Why America Must Prosecute War Crimes

[jfgordon1]

Oh, I see.....you're joking.

it's Mr. Obvious

Bob and Tom reference

 

[t@intshredder]

I've been thinking a lot lately, and i believe we might need to torture to get information. Besides, they did use it during the Salem witch trials. That obviously worked to get people to confess they rode brooms. Might work to get people to confess that they are terrorist. It's just a hunch though.

Nu uh. Seriously?

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Of course you do, because that's all that matters to you, AMERICAN citizens lives. You couldn't give a fuck less about any other human being on the planet if they don't have American background. Just a little shallow on your part, you would have made a great addition to the Bush administration.

Actually it's more a matter of priortizing

Family, Friends, Neighbors, Fellow Citizens, Others, not so much shallowness as making sure I'm not trying to change the world when improvements can be made easier and more readily in an area I can actually effect.

As far as me making a great addition to the Bush Administration.

I don't see it. I only see myself as being stuck fighting with them over the wasting of money, violation of civil liberties of all citizens, and so on and so forth.

You're a liar. Nowhere in the Geneva Convention does it say anything about putting a terrorist or enemy non-combatant to death, you just pulled that completely out of your ass.

Actually it doesn't really say anything about Terrorists or Enemy Non-Combatants...

Though there is a gray-hole that the Terrorists might fit in and thus not be covered by the Geneva Conventions.

Though that actually depends on if you recognize their nationality as a defining factor, as label them as a supranational organization that thus has no claims of citizenship to any nation, and thus can not be a party to the Geneva Convention.

Which means that as they have routinely engaged in acts outside the auspices of the Geneva Conventions that the United States is not bound to follow the Geneva Convention.

It is inhumane to put people to death. Killing someone is not compassionate or kind behavior, the exact definition of inhumane. Maybe you should have used a different adjective...

Probably, or a different phrase.

But howabout the innocent 'terrorists' in American custody? Should we just put them to death too? What about a trial, fuck law?

They aren't citizens, inhabitants, or alien residents and thus are not covered by the Constitution.

There is a possibility of there being a problem of whether they are signatories (via their citizenship) or not signatories (belonging to a supranational organization that exists separate from any nation.)

What if these people's native countries, the countries we've been rounding all of them up from, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. enacted this same exact bullshit you're proposing the American military does, put captured American soldiers to death without a trial or conviction?

I really don't think that those countries are going to do that based on the fact based on the fact that they aren't going to put their foot into the pile of shit of defending terrorists' rights.

Or at least I don't believe they would, thus they aren't going to take bilateral actions in response to our treatment of the terrorists (which is probably better than how they would treat some one caught planting bombs in their countries.)

Bet your retarded ass would have something to say about that, huh...

I don't have a donkey, and as a general rule they don't speak, so no, if I did have a retarded donkey it wouldn't have anything to say about that.

As would I BECAUSE IT'S WRONG, it's wrong if the suspect is American, British, Afghani, Iraqi, Muslim, Christian... None of that shit matters, NONE OF IT. The only thing that matters is, did the guy break the law that is INTERNATIONALLY AGREED UPON, and did we hold a fair trial for the suspect. That's it, nothing else. EVERYONE on the face of this fucking planet is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty motherfucker, if you don't like the law of the land, I suggest you fly your happy ass out of here, nobody would miss you.

Well if none of that shit happens how do I claim that I am no longer a citizen so I no longer have to remit taxes to the United States? I can use that money for more important things.

Though the entire innocent until proven guilty is really more dependent on which nation you are in.

Great logic, it's unfair if America is the underdog (how you would ever come to that conclusion I have no idea, being that we spend more than twice the amount of money on 'defense' than the rest of the entire world combined...) in a war, but not unfair when the 'enemy' is... Again, American lives (and probably just the conservative retards that already agree with you anyway, when it comes to a liberal or democrat, you probably hold them in the same regard as the 'terrorists'!) clearly mean more to you than any other human being.

Yes, they do. Besides, it's all the Democrats fault that we are running around intervening everywhere, instead of securing our own borders and taking care of ourselves. The amount that we spend protecting the rest of the world from themselves is a staggering amount that would be better used bettering our nation. (or at least securing our own borders.)

...and since when the fuck is NOT using torture fighting with one hand
tied behind your back? Grow some balls pussy.

Not using every tool, or technique at one's disposal in a fight is fighting with one hand tied behind one's back. Of course, using nukes would cause immense amounts of collateral damage, and thus do not enter into an argument about fighting with one hand tied behind the back.

What's next, avocating that we send our soldiers into combat with rubber bullets and rubber knives?

Fighting doesn't always have to be the number one resolution to all international problems.

No shit.

Patton was a good general, but that's it. Diplomacy is much more important than which country has the biggest ego, something the man never understood because he was just as hellbent as you 'conservatives' are on warfare and he couldn't see past his own military gains. If you beat the fuck out of the enemy and steal his land yeah, you might not get anymore shit from that particular guy, but that doesn't make what you did right, asshole.

Strange, this isn't about stealing any one's land, except perhaps preventing the terrorists from stealing ours, or at least preventing them from using terror to effectively dissolve our nation. Which might not necessarily be a bad thing. At least then it's possible that I'd have alternatives to being stuck sharing citizenship with people like you.

Fuck Pattons quote, this one's a lot better, and it's from one of the smartest minds in human history, Einstein.

"War does not determine who is right, only who is left" - I hope you can see the point he was trying to make with that quote.

Strange, the same person that made a massive mistake regarding a constant in one of his formulas.

Mathematician, yes, but not exactly a statesman, politician or a person that I'd allow to determine the course of a nation's policies.

Though seeings as how both of them are dead it's hard to get their opinion, so perhaps you can try responding to the content of the quote, instead of responding with another quote.

Others have already addressed this point (real conservatives), so I won't touch on it.

I hope you learned something.

Nothing of interest, at least not from you.

 

[NorthwestBuds]

Actually it's more a matter of priortizing

Family, Friends, Neighbors, Fellow Citizens, Others, not so much shallowness as making sure I'm not trying to change the world when improvements can be made easier and more readily in an area I can actually effect.

As far as me making a great addition to the Bush Administration.

I don't see it. I only see myself as being stuck fighting with them over the wasting of money, violation of civil liberties of all citizens, and so on and so forth.




Actually it doesn't really say anything about Terrorists or Enemy Non-Combatants...

Though there is a gray-hole that the Terrorists might fit in and thus not be covered by the Geneva Conventions.

Though that actually depends on if you recognize their nationality as a defining factor, as label them as a supranational organization that thus has no claims of citizenship to any nation, and thus can not be a party to the Geneva Convention.

Which means that as they have routinely engaged in acts outside the auspices of the Geneva Conventions that the United States is not bound to follow the Geneva Convention.




Probably, or a different phrase.



They aren't citizens, inhabitants, or alien residents and thus are not covered by the Constitution.

There is a possibility of there being a problem of whether they are signatories (via their citizenship) or not signatories (belonging to a supranational organization that exists separate from any nation.)




I really don't think that those countries are going to do that based on the fact based on the fact that they aren't going to put their foot into the pile of shit of defending terrorists' rights.

Or at least I don't believe they would, thus they aren't going to take bilateral actions in response to our treatment of the terrorists (which is probably better than how they would treat some one caught planting bombs in their countries.)




I don't have a donkey, and as a general rule they don't speak, so no, if I did have a retarded donkey it wouldn't have anything to say about that.




Well if none of that shit happens how do I claim that I am no longer a citizen so I no longer have to remit taxes to the United States? I can use that money for more important things.

Though the entire innocent until proven guilty is really more dependent on which nation you are in.



Yes, they do. Besides, it's all the Democrats fault that we are running around intervening everywhere, instead of securing our own borders and taking care of ourselves. The amount that we spend protecting the rest of the world from themselves is a staggering amount that would be better used bettering our nation. (or at least securing our own borders.)


Not using every tool, or technique at one's disposal in a fight is fighting with one hand tied behind one's back. Of course, using nukes would cause immense amounts of collateral damage, and thus do not enter into an argument about fighting with one hand tied behind the back.

What's next, avocating that we send our soldiers into combat with rubber bullets and rubber knives?




No shit.



Strange, this isn't about stealing any one's land, except perhaps preventing the terrorists from stealing ours, or at least preventing them from using terror to effectively dissolve our nation. Which might not necessarily be a bad thing. At least then it's possible that I'd have alternatives to being stuck sharing citizenship with people like you.



Strange, the same person that made a massive mistake regarding a constant in one of his formulas.

Mathematician, yes, but not exactly a statesman, politician or a person that I'd allow to determine the course of a nation's policies.

Though seeings as how both of them are dead it's hard to get their opinion, so perhaps you can try responding to the content of the quote, instead of responding with another quote.



Nothing of interest, at least not from you.

It is impossible to learn without humility.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

It is impossible to learn without humility.

I think I already addressed this issue when I addressed a post about Ayn Rand.

For imbeciles like you who automatically jump into stereotyping based on their views that they expose to the public, I'll re-iterate it.

It is impossible to form an opinion on a person, or their attitude with out actually knowing them.

As far as it being necessary to have humility to learn. What a crock of BS.

It doesn't require humility to learn.

It requires hard work (something that liberals are allergic too.)

Now, seeings as how I'm done defending myself from the typed assaults by liberals, who have an amazing lack of intelligent thought (exposing their ignorance, bigotry and zealotry to outside consumption) I'll move on to why I am wasting my time posting (again.)


So, I can agree, torture is not morally correct, but that's not even the issue. The question is whether or not Bush is a War Criminal.

Now, seeings as how up until fairly recently the United States did not recognize Water Boarding as torture, and thus the employment of it was not regulated by any treaties we were party to, that would mean that Bush is not a War Criminal.

So while War Criminals should of course be prosecuted, the real question that should be asked is what War Criminals?

I have yet to see any evidence that there is any evidence that any one ordered the soldiers to engage in the barbaric acts that they pursued. (Of course this same lack of orders didn't save Yamashita (American Caesar, William Manchester, Dell Publishing, 1978, ) from being judged as such and sentenced to death.

Though there is evidence that is trial as a War Criminal was in error, however as he was the overall Japanese Commander in the Phillipines during the sacking of Manila by Marines that had not left Manila when Yamashita ordered his soldiers to leave Manila.

Despite the fact that there is command responsibility, such a case would be based solely on circumstantial evidence (which is not permissable in most criminal cases) and thus unless there are actually orders from Bush that prisoners be tortured it is just as morally repugnant to seek his punishment as the acts for which punishment is being sought.

Any case would have to begin from the bottom up in order for the case to be Constitutional (Right to Confront Accusers, 5th Amendment, etc.)

In the United States to prove a murder, you need more than just a smoking gun (you'd need to actually prove that the smoking gun was the one the fired the round based on ballistics to establish that there can be no room for doubt that it was in fact the weapon used, and then you would need to establish that the person you are accusing of holding it was in fact holding it.)

Seeking to prosecute Bush just because of his position is unjust, and reduces us to being no better than Saddam Hussein.

 

[jrh72582]

It is impossible to learn without humility.

Again, you nailed it.

 

[PadawanBater]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Christians for Torture[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The most ardent atheist would be rendered speechless should he hear of Christians for abortion, profanity, adultery, or drunkenness. Of all people in the world, it is certainly Christians – and especially the conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist kind – that atheists, agnostics, and infidels expect to be opposed to these things.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So what in the world is an atheist to think when he sees the widespread Christian support for torture? Yes, torture. But don’t Christians claim to follow the ethics of Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament? Aren’t Christians commanded to put off anger, wrath, and malice (Colossians 3:, "be ready to every good work" (Titus 3:1), and "live peaceably with all men" (Romans 12:1? Yes, Christians.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What is really tragic is that most Christians who of late have weighed in on the subject of torture are not arguing whether or not waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute torture – they readily admit that they do – but that torture is justified in the name of fighting terrorism, national security, defending our freedoms, keeping us safe, or protecting our children and grandchildren.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In my recent article "Waterboard an A-rab for Jesus," I mentioned two polls which showed that a great percentage of evangelicals supported the use of torture against suspected terrorists. Now come two additional surveys that are even more shocking. When an Allen Hunt Show poll asked for views on torture, 50 percent of the participants indicated their preference for the position: "Am A Christian – And I Support Torture." Hunt himself, thank God, is opposed to the practice. And in a story on OneNewsNow (a division of the American Family New Network) about Southern Baptist leader Richard Land saying that the use of waterboarding is unethical, a poll asked simply: "Do you agree with Dr. Land? Is waterboarding ‘unethical’?" The results: less than 10 percent agreed with Land. What is interesting about Land is that he fully supports Bush’s war on terror, minus the torture, of course.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]These are unbelievable poll results. Christian torture advocates should be ashamed of themselves for being so ignorant of New Testament ethics. This is FrontPage Magazine Christianity. This is National Review Christianity. This is imperial Christianity at its worse. I lay a great deal of the blame on pastors for being servants of the state instead of servants of Christ. It is pastors who ought to be teaching and warning their congregations about what is wrong with the U.S. empire, the U.S. military, the CIA, U.S. wars, and U.S. foreign policy. Instead, we have pastors that lead their congregations to pledge to the flag, sing praise to the state on every national holiday, and honor the U.S. war machine on special military appreciation days.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is one thing for Christians to think that the Republican Party is the lesser of two evils, that we should be fighting a global war on terror, that U.S. troops are defending our freedoms by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we are protecting Israel by fighting against terrorism, that it is "liberal" to be opposed to war, that we should fight them "over there" lest we have to fight them "over here," or that Iraq attacked us on 9/11 (all completely bogus ideas) – but this in no way justifies torture.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]We didn’t torture Nazi war criminals to reveal the names of others similarly guilty. Although we sentenced some of them to death, and some of them to prison terms, we never tortured them even though they were guilty of genocide. We don’t torture serial killers to get them to reveal where all the bodies of their victims are buried. Even when we call them monsters and sentence them to death, we still don’t torture them. We don’t allow police to torture suspects until they confess to committing a crime, and neither do we allow confessions obtained by torture to be used in court. Heck, we didn’t even torture Saddam Hussein when we captured and imprisoned him.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]We associate torture with Japan (American WWII POWs), North Korea (American Korean War POWs), China (recently deceased Air Force Colonel Harold E. Fischer), and Vietnam (just ask John McCain).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]We associate torture with third-world prisons, the KGB, the Stasi, and other secret police organizations, the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Reign of Terror, mass murderers, massacres, and genocides.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]We associate torture with the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, Germany under Hitler, Korea under Kim Il-sung, Cuba under Castro, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and Uganda under Idi Amin.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]We associate torture with everything that is evil, vile, and inhuman.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What have we come to in the United States when people who name the name of Christ support torture? How dare Christians criticize Muslims for saying that Islam is a religion of peace and then advocate the torturing of suspected terrorists? By their support for torture, Christians have given "great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme" (2 Samuel 12:14).[/FONT]

 

[NorthwestBuds]

I think I already addressed this issue when I addressed a post about Ayn Rand.

For imbeciles like you who automatically jump into stereotyping based on their views that they expose to the public, I'll re-iterate it.

It is impossible to form an opinion on a person, or their attitude with out actually knowing them.

As far as it being necessary to have humility to learn. What a crock of BS.

It doesn't require humility to learn.

It requires hard work (something that liberals are allergic too.)

Now, seeings as how I'm done defending myself from the typed assaults by liberals, who have an amazing lack of intelligent thought (exposing their ignorance, bigotry and zealotry to outside consumption) I'll move on to why I am wasting my time posting (again.)


So, I can agree, torture is not morally correct, but that's not even the issue. The question is whether or not Bush is a War Criminal.

Now, seeings as how up until fairly recently the United States did not recognize Water Boarding as torture, and thus the employment of it was not regulated by any treaties we were party to, that would mean that Bush is not a War Criminal.

So while War Criminals should of course be prosecuted, the real question that should be asked is what War Criminals?

I have yet to see any evidence that there is any evidence that any one ordered the soldiers to engage in the barbaric acts that they pursued. (Of course this same lack of orders didn't save Yamashita (American Caesar, William Manchester, Dell Publishing, 1978, ) from being judged as such and sentenced to death.

Though there is evidence that is trial as a War Criminal was in error, however as he was the overall Japanese Commander in the Phillipines during the sacking of Manila by Marines that had not left Manila when Yamashita ordered his soldiers to leave Manila.

Despite the fact that there is command responsibility, such a case would be based solely on circumstantial evidence (which is not permissable in most criminal cases) and thus unless there are actually orders from Bush that prisoners be tortured it is just as morally repugnant to seek his punishment as the acts for which punishment is being sought.

Any case would have to begin from the bottom up in order for the case to be Constitutional (Right to Confront Accusers, 5th Amendment, etc.)

In the United States to prove a murder, you need more than just a smoking gun (you'd need to actually prove that the smoking gun was the one the fired the round based on ballistics to establish that there can be no room for doubt that it was in fact the weapon used, and then you would need to establish that the person you are accusing of holding it was in fact holding it.)

Seeking to prosecute Bush just because of his position is unjust, and reduces us to being no better than Saddam Hussein.

I am sick and tired of your long winded, uneducated, potty mouth. If you want to know what TBT is all about please have a look at his crappy website: http://www.t-brutaltruth.com <---That speaks volumes to his utter incompentance.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I am sick and tired of your long winded, uneducated, potty mouth. If you want to know what TBT is all about please have a look at his crappy website: http://www.t-brutaltruth.com <---That speaks volumes to his utter incompentance.

Wow, apparently disagreeing with your position means that I'm using vulgarity.

Heil Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Obama!

I don't see any where in that last post where I actually used profanity or a vulgarity, however if I should take your reply to mean that you view the lack of those words as having a potty mouth I'll be more than happy to use those words.

Though as far as uneducated

I think you should learn how to express your opinions better.

Though if you are accusing me of not having a piece of paper from a university certifying that I can actually express an opinion on some field. No, I dropped out of college when they made it clear that they were going to steal my labor and my ideas for themselves, I have no desire to sacrifice my IP to a university or come up with an idea just to throw away for their benefit.

But if you're accusing me of not being knowledgeable or well read, perhaps you should check yourself and check your assumptions.

 

[Jointsmith]

Though if you are accusing me of not having a piece of paper from a university certifying that I can actually express an opinion on some field. No, I dropped out of college when they made it clear that they were going to steal my labor and my ideas for themselves, I have no desire to sacrifice my IP to a university or come up with an idea just to throw away for their benefit.

But if you're accusing me of not being knowledgeable or well read, perhaps you should check yourself and check your assumptions.

Wow, I bet there are quite a few college dropouts on this site (including myself), but that has to be one of the lamest excuses I'v ever heard.

You are so ARROGANT that you dropped out of college because you were SCARED they would 'steal your ideas'? (pffft, ideas like the right wing rhetoric on your shitty website?)

You realise the idea of STUDYING is to LEARN?

NorthWestBudz is right, it is impossible to learn without humility and it is clear you have none. You thought your preconceived idea's were worth more than the idea's you might LEARN at college and so you dropped out... point proved.

There is a difference between having read something and having learned from it.

(PS. its pretty funny you got so defensive about 'uneducated' Im' not sure thats what he meant)

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Wow, I bet there are quite a few college dropouts on this site (including myself), but that has to be one of the lamest excuses I'v ever heard.

You are so ARROGANT that you dropped out of college because you were SCARED they would 'steal your ideas'? (pffft, ideas like the right wing rhetoric on your shitty website?)

You realise the idea of STUDYING is to LEARN?

NorthWestBudz is right, it is impossible to learn without humility and it is clear you have none. You thought your preconceived idea's were worth more than the idea's you might LEARN at college and so you dropped out... point proved.

There is a difference between having read something and having learned from it.

(PS. its pretty funny you got so defensive about 'uneducated' Im' not sure thats what he meant)

Yeah, I don't think he is as educated as he claims.

Though know there was no thinking that they were going to steal my ideas. They straight out and said that for the final in one of my classes (game theory) that we were supposed to come up with a game idea, explain in depth how the controls would work, and then the idea would become the property of the school.

There is more to me dropping out than that, too. I also ran out of cash between car payments, insurance payments and actually feeding myself I was broke. (Transmission on the car that I had went out.)

 

[jrh72582]

Wow, apparently disagreeing with your position means that I'm using vulgarity.

Heil Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Obama!

I don't see any where in that last post where I actually used profanity or a vulgarity, however if I should take your reply to mean that you view the lack of those words as having a potty mouth I'll be more than happy to use those words.

Though as far as uneducated

I think you should learn how to express your opinions better.

Though if you are accusing me of not having a piece of paper from a university certifying that I can actually express an opinion on some field. No, I dropped out of college when they made it clear that they were going to steal my labor and my ideas for themselves, I have no desire to sacrifice my IP to a university or come up with an idea just to throw away for their benefit.

But if you're accusing me of not being knowledgeable or well read, perhaps you should check yourself and check your assumptions.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Steal your money? Maybe.

Steal your ideas. How f'n arrogant!!! Seriously dude! Can you step outside of yourself and see what you're saying? A college stealing your ideas? HA!!!!!!!!!!

And as much as I don't like Obama either, comparing him to Hitler and Stalin is ridiculous. It's called a FALSE f'n ANALOGY!!!!! It's a logical fallacy. I've pointed out logical fallacies to you at least three times now. What the hell!

 

[GrowRebel]

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-show-tracing-tortures-trailRachel Maddow Show: Tracing Torture's Trail
From The Rachel Maddow Show May 14, 2009. Rachel lays out the time line for how torture was used in the run up to the invasion of Iraq and to justify the invasion after the U.S. had already gone in.

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/sen-bob-graham-backs-pelosi-and-says-heSen. Bob Graham backs up Pelosi and says he was never briefed on waterboarding by the CIA
This is a block buster. Former Sen.(D)Bob Graham, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee told David Shuster that he never was briefed about waterboarding by the CIA on MSNBC. He also said that he was never allowed to take real notes about the CIA briefings, but he did log the topics and the amount of times he was briefed. They don't match up with the CIA's version. And of course, George "Slam Dunk" Tenet's outfit never was wrong or misled us before. James Fallows backs up Graham's honesty and integrity by the way. And Graham also sees the real motives behind the smearing of Pelosi. As he says it's an attempt to shift the blame away the Bush administration and their use of torture.
Okay folks ... even though the CIA didn't debrief them I'm sure they knew what was going on ...hell I knew with all the reports on line so they should have known as well ... why else would pelosi take "impeachment off the table" ... all these corporate politicians are in to it up to there necks ... they are going to do every thing possible to keep the truth from being generally known.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/sheldon-whitehouse-iraq-justification-raisesSheldon Whitehouse: Iraq Justification Raises the Prospect of Criminal Prosecution for Torture
Sheldon Whitehouse while being asked about the torture bombshell that Lawrence Wilkerson dropped on Dick Cheney says that if what Wilkerson asserts is true and the Bush administration went outside of the OLC's legal justification for the torture, it raises the prospect for criminal prosecutions.
Listen ... no matter how much this "raises the prospect for criminal prosecutions" Obama and his DOJ are going to go way out there way to see nothing happen to these war criminals ... you watch ... they are as dirty and as crooked as the war criminals they protect ...

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/cheneys-office-wanted-prisoner-waterboaCheney sought waterboarding of prisoner to 'uncover' nonexistent Saddam-Al Qaeda link
*Two U.S. intelligence officers confirm that Vice President Cheney’s office suggested waterboarding an Iraqi prisoner, a former intelligence official for Saddam Hussein, who was suspected to have knowledge of a Saddam-al Qaeda connection. *The former chief of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, in charge of interrogations, tells The Daily Beast that he considered the request reprehensible. *Much of the information in the report of the 9/11 Commission was provided through more than 30 sessions of torture of detainees...read on
I have reports that show torture was used on so called terrorists the government claims were behind 911 ... will post that later ...
here's a nice op-ed for ya ...

http://uruknet.com/?p=m54320&hd=&size=1&l=eGiving Some Love to the Inquisition
Beyond the inhumanity of the Inquisition, there is the troubling fact that the torture tactics did "work" only in the sense that they extracted many false confessions and got victims to implicate other individuals who were, in turn, persecuted, tortured and put to death for their religious beliefs.
But Graham's praise for the efficacy of the Inquisition's torture tactics passed largely unnoticed -- and without any perceptible criticism -- in the American news media. The Washington Post article on the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing didn't even mention Graham's extraordinary remark; a brief New York Times article about the hearing mentioned it only in passing.
Webmaster's Commentary:

OF COURSE, Graham would favor torture tactics, because it got Bush and Cheney precisely what they wanted; confessions to lies, based on torture, with which to "sell" the American people the war in Iraq.
And I am still pretty amazed at how quietly many Americans seem to be taking this news, when it has pretty much been smeared all over their faces, through recent revelations on the torture scandals.WRH
The sheeple don't give a shit ...as long as it doesn't effect them directly to the point of discomforted ... that's what these war criminals count on


Now you know this next report is complete and total bullshit ...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051503649_pf.htmlNo Waterboarding Used in Questioning On Al-Qaeda Ties to Iraq, Officials Say
Senior intelligence officials yesterday acknowledged that two al-Qaeda operatives, Abu Zubaida and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, had been questioned about alleged links between al-Qaeda and Iraq when the two men underwent CIA interrogation in 2002 and 2003. But the officials denied that the questioning on Iraq had included waterboarding.


http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/Video of Torture and Sexual Abuse in Iraq Prison
I have located a 2006 documentary from the Australian television show Dateline. which discusses and may provide context to the newly-rediscovered torture pictures which are making the rounds (judge for yourself whether or not you believe the government's explanation for the photos, or what is being left out).
Before I provide the link for the video, let me remind you:
* Torture doesn't work in providing information which will keep us safe
* Torture actually reduces our national security
* Most of those tortured were innocent
* They were not tortured in order to prevent terrorist attacks, but to create a false justification for the war in Iraq (by creating a false linkage between Iraq and Al Qaeda)


Here's a report disputing torture was not use ...

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/15/miller/Gitmo general told Iraq WMD search team to torture

Recent news reports have suggested the possibility that the Bush administration might have endorsed torture to prove an Iraq-al Qaida link. And a recent report from the Senate Armed Services Committee shows that months after then-President Bush had declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq, an Army general working hand in glove with top administration officials tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to convince a unit charged with finding weapons of mass destruction to get tough on its prisoners.
In August and early September of 2003, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the man in charge of the Pentagon’s torture laboratory at Guantanamo Bay, was dispatched to Iraq, allegedly to Gitmoize operations there.


And this man still has his job?!?!?!?!?
One has to wonder if, in his inquisitorial zeal, Miller forgot that if we treat captives this way, we can fully expect our captured American soldiers to be treated just like that.
Torture is completely antithetical to the bedrock American values enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
We, as Americans, cannot talk with a straight fact about human dignity, democracy, or human rights when we have institutionalized torture.
Every single person who signed off on the use of torture, from the President on down, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by American law.
Every single picture of torture still around should be paraded in front of the American people until they are sick with outrage, and realize the extent to which they have been "had". The war against Iraq was trumped up on the basis of "confessions" achieved by torture in order to obtain a political outcome with which to "sell" the Americans this war.
Only then will we be able to carve this cancer of torture out of our collective psyches, and rehabilitate our reputation with the rest of the world.
Of course, given Obama's consistent flip-flopping on major issues, coupled with his unrepentant breaking of his campaign promises to the American people, such a series of trials is just about as likely to happen as pigs flying.WRH

Oh no ... we're not torturing any more ...


http://uruknet.com/?p=m54282&hd=&size=1&l=eObama on torture photos: cover-up and complicity
President Obama's repudiation of his promise to comply with a court order and release Pentagon torture photos marks a qualitative deepening of the cover-up of the crimes carried out under Bush as well as their continuation under the new administration in only slightly altered form.
The president's decision amounts to the deliberate suppression of evidence that the US military-intelligence apparatus, at the direction of the White House, carried out systemic torture.


The only "change" we've had from Bush to Obama is simply a better, more telegenic pitch-man, selling the US and the world the same cr*p.
Bush and Obama are servants to the same masters, and no where will that be better played out than at the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu on Monday.WRH


http://www.alternet.org/rights/140022/little_known_military_thug_squad_still_brutalizing_prisoners_at_gitmo_under_obama/?page=2Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama
Deghayes was eventually moved to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, where he was beaten and "kept nude, as part of the process of humiliation due to his religion." U.S. personnel placed Deghayes "inside a closed box with a lock and limited air." He also described seeing U.S. guards sodomize an African prisoner and alleged guards "forced petrol and benzene up the anuses of the prisoners."


OK, the institutionalization of torture is a fact of alleged American "civilization". It has been for quite some time, but it's in our faces now, big-time.
You can't turn a blind eye to it, like those Germans in WW2, who honestly didn't know what was happening during the horrendous and immoral tortures which occurred in the labor camps.
Is this really the "America" you want your kids to grow up in, or are you going to try to do something about this, now that you know?!?WRH
I'm still wating to here from Obama supporters ... how do you folks feel about Obama breaking the law and protecting war criminals ... with this secret army under his charge looks like he's a war criminal too.



More on Obama and his continuation of bush policies ...



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/16/politics/main5018988.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_5018988Critics Call Obama's Tribunals "Bush Lite"
In an apparent reversal, President Barack Obama is reviving the Bush administration's much-criticized military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees, shocking those who expected the president to end them completely.


Here's another disturbing report ... at least to those that have a sense of right and wrong ... good and decency ... not all of us are enlighten in these matters ...


http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/11/were-children-sodomized-in-front-of-their-prisoner-mothers-at-abu-ghraib/Were Children Sodomized In Front Of Their Prisoner Mothers At Abu Ghraib?
Is Rumsfeld right that the evidence shouldn’t be released? Whether it is or not, should Americans at any level who allowed it to happen be prosecuted, perhaps by handing them over to the mothers and the boys?
Nice huh ... another op-ed ... check it ...


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/16/obama/The NYT sums up Obama's civil liberties record in one paragraph
President Obama’s decisions this week to retain important elements of the Bush-era system for trying terrorism suspects and to block the release of pictures showing abuse of American-held prisoners abroad are the most graphic examples yet of how he has backtracked, in substantial if often nuanced ways, from the approach to national security that he preached as a candidate, and even from his first days in the Oval Office.


more disturbing news ...haven't a clue why this link won't work ...you will just have to cut and paste ... if you've a mind to that is ...



[URL="http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/circus_torture.html"]U.S. Expands Secretive Prison Inside Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan[/url]
One of my clients is Binyam Mohammed. He was rendered to Morocco. We’ve got the flight logs. We know the very names of the soldiers who were on the flight, and he was taken there, and he was tortured for 18 months, a razor blade taken to his penis, for goodness sake, and now the U.S. military is putting him on trial in Guantanamo.
So which of you pinhead that claim we don't torture can have his penis cut ... if you have on that is ... with a razor blade? Is this what you what the US to stand for?


http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/15/leaked-torture-photos-published-in-2006-may-be-among-photographs-obama-administration-shielding/Leaked torture photos published in 2006 went largely unseen
A little over three years ago, SBS Dateline, an Australian television program, released leaked photographs from the U.S. prison in Iraq, Abu Ghraib.
It is believed that the pictures being held back by the Obama administration may include some of these shots that most of the US press ignored, although RAW STORY ran them in 2006.


and to the pinhead that claim we used torture all through the centuries because it's so effective ... no it's not because of that ... it's only use to push and agenda ... case in point ...


http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22619.htmWe Tortured To Justify War

Salon.com" -- The single most pertinent question that Dick Cheney is never asked -- at least not by the admiring interviewers he has encountered so far -- is whether he, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush used torture to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. As he tours television studios, radio stations and conservative think tanks, the former vice-president hopes to persuade America that only waterboarding kept us safe for seven years.
Yet evidence is mounting that under Cheney’s direction, "enhanced interrogation" was not used exclusively to prevent imminent acts of terror or collect actionable intelligence -- the aims that he constantly emphasizes -- but to invent evidence that would link al-Qaida with Saddam Hussein and connect the late Iraqi dictator to the 9/11 attacks.


Whew! ... well kids ... I've been busy and haven't had a change to post the stories so this was my catch-up time ... hope you take the time to do your own investigation into these matter ... I've made it easy for those with a shedule but for those with the time I urge you to investigate the matter throughly and make some noise to those people in Washington that no longer represent you.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Steal your money? Maybe.

Steal your ideas. How f'n arrogant!!! Seriously dude! Can you step outside of yourself and see what you're saying? A college stealing your ideas? HA!!!!!!!!!!

And as much as I don't like Obama either, comparing him to Hitler and Stalin is ridiculous. It's called a FALSE f'n ANALOGY!!!!! It's a logical fallacy. I've pointed out logical fallacies to you at least three times now. What the hell!

No, it was written in the course material that the final project would become the property of the school.

And it wasn't just the idea, idea's are cheap. It was all the work that it would take to take an idea from just that to being ready for development. That's not exactly an easy process.


As far as false analogy. If it quacks like a duck, and it looks like a duck, and it flies like a duck... well it's probably a duck.

Though, no, you're right, just because there are massive parallels between Obama and Hitler/Stalin doesn't mean that he's that bad.

That doesn't change the fact that he is a Demagogue, and adheres to a senseless ideology.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Rachel Maddow Show: Tracing Torture's Trail]

Okay, now I think I want to clarify something. Are you of the opinion that the Congress that oversaw the conduct of the war should also be on trial for war crimes?

 

[medicineman]

Okay, now I think I want to clarify something. Are you of the opinion that the Congress that oversaw the conduct of the war should also be on trial for war crimes?

I would say, those that actually Knew what was happening and did nothing to thwart it should be included in the inquest. But the main players, the ones that thought up and implemented the torture scenario, are the ones that should be facing prosecution, along with the justice department players that made up false rules of legality. Our reputation of being fair and balanced, No matter how false it really was, has been destroyed. The question should be, How do we get that back. I'm pretty sure prosecution of guilty parties would go a long way towards that goal.

 

[ChChoda]

I'm pretty sure prosecution of guilty parties would go a long way towards that goal.

Geithner? Wait, wait, Daschel? No no, Blago and Obo?

 

[medicineman]

Geithner? Wait, wait, Daschel? No no, Blago and Obo?

Geeze, you really are an idiot.

 

[ChChoda]

Geeze, you really are an idiot.

You're right....

Our reputation of being fair and balanced, No matter how false it really was, has been destroyed.

 

[PadawanBater]

Anyone involved, including Pelosi, should be prosecuted.

Like I said, it's not a right/left issue, it's about right/wrong.