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

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - In the few short years since the first shackled Afghan shuffled off to Guantanamo, the U.S. military has created a global network of overseas prisons, its islands of high security keeping 14,000 detainees beyond the reach of established law.

ADVERTISEMENT

Disclosures of torture and long-term arbitrary detentions have won rebuke from leading voices including the U.N. secretary-general and the

U.S. Supreme Court. But the bitterest words come from inside the system, the size of several major U.S. penitentiaries.

"It was hard to believe I'd get out," Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi told The Associated Press after his release — without charge — last month. "I lived with the Americans for one year and eight months as if I was living in hell."

From today's news:

U.S. war prisons legal vacuum for 14,000

Human rights groups count dozens of detainee deaths for which no one has been punished or that were never explained. The secret prisons — unknown in number and location — remain available for future detainees. The new manual banning torture doesn't cover CIA interrogators. And thousands of people still languish in a limbo, deprived of one of common law's oldest rights, habeas corpus, the right to know why you are imprisoned.

"If you, God forbid, are an innocent Afghan who gets sold down the river by some warlord rival, you can end up at Bagram and you have absolutely no way of clearing your name," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch in New York. "You can't have a lawyer present evidence, or do anything organized to get yourself out of there."

Edited September 17, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

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:

---------------------------------------------------------snip!-----------------------------------------------------

substance? steven, you're missing the point. we can carry on about this all day. it won't make one bit of difference to the other side. don't you get it? they don't care!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They don't care because their ideology is short-sighted. The difference is - we ought to care, and before 9/11 and GWB - for the most part, people did.

Edited September 17, 2006 by erekose

[mmmbop1976 1]

They don't care because their ideology is short-sighted. The difference is - we ought to care, and before 9/11 and GWB - for the most part, people did.

and what did caring get us?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They don't care because their ideology is short-sighted. The difference is - we ought to care, and before 9/11 and GWB - for the most part, people did.

and what did caring get us?

Moral legitimacy and ethical accountability, that's what

Is there any direct proof that torture "pressure" etc. has actually yielded useful results?

Edited September 17, 2006 by erekose

[Mirorgate 0]

They don't care because their ideology is short-sighted. The difference is - we ought to care, and before 9/11 and GWB - for the most part, people did.

and what did caring get us?

Moral legitimacy and ethical accountability, that's what

Is there any direct proof that torture "pressure" etc. has actually yielded useful results?

It got me this here all day sucker !! B)

[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:

---------------------------------------------------------snip!-----------------------------------------------------

substance? steven, you're missing the point. we can carry on about this all day. it won't make one bit of difference to the other side. don't you get it? they don't care!

So you disregard what military interrogation officers have to say about torture? Amazing. This Administration is notorious for ignoring anyone with substance on such importance matters. This is the Administration of Ignorance.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

So you disregard what military interrogation officers have to say about torture? Amazing. This Administration is notorious for ignoring anyone with substance on such importance matters. This is the Administration of Ignorance.

a very nice try of making my post appear different than it was intended. keep trying

[mmmbop1976 1]

So you disregard what military interrogation officers have to say about torture? Amazing. This Administration is notorious for ignoring anyone with substance on such importance matters. This is the Administration of Ignorance.

1st, you don't have proof thay they are being tortured. all you have is your belief that they are because that is what supports your argument. 2nd, there are many others, military and civilian, saying that the current techinques that were used on KSM and others yielded valuable information that prevented attacks on us. i seriously doubt that this administration, or any US administration, wants to torture people just for the sake of it. that being said, i don't believe they are being tortured. and i also believe that pres bush and his administration have one goal in this...to keep us safe from further terrorist attacks, and to spread freedom as far as possible to lessen the likelihood of future terrorist attacks against our children and grandchildren and generations to come. terrorism has been on the rise, unchecked, around the world for decades now, and thank god somebody finally wants to tackle this issue instead of just sticking his head in the sand and hoping it will go away, because it won't until the appeal of terror to new recruits is not as strong as the appeal of a peaceful, productive life.

you might want to call the admistration of ignorance, whatever....i know 1 thing, we havn't had another terrorist attack on th US homeland since 9/11....do you think it's because the terrorists have stopped trying?

you always harp about due process...how innocent people are being picked up in afghanistan or iraq for no particular reason, just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being held and then released at some future time without being charged. our troops and cia personnel recieve extensive training on how to spot and interogate a suspected terrorist. i have confidence that our troops and cia are competent people doing a good job and they had good reason to detain the people they detained, as opposed to your side that must think our troops and cia are a bunch of bumbling dunderheads that couldn't spot a terrorist from the pillsbury dough boy. i think they had good reason to detain these suspects and if they had to be released without being charged it must be because they weren't later able to develop enough evidence against them. well, so sorry, it's not a perfect world, even here in our domestic justice system sometimes innocent people get arrested, tried, and convicted. we would all like a perfect world, but it never will be, because all humans are imperfect. i don't want innocent people detained, but i trust our troops only detain people for good reason. i know it's easy for you to believe these stories you see about so and so detained for no reason because of your distrust of the US military, i trust our troops. and, they must be getting some kind of due process because they are being released if no charges can be proved against them.

They don't care because their ideology is short-sighted. The difference is - we ought to care, and before 9/11 and GWB - for the most part, people did.

and what did caring get us?

Moral legitimacy and ethical accountability, that's what

tell that to the families of the 3000 victims of 9/11

They don't care because their ideology is short-sighted. The difference is - we ought to care, and before 9/11 and GWB - for the most part, people did.

and what did caring get us?

Is there any direct proof that torture "pressure" etc. has actually yielded useful results?

1st, who says torture is being used? i do know that pres bush said in his speech where he talked about the cia program that the techniques they used on ksm and others yielded useful information

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

tell that to the families of the 3000 victims of 9/11

Oh whatever... Like you and the Bush administration alone have the monopoly on the national tragedy. That, my friend, is "propaganda of the worst sort". Why don't YOU explain it to this guy:

"It was hard to believe I'd get out," Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi told The Associated Press after his release — without charge — last month. "I lived with the Americans for one year and eight months as if I was living in hell."

1st, who says torture is being used? i do know that pres bush said in his speech where he talked about the cia program that the techniques they used on ksm and others yielded useful information

Lets see - former detainees, human rights groups, certain members of the armed forces, service personnel....

If you think Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident - discounting the idea (of which there is some evidence) that soldiers weren't acting solely on their own merit, the political confusion of the designation of 'detainees' vs. 'enemy combatants' etc. created the conditions that allowed this sort of thing to take place.

Edited September 17, 2006 by erekose

[mmmbop1976 1]

tell that to the families of the 3000 victims of 9/11

Oh whatever... Like you and the Bush administration alone have the monopoly on the national tragedy. That, my friend, is "propaganda of the worst sort". Why don't YOU explain it to this guy:

"It was hard to believe I'd get out," Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi told The Associated Press after his release — without charge — last month. "I lived with the Americans for one year and eight months as if I was living in hell."

1st, who says torture is being used? i do know that pres bush said in his speech where he talked about the cia program that the techniques they used on ksm and others yielded useful information

Lets see - former detainees, human rights groups, certain members of the armed forces, service personnel....

If you think Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident - discounting the idea (of which there is some evidence) that soldiers weren't acting solely on their own merit, the political confusion of the designation of 'detainees' vs. 'enemy combatants' etc. created the conditions that allowed this sort of thing to take place.

you should try to research the word propaganda. 2nd, former detainees are not a credible source, of course they will say they were mistreated, it's helps their cause of turning us against each other. human rights groups provide no evidence, just facts and figures that anybody could have made up. members of both political parties have visited gitmo several times and attested to the fact that the detainees are being treated very humanely.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

you should try to research the word propaganda. 2nd, former detainees are not a credible source, of course they will say they were mistreated, it's helps their cause of turning us against each other. human rights groups provide no evidence, just facts and figures that anybody could have made up. members of both political parties have visited gitmo several times and attested to the fact that the detainees are being treated very humanely.

You basically said that "by any means necessary" is justifiable by invoking the 9/11 victims. That, btw is an administration soundbite - which has been trotted out before to suggest (albeit indirectly) that opponents of current policy (regardless of their political background) are naive, that their objections hold no weight; and even worse, that they don't care about the tragedy, or issues of national security. Please tell me how that is not propagandistic...?

Once again its symptomatic of the standard of political discourse in this country, which took a major nosedive after 9/11 - not necessarily left and right, but towards simplistic attitudes and outright ignorance. The resurgence of nationalism as opposed to patriotism certainly doesn't help matters....

So the word of none of these groups counts for anything? Bold words - considering that you probably haven't read their various objections in any detail. Again - dismissive tactics to suggest that only the government argument has any legitimacy.

I guess the word of a detainee counts for nothing, because the assumption is made that the guy is supposed to be there, and that therefore there must be 'some' guilt attached. Not true unfortunately, and while its good you trust the troops - I wonder if you would argue that your average trooper is any less fallible than your average police officer. As you know, its not unprecedented for a police officer to arrest the wrong man, and release him without charge. With the political and security instabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the cultural and language barriers between US service personnel and the general populace - I would argue that there is a somewhat greater chance of being arrested without 'probable cause'; and as we know, without any opportunity for legal representation or charge.

Arresting someone for over a year, with no charge, explanation or compensation is quite simply an atrocious abuse of human rights.

[mmmbop1976 1]

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.

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.

so why in your post did you not say john yoo said there is no law to prevent the torture of children. you are right, most of that video deals with the wiretapping program, so why did you choose those 2 cuts to put in your post. why not just put the statement about the video with no excerpts, or some excerpt about the wiretapping. hence my view that you purposely chose those 2 excerpts and that you purposely attributed the 1st excerpt to noone, followed by a 2nd excerpt starting with "bush even claimed", to make it appear like he claimed that 1st excerpt also. and not everybody will watch that video and go away with the perception that pres bush condones torture of children. that's my view on it anyway.

as for the wiretapping program, well it's not secret anymore, and if it was so illegal i would think the democrats would be halting all business in congress until there was an impeachment hearing. in fact i would think that would be the only thing they would talk about on tv and radio every chance they had, but they don't

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

So you disregard what military interrogation officers have to say about torture? Amazing. This Administration is notorious for ignoring anyone with substance on such importance matters. This is the Administration of Ignorance.

1st, you don't have proof thay they are being tortured. all you have is your belief that they are because that is what supports your argument. 2nd, there are many others, military and civilian, saying that the current techinques that were used on KSM and others yielded valuable information that prevented attacks on us. i seriously doubt that this administration, or any US administration, wants to torture people just for the sake of it. that being said, i don't believe they are being tortured.

Here's some advice when arguing - try and address directly what was said. Go back read what those military interrogation officers said and then if you want to argue against what they said, come up with something more substantial than saying "I don't believe they are being tortured." It's not fuzzy facts, or fuzzy logic. It's simply relying on legitimate testimony. If you have legitimate testimony that counters their claims, be sure to find someone who actually addresses what was said.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

Here's some advice when arguing - try and address directly what was said. Go back read what those military interrogation officers said and then if you want to argue against what they said, come up with something more substantial than saying "I don't believe they are being tortured." It's not fuzzy facts, or fuzzy logic. It's simply relying on legitimate testimony. If you have legitimate testimony that counters their claims, be sure to find someone who actually addresses what was said.

um, steven, the proper term is "military intelligence officers"

the military occupational specialty of interrogation falls under military intelligence field