional ethics in this profession, develop agility. And that means putting a lot of judgment in the hands of individuals overseas."

Goss declined to discuss reports that the CIA maintains secret detention centers at military bases in Central European countries.

[Glengoyne]

I told ya....Cheney now had the motive to go ask for a CIA exemption from the definition of torture under the new bill. Here is Goss saying some of the things they do would be banned by the new bill that Cheney is asking for that exemption. So here's the motive, now we just need Cheney to admit he asked for the exemption and Ill be right again. I admit, Cheney hasnt come outright and admitted that he asked for the exemption, but the deck of cards is almost in place....youve got the leaks that he did behind closed doors (multiple leaks), youve got the motive now....were just missing the admittance.
....
I don't know. Goss says that the techniques used by the CIA don't involve torture. He describes them as lawful, innovative, and Unique. Then later he possibly hints that some of their techniques might be restricted under the proposed law, while those methods are not limited by the current torture policy/laws. It sounds to me like Cheney might have been seeking a specific exemption for some technique(s) that might fall into a "grey area" created by this new legislation.

That isn't the same as Cheney or the Administration advocating or requesting a license to torture. If it turns out that Cheney was simply trying to protect a practice that many wouldn't consider torture, would you be wrong? Or are you trying to set yourself up, so that no matter what Cheney was asking for proves you right? That Cheney was asking for some kind of exemption regarding the CIA and torture isn't at question. It was whether he was asking for essentially a carte blanche policy allowing the CIA to torture prisoners. That doesn't appear to be what Goss is describing at all.

[Flasch186]

I never once said the Admin. supports or advocates torture. I was called out that Cheney WAS NOT asking for an exemption, and thats the road I had to go down to show that he did. Whether or not I agree with him, wasnt the point. simply put that he is asking for an exemption from things defined as "torture" for the CIA. Its coming through that I was right. Some of those on the right will just jump to the defense JUST as quick as those on the left jump to attack. I am saying exactly what I said, he did, more and more evidence is mounting and those that are saying he did not, that it cant be proven until he admits it, basically are full of partisan shit.

Maybe the specific exemption isnt what youre looking for BUT remember you got into this late, it was challenged by a different poster that none of it could be believed because it didn't come from Cheney himself. You (Glen) gave him the license to worm out of his defense by throwing in the "specificity" clause. That wasn't the debate...., it was any at all.

[Glengoyne]

I never once said the Admin. supports or advocates torture. I was called out that Cheney WAS NOT asking for an exemption, and thats the road I had to go down to show that he did. Whether or not I agree with him, wasnt the point. simply put that he is asking for an exemption from things defined as "torture" for the CIA. Its coming through that I was right. Some of those on the right will just jump to the defense JUST as quick as those on the left jump to attack. I am saying exactly what I said, he did, more and more evidence is mounting and those that are saying he did not, that it cant be proven until he admits it, basically are full of partisan shit.

Maybe the specific exemption isnt what youre looking for BUT remember you got into this late, it was challenged by a different poster that none of it could be believed because it didn't come from Cheney himself. You (Glen) gave him the license to worm out of his defense by throwing in the "specificity" clause. That wasn't the debate...., it was any at all.

I don't think I was all that late to the debate. I believe specifically that the subject came up when I had asked what proof there was that the President or his administration were advocating torture. Giggles mentioned the infamous "torture" memo, and someone cited the Cheney bit. I called you and others out specifically because you and they didn't know the first thing about Cheney's request. Folks had apparently and willfully jumped to the conclusion the story led you to believe, that Cheney was secretly working to get "torture" legalized for the CIA. The paucity of facts in the story made the insinuation that Cheney was up to something dark and untoward even more ominous. The truth of the matter is that we still don't know what Cheney was asking for, because none of the reporters/sources have shared those details.

Although I could be wrong, I don't think Dutch was arguing that he had to hear Cheney himself make the request. I think you went into your golf bag, mistakenly grabbed your Arles Wedge, and went to swinging away at Dutch's argument.

[Flasch186]

first off NEVER compare my diatribes to Giggles.

Second I didnt say the admin advocated for torture, simply that Cheney was advocating for that specific exemption for the CIA.

Third, it seeming untoward is nobody's fault but those that act or speak behind closed doors. So that is all his, not mine - Perception is reality 99% of the time.

Dutch, used the Arles argument first, and while he certainly wont ever overtake Arles in that dept. he used it, so the whack-a-mole came out.

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't think I was all that late to the debate. I believe specifically that the subject came up when I had asked what proof there was that the President or his administration were advocating torture. Giggles mentioned the infamous "torture" memo, and someone cited the Cheney bit. I called you and others out specifically because you and they didn't know the first thing about Cheney's request. Folks had apparently and willfully jumped to the conclusion the story led you to believe, that Cheney was secretly working to get "torture" legalized for the CIA. The paucity of facts in the story made the insinuation that Cheney was up to something dark and untoward even more ominous. The truth of the matter is that we still don't know what Cheney was asking for, because none of the reporters/sources have shared those details.

Although I could be wrong, I don't think Dutch was arguing that he had to hear Cheney himself make the request. I think you went into your golf bag, mistakenly grabbed your Arles Wedge, and went to swinging away at Dutch's argument.
Blen, open your eyes. Seriously. At some point you have to start trusting those that have been correct and not trusting those that have been wrong. I was pro war in March of 2003. When the WMD's failed to show up, I admitted my mistake. At that time I chose to trust those who were right, and not trust those that were wrong. First Abu Ghraib happened, and the administration called it a bunch of bad apples. Then similar behavior was found to have occurred other places around the world. We know for a fact that suspected terrorists are extradicted to other countries to be tortured (something that also happened during the Clinton years, which was wrong then as well). We know for a fact that Bush does not believe in universal habeus corpus. Amnesty International called Gitmo a 'gulag', the administration was aghast at the rhetoric, then it turned out that we actually have reopened Soviet era gulags in Eastern Europe. There are literally hundreds of smoking guns that indicate that the administration, at the very least, wants to loosen the definition of 'torture'. And that is not a partisan view coming out of moonbat lefty blogs or Micheal Moore. Read Andrew Sullivan or the 'Cunning Realist' to get conservative views on it.

For God's sake, the President is outright lying now in covering up the lead up to the Iraq war, telling the people that Congress had the same intelligence as he did and that they voted to authorize war. At this point why would you give them the benefit of the doubt in the face of mountains of evidence?