Tony Snow and Press Spar: 'Torture' For All of Them

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But the point has been made previously that some people have been picked up and incarcerated (and subjected to torture/harsh treatment/"pressure" - whatever you want to call it) for the most arbitrary of reasons - wearing the "wrong" clothes, asking the "wrong" questions. Seems there is no appeals process - if the trooper at the road block "don't like your face" what's to stop him having you shipped off to Guantanamo with the real terrorists?

Is there any point asking what would happen if say Iran, China or North Korea was holding American citizens and denying them any legal rights or charging them with a crime. People would be screaming bloody murder.

An American operation like Guantanamo only legitimises what countries like Burma have been doing for years.

I completely agree that no-one should be denied the right to due process and a fair trial --

all suspected terrorists should be either charged with a crime or released.

I think that in some cases you can justify holding an individual without charge or trial

for several weeks, maybe even a month -- but no more than that! And in some

*extraordinary* cases where national security is at stake (say, a nuclear bomb is to

be detonated in an American city and the prisoner knows where and when), there has

to be a way to interrogate those individuals without running afoul of the law.

You would imagine. I just wonder what the justification is for holding someone for that period of time - considering that many of the people released without charge were held, in some cases, for 2 years. How much of that do you suppose is actual work vs. bureaucratic red tape.

After all, most detectives could probably rule someone out of involvement in a crime in under 24 hours.

Remember that 71 Y/O british pensioner who got arrested on holiday (in Turkey I think), because someone (with an outstanding warrant for fraud) had stolen his identity? Poor ####### was in a Turkish prison for 2 weeks before someone from the FBI deigned to show up to identify him, and confirmed that he was indeed NOT the person they were looking for.

[mmmbop1976 1]

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

Huh? It's the same law that prevents me from ordering the torture of your testicles.

I'm against torture - real torture. As for sleep deprivation, sensory disorientation,

forced exercises, white noise, keeping terrorists in uncomfortable positions - yes!

How else are you supposed to extract information from these chopf##cks? Why

should we care about their comfort? Guantanamo Bay is not Montego Bay and they

are not on vacation.

The White House officially didn't want to define what they thought was acceptable or not, and basically said it was up to the President to decide what is appropriate. I don't know about you, but regardless of any moral dilemnas regarding torture, giving so much power to a President is a perversion of the very principals this country was created on.

Now, after the Supreme Court has ruled that Article III of the Geneva Convention Rules applies to detainees, the White House is backpedalling by redefining what it says. Nice.

Transcript:

Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty

Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

http://revcom.us/downloads/file_info/downl..._on_torture.mp3

you keep trying to change the direction here steve. the only thing to debate on your transcript post is whether john yoo correctly interpets law. no where, anywhere, does he say that the president of the united states wants to torture children. but marc purposely posted that 1 excerpt of abusing children followed by the "bush also claims" to try to give the perception that the president does indeed condone torture of children. and that is propaganda in its highest form. and you gave it a thumbs up. which you have now disavowed i will add. i'm not the chopf##k here, as you like to say. i'm not the one that was promulgating this disgusting propaganda. maybe read more carefully next time before you give a thumbs up

[Marc and Olga 0]

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

Huh? It's the same law that prevents me from ordering the torture of your testicles.

I'm against torture - real torture. As for sleep deprivation, sensory disorientation,

forced exercises, white noise, keeping terrorists in uncomfortable positions - yes!

How else are you supposed to extract information from these chopf##cks? Why

should we care about their comfort? Guantanamo Bay is not Montego Bay and they

are not on vacation.

The White House officially didn't want to define what they thought was acceptable or not, and basically said it was up to the President to decide what is appropriate. I don't know about you, but regardless of any moral dilemnas regarding torture, giving so much power to a President is a perversion of the very principals this country was created on.

Now, after the Supreme Court has ruled that Article III of the Geneva Convention Rules applies to detainees, the White House is backpedalling by redefining what it says. Nice.

Transcript:

Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty

Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

http://revcom.us/downloads/file_info/downl..._on_torture.mp3

you keep trying to change the direction here steve. the only thing to debate on your transcript post is whether john yoo correctly interpets law. no where, anywhere, does he say that the president of the united states wants to torture children. but marc purposely posted that 1 excerpt of abusing children followed by the "bush also claims" to try to give the perception that the president does indeed condone torture of children. and that is propaganda in its highest form. and you gave it a thumbs up. which you have now disavowed i will add. i'm not the chopf##k here, as you like to say. i'm not the one that was promulgating this disgusting propaganda. maybe read more carefully next time before you give a thumbs up

I never said he wanted to, in fact I quoted the video linked in that post which states he could and what Yoo says implies the president COULD. Not that he will or does.

However the in THIS thread I have claimed that our treatment of the "combatants" could send a message to other potential enemies. So far, no one has refuted that.

Another thing about that video, it only touched the topic of torture, the majority of that video discusses unwarranted wiretaps, which is a practice Bush has done against US Citizens.

It then shows a press conference where the retiring head of the NSA claims the phrase "probable cause" does not exist in the Bill of Rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Text of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

In essence the majority of the video is the head of the NSA stating that NO probable cause is needed IF they have a "reasonable belief". The argument is that the courts will NOT grant a warrant without probable cause, EVEN if there is a reasonable belief.

Edited September 16, 2006 by Marc and Olga

[mawilson 2,133]

However the in THIS thread I have claimed that our treatment of the "combatants" could send a message to other potential enemies. So far, no one has refuted that.

The only message it would send is "if you get caught, you're f*cked", and that's a good message.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think what is being lost here (and what Bush fails to address) is that the Geneva convention is not about protecting terrorists (which is how he sees it), but about protecting ALL combatants. He fails to consider that if the U.S. passes legislation "clarifying" what it stipulates, then other nations can do the same. This renders it nearly useless as protection, and this could be for the detriment of U.S. fighting men and women.

Apparently, Dubya not only skipped his National Guard duty during Vietnam. He skipped his Geneva Convention training as well. In basic training for all American armed forces, trainers hammer the idea that the Geneva convention is for YOU not THEM.

NBC news reporter David Gregory pushed Bush on this very issue. Not surprisingly, Bush ignored the substance of the question, saying that passing a law clarifying the Geneva convention mandates wasn't about "hypothetical situations involving U.S. soldiers", it was about allowing him to "protect the U.S. from terrorists."

Once again, we see how little this supposedly pro-troop President cares about individual members of the Armed Forces.

Edited September 17, 2006 by erekose

[Nizzy 1]

With the taliban that they have caught I say do as you wish with them...they don't deserve humane treatment...but I am totally bias when it comes to that...

[Marc and Olga 0]

However the in THIS thread I have claimed that our treatment of the "combatants" could send a message to other potential enemies. So far, no one has refuted that.

The only message it would send is "if you get caught, you're f*cked", and that's a good message.

You are half right and imho the half that you are wrong on is the important part.

You see by saying "if you get caught (by the USA), your f*cked" you are also telling our troops that if they are caught by the enemy, they too are f*cked!

As erekose pointed out, IF we set legislation to "define" the Geneva Conventions, what is to stop Iran or North Korea to do that as well, with their OWN definitions?

If we look at history we can see something very similar in the Malmedy Massacre:

The Malmedy massacre was a war crime committed by German Waffen-SS troops during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, involving the murder of American prisoners of war.

Malmedy Massacre

On December 17 1944, during the Battle of the Bulge, German Waffen-SS troops killed American prisoners in the Malmedy massacre.

In what is considered retaliation for the Malmedy Massacre:

Word of this spread rapidly among American forces[1], and caused great anger. One US unit issued orders that, "No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoners but will be shot on sight."[2]

Author Martin Sorge writes, "It was in the wake of the Malmedy incident at Chegnogne that on New Year's Day 1945 some 60 German POWs were shot in cold blood by their American guards.

Chenogne Massacre

So basically the Germans "defined" how POWs were to be treated on December 17, 1944, as President Bush is trying to do now.

[GaryC 7]

The stark facts that you are ignoring is this. Every conflict that we have been in since the begining of our history has shown us the same thing. We ALWAYS treat our prisoner of war captives better than the way the other side does. We treated our WW2 prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convention but did the Japanees? NO! We treated N Korean POWs in accordance with the GC, did they? NO!! We treated the Vietcong PW in accordance with the GC, did they? NO NO NO!!! We treated the Iraq prisoners in accordance with the GC did they? NO!!! (please don't give me the tired old Abu Grab line, That was an isolated case and even figuring that in our PW were treated much worse than that) Do you think that if we got into a war with Iran or N Korea they would treat our PW's with respect? NO! They would do whatever they wanted with them. So the idea that if Bush can clarify the GC definitions would give potential enemies the right to make up their own rules is BS. They are going to do it anyway despite anything we do.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

The stark facts that you are ignoring is this. Every conflict that we have been in since the begining of our history has shown us the same thing. We ALWAYS treat our prisoner of war captives better than the way the other side does. We treated our WW2 prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convention but did the Japanees? NO! We treated N Korean POWs in accordance with the GC, did they? NO!! We treated the Vietcong PW in accordance with the GC, did they? NO NO NO!!! We treated the Iraq prisoners in accordance with the GC did they? NO!!! (please don't give me the tired old Abu Grab line, That was an isolated case and even figuring that in our PW were treated much worse than that) Do you think that if we got into a war with Iran or N Korea they would treat our PW's with respect? NO! They would do whatever they wanted with them. So the idea that if Bush can clarify the GC definitions would give potential enemies the right to make up their own rules is BS. They are going to do it anyway despite anything we do.

in the end, people wring their hands and make a lot of noise about what the usa is doing, and the other side just keeps right on doing what they want, emboldened by what they perceive as signs of weakness in our society.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The stark facts that you are ignoring is this. Every conflict that we have been in since the begining of our history has shown us the same thing. We ALWAYS treat our prisoner of war captives better than the way the other side does. We treated our WW2 prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convention but did the Japanees? NO! We treated N Korean POWs in accordance with the GC, did they? NO!! We treated the Vietcong PW in accordance with the GC, did they? NO NO NO!!! We treated the Iraq prisoners in accordance with the GC did they? NO!!! (please don't give me the tired old Abu Grab line, That was an isolated case and even figuring that in our PW were treated much worse than that) Do you think that if we got into a war with Iran or N Korea they would treat our PW's with respect? NO! They would do whatever they wanted with them. So the idea that if Bush can clarify the GC definitions would give potential enemies the right to make up their own rules is BS. They are going to do it anyway despite anything we do.

Gary, how many times does somebody here need to remind you that these are detainees, not POW's? Our own government won't even call them enemy combatants because most of the detainees were not engaged in fighting our troops.

I've posted these facts before:

# At least 45 detainees died in U.S. custody due to suspected or confirmed criminal homicides.[1] At least eight people were tortured to death. At least 98 detainees have died while in U.S. custody in Iraq or Afghanistan;[2]

# At least 51 detainees have died in U.S. custody since Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was informed of the abuses at Abu Ghraib on January 16, 2004;[4]

# 12 deaths have led to punishments of U.S. personnel;[5]

# 0 CIA personnel have been charged with wrongdoing in connection with alleged involvement in at least 5 deaths.

# 8 percent of 517 Guantanamo detainees were considered al Qaeda fighters by the U.S. Government. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection to al Qaeda or Taliban.

# At least 267 detainees have been released from Guantanamo Bay since January 2002. 187 were released out right, and 80 were transferred to their home countries for continued detention.

........................

With such a high percentage of detainees being released why would ANYONE declare them our enemy by default, let alone condone torturing them?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

in the end, people wring their hands and make a lot of noise about what the usa is doing, and the other side just keeps right on doing what they want, emboldened by what they perceive as signs of weakness in our society.

More soundbiting? I mean, how do you even begin to prove that?

The extremists don't care about our society and are largely ignorant of it, as well as any political discourse that go on within it.

The stark facts that you are ignoring is this. Every conflict that we have been in since the begining of our history has shown us the same thing. We ALWAYS treat our prisoner of war captives better than the way the other side does. We treated our WW2 prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convention but did the Japanees? NO! We treated N Korean POWs in accordance with the GC, did they? NO!! We treated the Vietcong PW in accordance with the GC, did they? NO NO NO!!! We treated the Iraq prisoners in accordance with the GC did they? NO!!! (please don't give me the tired old Abu Grab line, That was an isolated case and even figuring that in our PW were treated much worse than that) Do you think that if we got into a war with Iran or N Korea they would treat our PW's with respect? NO! They would do whatever they wanted with them. So the idea that if Bush can clarify the GC definitions would give potential enemies the right to make up their own rules is BS. They are going to do it anyway despite anything we do.

The difference also was that people who broke the Geneva convention, who tortured people to death and committed mass murder were brought to trial under international law.

We are now in a situation where we are saying that the Geneva convention itself is 'irrelevant' in so far as it is apparently inconvenient to the current conflict.

Now from what Bush et al are doing it seems you can break those same laws that would ordinarily hold you account for crimes against humanity, but get out of any responsibility for those actions by inventing new laws to circumvent the international standard.

It renders the whole thing meaningless, IMO.

[mawilson 2,133]

You are half right and imho the half that you are wrong on is the important part.

You see by saying "if you get caught (by the USA), your f*cked" you are also telling our troops that if they are caught by the enemy, they too are f*cked!

They are already f*cked. If getting your head cut off is not f*cked, I don't know what is.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

in the end, people wring their hands and make a lot of noise about what the usa is doing, and the other side just keeps right on doing what they want, emboldened by what they perceive as signs of weakness in our society.

Horse hockies. I swear, it's like talking to people that are having a conversation with themselves. So many of you keep using flawed logic by first implying that all detainees are enemy combatants. Then you assume that 'being tough' with these detainees is a deterent to terrorists. What a piece of manure. If by chance you or someone else here has actual substance to back that up then I'd love to hear it.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

in the end, people wring their hands and make a lot of noise about what the usa is doing, and the other side just keeps right on doing what they want, emboldened by what they perceive as signs of weakness in our society.

Horse hockies. I swear, it's like talking to people that are having a conversation with themselves. So many of you keep using flawed logic by first implying that all detainees are enemy combatants. Then you assume that 'being tough' with these detainees is a deterent to terrorists. What a piece of manure. If by chance you or someone else here has actual substance to back that up then I'd love to hear it.

by your own logic, you said those in those prisons are not on the "other side" so obviously i was referencing those still free......

Edited September 17, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[one...two...tree 2,762]

in the end, people wring their hands and make a lot of noise about what the usa is doing, and the other side just keeps right on doing what they want, emboldened by what they perceive as signs of weakness in our society.

Horse hockies. I swear, it's like talking to people that are having a conversation with themselves. So many of you keep using flawed logic by first implying that all detainees are enemy combatants. Then you assume that 'being tough' with these detainees is a deterent to terrorists. What a piece of manure. If by chance you or someone else here has actual substance to back that up then I'd love to hear it.

by your own logic, you said those in those prisons are not on the "other side" so obviously i was referencing those still free......

So where's the substance that backs up your claim?

Here's something from military personnel regarding torture:

Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan11.html

Edited September 17, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky