Obama releases the "Torture Memos" - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-21-2009, 08:29 PM   #61
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadelynIris View Post
I'm not sure what you mean. Of course it's still going to hurt.
Then why be upset about the disclosure of it by saying that they will "prepare against" it?

How do you prepare against being fake drowned? The memos said a few of the terrorists were waterboarded hundreds of times. I would think he would have been "prepared" for it after about the first 50 times or so. Yet they still kept on doing it.

Besides the fact that everyone has known about this "enhanced interrogation" technique for years.
__________________

__________________
kellyahern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:38 PM   #62
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
According to former CIA director Michael Hayden fully half of our government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those early interrogations. It is healthy, as a nation, to have a discussion about these things but please don't forget the feeling of vulnerability we felt as a country after the 9/11 attacks. And try and understand the responsibility the Bush administration felt in preventing another attack.

in 2005? these memos were issued in May of 2005! this wasn't November of 2001. i've even said that in the days following 9-11, much of this would be understandable, but not excusable. but this continued long, long after 9-11, just as Zubdayah was tortured long, long after he had told us everything we knew. in 2007, George Bush said, "we do not torture." as we know now, that is a lie.


B
Quote:
y the way, are you still outraged about your civil liberties vis-à-vis government wiretaps now that the Obama administration has chosen to basically continue the Bush program as is? Or was that and "The death of habeas corpus" just part of the Left's anti-Bush hysteria of which Bush-as-war-criminal is just the final vestige?

i encourage you to start a thread on this. i haven't looked into this issue as much, but start a thread, i'll do some reading, and i'll give you my opinion.


Quote:
Illegal combatants, such as terrorists, pirates or international arms dealers are not -- repeat, not -- prisoners of war covered by the Geneva convention. But, after years of deliberation and weighing positive and negative implications we, as a country, now choose to treat them as such.
That does not, however, automatically make earlier actions war crimes.
firstly, this goes beyond the Geneva Convention. you are aware that there are laws beyond that, yes? secondly, simply because enemy combatants might not fall under whatever terms laid out by the GC, that does NOT mean that these people can and should exist in a legal netherworld where they have no rights. nor does the GC apply to whether or not we torture. it doesn't matter if we were waterboarding your average German soldier in 1945, a teenage Viet Cong soldier in 1967, a member of the Republican Guard in 1991, or someone we pulled out of the sands of Afghanistan. focusing on the legal status of the detainee ignores the fact that IT IS ILLEGAL TO TORTURE, and illegal by our own set of laws that the president, even President Bush, is bound to uphold. if it were not torture, why the need for these tortured memos?

that makes it a war crime. this was not Lyndie England. this was Bush and Cheney and their team of lawyers, and Bybee should be stripped of his federal courtship, at the absolute least.


Quote:
Congress could have specifically outlawed waterboarding. They didn't until last year.
do you think that had anything to do with the fact that it was a Republican Congress until January of 2007.

the point, INDY, is not even that there was waterboarding, but that this was a program. a program! does this not strike you as being the exact same thing as the whole WMD fiasco. "i know there are weapons, find them!" "i want to waterboard someone, provide me the legal justification!" it's so shockingly Orwellian and terrifying, and i can't, for the life of me, understand why this is excusable but, say, a government bailout of a bank or government run health care is somehow the end of the world.


Quote:
"Gestapo and Khamer Rouge techniques." That is downright insulting to members of our intelligence services. Please, for one instant, allow for the possibility that these, and only these, techniques used on but a handful of very bad men have saved the lives of American citizens. How many, what number, would it take for you to say, "Oh, well I guess I'm OK with it then"? 100? 1,000? 10,000?
who's insulting our intelligence services, then? those that carried out the torture, or those that broke the law and created this program and policy? these are absolutely techniques that were used by Stalin and by the Khamer Rouge. they were. that's historical fact. that's why they're illegal!

one concession: the Nazis didn't waterboard. that was too much even for them.

i will concede one point. there is a difference between men who torture in order to preserve civilization and those that torture in order to destroy it.

however, when you make torture part of your policy you're destroying civilization! when does it end? once you start, when and where do you stop? what if it works? do you keep going? should we chop off a pinky finger, but not a thumb? or maybe a thumb, but not both thumbs?

it doesn't end. it's a cycle down a drain. and it destroys it's practitioners as much as it destroys the detainee as much as it destroys the government that enabled it's practice.

and, no, INDY. i do not have to consider the possibility that these techniques saved anyone. because you know what? there's no proof that they did. the onus of proof is on you to prove that such information was unattainable without torture, and that such information was invaluable to the prevention of an imminent terrorist attack.

and if these techniques are so useful and so productive, why then were tapes of the waterboarding of Zubdayah and KSM destroyed?

if the program is so defensible, then why don't you defend it instead of excuse it?

you broke the law. you changed the rules. prove to me that it was necessary.



Quote:
I can accept the possibility that our government went too far in some of their interrogation techniques. I don't belive that now, but I could accept it. But sorry, it would have been done solely with the best of intentions, to save innocent human life. NOT with the same evil design of silencing political dissent and genocide that motivated "Gestapo and Khamer Rouge techniques."
this is how democracies die. when you believe so much in their greatness that you excuse their faults. when you don't ask questions. when you trust the government to do things that they're not going to tell you about.

god forbid you ever are mistaken for Jose Padilla.


Quote:
The largest one day sporting event in the world. The Indianapolis 500.
and i'm sure waterboarding has prevented it from being attacked.

keep on thinking that.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:40 PM   #63
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
I might be off topic here,

but there is a war being waged.


so the rules no longer apply?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:42 PM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
I might be off topic here,

but there is a war being waged.
Didn't you get the memo? War is such a harsh word that kinda implies good guys and bad guys. It's Overseas Contingency Operations now.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:53 PM   #65
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Didn't you get the memo? War is such a harsh word that kinda implies good guys and bad guys. It's Overseas Contingency Operations now.


you're right. war makes everyone morally equivalent. we do whatever we need to do in order to make us think that we are winning, no matter the cost to others and ourselves, and no matter the cost to American soldiers who are now in more danger of bad treatment should they be captured by our enemies, and no matter the recruitment tool it becomes to angry 15 year old boys across the arab world who have no chance of getting a job or laid.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 10:07 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
war makes everyone morally equivalent.
It's just the opposite I would think. Is that what you meant to say? Both sides usually claim moral superiority rather than recognize each other as moral equivalents.
Quote:
we do whatever we need to do in order to make us think that we are winning, no matter the cost to others and ourselves, and no matter the cost to American soldiers who are now in more danger of bad treatment should they be captured by our enemies, and no matter the recruitment tool it becomes to angry 15 year old boys across the arab world who have no chance of getting a job or laid.
Sounds nice but how much of that is really true? The way the Geneva Conventions work is through the mutual consent of signees. Treat our soldiers this way and we will do likewise. And above all, keep civilian involvement to a minimum. Al-Queda isn't a signee. We know they target civilians, hold Americans hostage or execute them. Where do they hold POWs?

The 9/11 attackers and London bombers were not poor. Can't speak to their luck with the ladies or lack thereof.

At any rate, I think you give people willing to blow themselves up in crowded shops, on buses or in schools waaaay too much credit if you believe they will match our restraint with their own.

Better to crush them then wait to find out if you ask me. Then again, at the rate Western countries are giving in to Islamic demands through appeasement, terrorism may soon become unnecessary.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 10:14 PM   #67
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
It's just the opposite I would think. Is that what you meant to say? Both sides usually claim moral superiority rather than recognize each other as moral equivalents.
you're willing to torture. our moral superiority, our better way of life, is meaningless in war, evidently. we toss out our rules if it suits our purposes, and we cite existential threats.

just like all torture regimes have done through history.





Quote:
Better to crush them then wait to find out if you ask me.


crush a child's testicles?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 10:56 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
you're willing to torture. our moral superiority, our better way of life, is meaningless in war, evidently. we toss out our rules if it suits our purposes, and we cite existential threats.

just like all torture regimes have done through history.
And yet someone had to recognize as evil, stand up to, fight and ultimately defeat at any cost each of these very real torture regimes or they wouldn't be banished to history books would they?

Let us hope we never run out of Churchills.

Quote:
We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 11:01 PM   #69
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
And yet someone had to recognize as evil, stand up to, fight and ultimately defeat at any cost each of these very real torture regimes or they wouldn't be banished to history books would they?

Let us hope we never run out of Churchills.



did Churchill torture? when? where?

you're fundamentally misunderstanding what he means by "cost." he doesn't mean "self-immolate."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 11:04 PM   #70
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:27 AM
The Nazis had been torturing and executing dissidents for several years before the UK declared war on Germany, Churchill knew it perfectly well, that had nothing to do with the decision.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 11:20 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
And yet someone had to recognize as evil, stand up to, fight and ultimately defeat at any cost each of these very real torture regimes or they wouldn't be banished to history books would they?

Let us hope we never run out of Churchills.

Hmm. Since we can certainly now be considered a torture regime, maybe we should hope instead that no Churchhills come after us.
__________________
indra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2009, 01:01 AM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in a month
Doesn't this prove he was a terrorist? I mean, if he was innocent the water would not have rejected him, he would have drowned and thus been proven innocent.

To FYM (This is a Dennis Miller joke but at least pretend for a just moment that we're the good guys and that GWB really isn't our greatest enemy. Then maybe y'all can laugh at it)
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2009, 01:33 AM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:27 AM

here is one picture (does flickr load on here?)


here is an article from local paper
Quote:


Bush lawyer defends waterboarding in local debate John Yoo, whose memos justified controversial interrogation tactics, defends the practices during a Chapman University debate.

By MARTIN WISCKOL The Orange County Register

ORANGE – John Yoo, a former Bush administration lawyer whose memos justified coercive interrogation tactics including waterboarding, said at a debate today that the controversial tactics were appropriate in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. "Three thousand of our fellow citizens had been killed in a deliberate attack by a foreign enemy," he told an audience of several hundred at Chapman University. "That forced us in the government to have to consider measures to gain information using presidential constitutional provisions to protect the country from further attack." Yoo worked in the White House's Office of Legal Counsel and was among those who wrote the legal memos that provide the CIA with guidelines for interrogation.
Waterboarding, a tactic that simulates drowning, has been condemned by Atty. Gen Eric Holder as torture and, along with other aggressive interrogation techniques, has been banned by President Obama. Opponents of the practices on hand at today's debate including four people with black hoods reminiscent of those worn by prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and catcallers who interrupted Yoo three times. But the principal opponents at the debate – Chapman law professors Katherine Darmer and Lawrence Rosenthal – attacked the coercive interrogation techniques from a legal standpoint.
"Prior to the War on Terror, we took the position that waterboarding was torture and prosecuted it as such," Darmer said of the interrogation method. Darmer and Rosenthal also challenged the effectiveness of the technique – particularly in light of CIA memos recently released that reported that waterboarding was used 183 times in one month against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, and 83 times in one month against Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda operative. "How effective is a tactic you have to use 266 times?" said Darmer. "We are lawyers. Our job is to follow the law. Torture is illegal and it's also wrong." Yoo, who was joined in his defense by Chapman law school Dean John Eastman, scoffed at his opponents. "What I hear from Prof. Darmer and Prof. Rosenthal is that they would, in the same circumstance, rule out any form of coercive interrogation no matter who we help – including and up to Osama bin Laden – no matter what the circumstances," said Yoo, who is now a visiting professor at Chapman law school. "Was it worth it? We haven't had an attack in more than seven years. Fifty percent of the information that we have on al Qaeda and its workings came from interrogation." Darmer and Rosenthal argued that much of the information from interrogations came prior to the use of coercive techniques, and that coercive methods are often counterproductive and yield bad information. "These tactics, not surprisingly, sent us on wild goose chases after false leads," Darmer said. Obama has said his administration would not prosecute CIA agents who used waterboarding and other controversial interrogation techniques, but has not ruled out prosecution of the lawyers, like Yoo, who fashioned the legal guidelines for interrogation. When Yoo first came to the podium to speak today, he was greeted with yells of "war criminal" and "He doesn't belong in the university – he belongs in jail." Yoo responded with a slight smile. "Maybe you all should conduct the debate," he said. "I'll write questions on cards and hand them in."

here is a picture I took of the photographer taking the picture

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2009, 01:38 AM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:27 AM
One more picture from the paper.

Quote:

From left, Chapman law school Dean John Eastman, Bush administration lawyer John Yoo and Chapman law professor M. Katherine B. Darmer
laugh before the debate as the moderator asks for a heckle-free session. Yoo wrote or co-wrote memos justifying the use of waterboarding.

CINDY YAMANAKA, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER


Several hundred attended the debate on "Presidential Power and Success in Times of Conflict" held at Chapman University's Memorial Hall.
John Yoo, the Bush administration lawyer who wrote or co-wrote memos justifying the use of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques was one of the speakers.

CINDY YAMANAKA, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Ok, that's me in the front row, blue shirt, long sleves.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2009, 03:35 AM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Ok, that's me in the front row, blue shirt, long sleves.
Wow !! Front row center. Did you get your tickets through presale by being a member of JohnYoo.com?
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com