U.S. Practiced Torture After 9/11, Non Partisan Review Concludes

[hornadylnl]

So? What's the problem? Nothing more than the mussies would do.

You're not even trying to hide it anymore. I wish all of you would come out of the closet and express your true feelings.

 

[HenryWallace]

So? What's the problem? Nothing more than the mussies would do.

With a few of my tools and my understanding of the nervous system, I could make anyone say just about anything.... Time for a new set of standards huh?

Note: There is a reason that it's against the law!

It's not right for someone to do it to someone you love, just as it's not right for us to do it because they hurt someone you love.

When someone hurts a bunch of people because of what's been done to them and their family... we still call it terrorism. How can we condone it on one side and not the other?!

 

[rhino]

I'm waiting for someone to define torture in a way that makes sense, then stick with it so that the word would have an actual meaning again.

As it is now, putting a pair of panties on someone's head is an "atrocity" according to the esteemed Brian Williams. I'm not willing to call that "torture." Nor am I convinced that water boarding is torture.

 

[lucky4034]

First off, it's an article by the New York Times, which is already KNOWN to be a far-left whackjob newspaper.

Second, the Constitution Project was founded by, and the majority of it's Board are also left to far-left folks. So, their motivation and agenda should be seriously questioned.

Third, our troops are ALREADY being, and have been in the past, consistently murdered and butchered in the past. So called 'waterboarding' is not the same as sawing off someone's head. Anyone believing so does not comprehend, even on the most base level, what torture IS. Any comparison whatsoever is nothing less than sheer stupidity spewed by those suffering from moronicity (coined by me).

Fourth, calling for Bush OR Obama to be 'charged with war crimes' is fine with me in concept, as soon as YOU capture, charge, and bring to justice the terrorists that we have no doubt commit war crimes. Until that time, until YOU take the action necessary to capture the known terrorists, Bush and Obama are way down the line. So far down the line, it's a non-issue.

Fifth, terrorists are not permitted the benefit of the protections of the U.S. Constitution NOR of the 4th Geneva Convention nor is there any wording that allows them such privilege. They are rogues, outlaws, and eschew the very tenets, concepts, ideals, and spirit of both documents, and do not hesitate them at every opportunity. Therefore, they do NOT get to claim protection under them.

Sixth, EVERY incarcerate at GITMO is there because they CHOSE the fight, and it is now indisputably well established that if released, will immediately return to the battle front to perpetrate more harm on American troops and / or citizens. Therefore, they should remain incarcerated until every last vestige of terrorism perpetrated against the U.S., U.S. Troops and U.S. citizens has been eliminated. That does NOT mean it's a 'life sentence'. They can persuade their cohorts still at large to cease and desist. UNTIL they do, and those cohorts permanently lay down their arms, those at GITMO should remain under lock and key. AND, any more that we can grab, as well.

Seventh, if forced to choose between protecting and/or saving the life of U.S. troops or citizens versus some spurious claim of 'torture' by the terrorist or the clueless, personally I'll pick protecting our own every single time.

I can't stand when people make up **** and sell it as fact. At least Conspiracists present most things as theory or evidence rather than pure fact.

"6th"... there are more than just "The Taliban Fighters" housed at GITMO ... here is a List of Guantanamo Bay detainees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2nd... are you saying that we should be capturing INNOCENT PEOPLE and housing them at GITMO based on radicals actions because they share nationality? Thats like saying we should detain you in a jail indefinitely... even though you are innocent of any crime... because Adam Lanza shot up a school. And we should justify that action based on the fact that you are both White U.S. Citizens.

Thats absurd

 

[rambone]

Third, our troops are ALREADY being, and have been in the past, consistently murdered and butchered in the past. So called 'waterboarding' is not the same as sawing off someone's head. Anyone believing so does not comprehend, even on the most base level, what torture IS. Any comparison whatsoever is nothing less than sheer stupidity spewed by those suffering from moronicity (coined by me).

The standard our government is held to is a prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishments."

Torture doesn't have to involve dismemberment or leaving any marks. Rape doesn't leave any marks either.

Fifth, terrorists are not permitted the benefit of the protections of the U.S. Constitution NOR of the 4th Geneva Convention nor is there any wording that allows them such privilege. They are rogues, outlaws, and eschew the very tenets, concepts, ideals, and spirit of both documents, and do not hesitate them at every opportunity. Therefore, they do NOT get to claim protection under them.

The constitution isn't a benefits package available to certain people. It is a cage designed for the Federal Government. Either the government stays in the cage or it doesn't. The 8th Amendment is very plain and clear. If you believe it is a worthless amendment, then there is a process to get rid of it. Don't pretend it doesn't exist, or doesn't say what it says.

Sixth, EVERY incarcerate at GITMO is there because they CHOSE the fight, and it is now indisputably well established that if released, will immediately return to the battle front to perpetrate more harm on American troops and / or citizens. Therefore, they should remain incarcerated until every last vestige of terrorism perpetrated against the U.S., U.S. Troops and U.S. citizens has been eliminated. That does NOT mean it's a 'life sentence'. They can persuade their cohorts still at large to cease and desist. UNTIL they do, and those cohorts permanently lay down their arms, those at GITMO should remain under lock and key. AND, any more that we can grab, as well.

If the U.S. Government is going to insist on staying in the Middle East for the rest of its existence, then there will never stop being local rebels who resist foreign occupation. But everyone with a brain knows that. The War on Terror will never end, by design. The USA will continue to remain "in conflict" for the rest of its natural existence and will continue to escape its constitutional boundaries under the auspices of fighting a war. Naive people will cheer the government for "getting tough on terror" (read: breaking the constitution) until the day when they realize that the only difference between themselves and a guy being tortured and indefinitely detained is an unproven accusation by a shadowy government agency.

 

[yotewacker]

I believe the definition of torture is to inflict pain on someone until they pass out.

But that's just my opinion and everybody has one.

 

[lucky4034]

I believe the definition of torture is to inflict pain on someone until they pass out.

But that's just my opinion and everybody has one.

Captain Morgan told me the same thing

 

[mrjarrell]

I'm waiting for someone to define torture in a way that makes sense, then stick with it so that the word would have an actual meaning again.

As it is now, putting a pair of panties on someone's head is an "atrocity" according to the esteemed Brian Williams. I'm not willing to call that "torture." Nor am I convinced that water boarding is torture.

The US government was convinced it was torture when they hanged the Japanese war criminals who ordered it done in WW2. Somewhere along the way it became acceptable when WE do it and that's wrong. If you wouldn't want it done to your children or self then it's probably torture.

 

[88GT]

Let's not excuse war crimes... (whether necessary or not)

War crimes are war crimes... The Taliban has committed them and so have we. Whether a necessary evil of war or not... I don't see how anyone could condemn one side for committing acts and excuse the other?

What the hell is a war crime? Dumbest idea I've ever heard.

 

[Sfrandolph]

What an excellent standard. I think I will teach my children this as their 'Golden Rule'.

When at war there are no rules.

 

[lucky4034]

What the hell is a war crime? Dumbest idea I've ever heard.

Yeah... pretty stupid idea until you voluntarily put yourself in the line of danger for your country or worse yet end up a P.O.W.

The Geneva Convention might just be the only thing that keeps you alive if you are lucky enough to get captured by a military that recognizes it.

 

[dross]

Yeah... pretty stupid idea until you voluntarily put yourself in the line of danger for your country or worse yet end up a P.O.W.

The Geneva Convention might just be the only thing that keeps you alive if you are lucky enough to get captured by a military that recognizes it.

When we follow the Geneva Conventions in the favor of those who do not, we weaken the Conventions, we encourage torture and war crimes.

The GC is not a moral code, it's a practical instrument to discourage excesses.

An analogy: when our enemy uses a mosque or a school as a fighting position, we endanger those buildings if we treat them as anything but tactical cover. It's we who encourage our enemy to use them by being squeamish.

 

[lucky4034]

So you are suggesting an "eye for an eye" or "beheading for beheading" ?

There was a suggestion that we should basically ignore war crimes committed by our military because:

a) War is stressful
b) Our enemies commit them

 

[mrjarrell]

When at war there are no rules.

There most certainly are rules that are followed. If they're not followed bad things, like Nuremberg happen to you.

 

[rambone]

When at war there are no rules.

Said another way, when at war there are no limits to the power of government.

Let's not pretend that this all-powerful state is something a constitutionalist would advocate.

 

[stationhollow]

ive never been to war. but i think if i was in battle and and was seeing things that should never be seen. and doing things that should never be done. i believe i would want someone somewhere doing anything to get me and my friends back home. if that involved torture then so be it. war has no rules. thanks to all who have served.

 

[steveh_131]

When at war there are no rules.

Clearly. 9/11 is a wonderful example of this principle at work.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It's like the Patriot Act, and NDAA, + all other overstepping laws that we've had written "for our defence"... against the seemingly everywhere - (American people AKA potential Terrorists) written to strenghten and Monopolize Power in an overgrown Government Control and Military Industrial Complex.
The defenition of Terrorism is so overly vague that ANYONE who voices an opinion (let alone about the Founding Fathers or our Soverign Rights) as being a potential Terrorist.

Is this new?! No. The sheeple will soon get a history lesson taught to them by the tryanny that the Founding Fathers preached against.

First of all, "Terrorism" has a very specific definition, despite the muddy way some factions of the government chooses to define it. Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary says: "terrorism" is

[noncount] : the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

The rather vague accusations of "torture" seem to come primarily from the inmates at Guantanamo, or from their self-appointed advocates on the Left. Please don't forget that a tenet of radical Islam is that any lie told to deceive an infidel is righteous and permitted. And any government activity billed as "non-partisan" generally means either it is so constituted as to not be able to reach an agreed-upon conclusion, or that it is made up of politicians who have the same biases, just belonging to different political parties. I suspect this particular investigation is an example of the latter.

In this war against radical Islam, the rules of the Geneva Conventions do not, strictly, apply except as we choose to apply them (typically in Rules of Engagement and rules for the general treatment of prisoners). As dross and others have noted, the Geneva Conventions have specific guidelines which must be followed in order to qualify for the protections provided under its articles and bad guys don't follow them in any way.

The United States has not fought an enemy who adhered to the Geneva Conventions since WWII.

While we can leave aside the moral effects that accrue to those who make a habit of torturing prisoners, I find it difficult to believe that true torture was systematically employed by us or condoned by our leadership. Perhaps if COL Nick Rowe had been a participant in that "non-partisan" investigation, I might have more faith in their conclusions; he would certainly have recognized systematic torture when he saw it.

 

[88GT]

Yeah... pretty stupid idea until you voluntarily put yourself in the line of danger for your country or worse yet end up a P.O.W.

The Geneva Convention might just be the only thing that keeps you alive if you are lucky enough to get captured by a military that recognizes it.

You're deluding yourself if you think a piece of paper is protecting anybody. The GC are just an international version of a protective order. And we all know how we'll they work, don't we? It's the threat/risk of retaliatory behavior that keeps war "civilized" between nations who are foolish enough to think war can be civilized.

But it's also what weakens nations, binds them from prosecuting wars to win. Playing by rules is foolish beyond a certain point. When faced with the choice of beating your opponent and breaking the rules or suffering annihilation because you just had to stick to the bloody rules, what do you do?

So you are suggesting an "eye for an eye" or "beheading for beheading" ?

There was a suggestion that we should basically ignore war crimes committed by our military because:

a) War is stressful
b) Our enemies commit them

No. I'm not suggesting we respond in kind just because they did it. I'm suggesting we do whatever it takes to win. If playing by the rules doesn't get it done, well, you have a choice to make. I am NOT advocating brutality for brutality's sake. But I most certainly believe in keeping it on the table.

Little girl rules of war make one look weak. And weakness is provocative.

Point of order: we are not obligated to honor any rules against nations/enemies that have not obligated themselves to follow the same rules.

There most certainly are rules that are followed. If they're not followed bad things, like Nuremberg happen to you.

Rules? Of war? Laughable. /Best stuffy British accent.

War is what you get when all the rules have already been broken. War IS breaking the rules. Rules for war are written by men silly enough to think they'll be followed by all parties even if it means losing.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

"indict the interrogation and tortures committed by Presidents Clinton [Rendition], Bush Jr [full menu of tortures], Obama [Bush Jr in Black Face]. "

Black Face? Really? What century is this?