Southern Avenger

The soldiers that were convicted of violating the Army Field Manual, which prohibits the abuse, torture, humiliation, yada,yada,yada, of prisoners under their guard.

The CIA officers operated under a different set of rules. Which I have no problem with.

I don't think pouring water in somebody's face is torture, but apparently I'm in the minority.

So now our Halfrican president is going to burp them, powder their asses, and tuck them in.

Meanwhile the 'man made disasters' will continue to really torture and behead those they capture.

What the Army people did went against military discipline.

What the Bush officials, legally at the time, directed the CIA to do was, and still is, necessary to defeat those that are bent on our destruction.

I have a feeling we're going to go back the Clinton war on terror. Where its treated as a crime and not an act of war.

We'll fight them with subpoenas and court orders and they'll fight back with bombs and bullets.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

The key point that we need to keep making is that the prisoners were not tortured to protect Americans. They were tortured primarily to protect the Bush administration from Americans who were suspicious of claims that there was a connection between 9-11 and Saddam Hussein. Torture was not used for national security, but for political survival.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Absolutely correct Mario. Anyone that is being tortured will say anything to stop the torture and, in this case, Bush/Cheney needed false confessions to bolster their bogus case for war.

Santex - amazing how you can interject race into a non-race issue ("Halfrican?" Is that supposed to be funny?). Unfortunately, your bigoted comment makes the rest of your argument flawed. It's called "Ad Hominem" - you should try educating yourself before you espouse B.S. Waterboarding is hardly "pouring water in somebody's face." If it wasn't extremely painful - why would they even bother doing it? Pol Pot and the perpetrators of the Spanish Inquisition used waterboarding.

Torture is against the Geneva conventions. If we don't want to abide by those rules - we shouldn't have signed on the line. If terrorism is a crime and not war - then our own, federal, laws apply. If it is war, and not a crime, international laws and treaties apply, Either way, TORTURE IS ILLEGAL and always WRONG.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Bourbon - If we were fighting a 'conventional war' where two national armies were against each other, I'd be willing to uphold the Geneva Conventions.

But since we're fighting a rabid ideology hell bent on anyway to bring destruction to our country and death to our citizens, I'm for setting aside the Geneva rules and granting them constitutional protections is really asinine in itself.

When islamofascists sign and abide by the treaty, then it applies.

With these psychotic murderers you have to sometimes step off the curb and fight them in the gutter where they live. If it takes waterboarding to save American lives, I'm for opening the Hoover dam.

I'm not however, advocating waterboarding every terrorist we capture. But if we get a hold of the higher level terrorist who could have knowledge of future attacks and waterboarding is a method that might work, then it should be tried. It's about saving innocent lives. I would, as a last resort, waterboard somebody to save your life.

As far as the the Halfrican remark. I did it cause I can. It's called freedom of speech. Sorry you didn't see the humor. I obviously despise this guy as much as you and Mario despise Bush.

As far as you and Mario's belief that waterboarding was done to - 'protect the Bush administration from Americans who were suspicious of claims that there was a connection between 9-11 and Saddam Hussein - pure delusion.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Torture is a fine source of flawed intelligence, and a great calling card for a tyrannical regime. I'm certain that, to some, our relationship with the rest of the world is immaterial, but to those that actually have to protect our nation, it is vitally important that we be seen as an honorable force. We will only win against terrorism by exposing them as foul, inhumane, and non-sustainable cancers on society. It is a psychological war that will win over the populations that hide them. To win that battle, there should be no doubt as to whom the civilians should trust. If it comes down to "brutal, foreign army, speaking a foreign language and praising the wrong god" or "brutal, domestic fighter, that looks and talks like my son..." the choice is unfortunately clear, and it ain't us.

If we fully embrace the "hate all those that are Muslim no matter what, torture them because they are desperate ideologues," then we can fully expect little cachet when trying to defame the terrorists as "evil." We have to be the civilized ones to be held up as the positive choice in stark contrast to the barbaric ways of extremism.

And Santex, the reason you shouldn't use epithets like "Halfrican" is not because you don't have the right, but because it makes you sound like a smug half-wit. Proudly displaying your ignorance of rhetorical convention then cuts into that already slim half.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Santex, you silly fellow. At The City Paper, only smug jokes directed at Christians and Republicans are allowed and encouraged.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Delusion? From the Report by the Senate Armed Services Committee on Detainee Treatment:
Major Paul Burney testified that “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.

Why would a U.S. Soldier lie about this?

As to your racism - you are correct in that you have every right to say what you want. I was merely pointing out that it flaws and taints any legitimate points you may have. I do not hate Bush at all - but I do believe he broke the law or, at least, I want to find out if he broke the law.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

hellhound4hire - Yeah, no kidding. Oh well.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

BourbonandBranch - I have to admit, yours was the first time I had seen or heard about Major Paul Burney' testimony. I'll have to agree with you on the investigation as to whether or not they were tortured to try and tie Al Qaeda and Iraq.

If they were in fact tortured to prevent further attacks, then I'll hold to my argument as to their treatment.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

As a political fence rider, I tend to stay away from entering these type of "discussions" as there seems to be so much venom dripping from so many of the comments, but get real. Do you think Bush (or any President for that matter) have 100% knowledge of what the military chooses to do with/to detainees? Does YOUR boss know about every time youre goofing off surfing the web, twittering, or updating your Facebook status at work? seriously. Obama is the President now. Bush is out. Let it go. Let's sweep everything the previous president did under the rug like we do every time the Presidential seat changes. Move forward with whatever investigations are going on. If there were wrongdoings, then you should have faith that our legal system will out these illegal acts and punishment will be delivered. But dont forget: the only reason you can say things like "I hope Bush (et al) burns in HELL" is BECAUSE you live in a country that gives you the freedom to say whatever you'd like without worrying that some terror squad will be beating in your door at night. However trite it may sound, freedom isnt free. Did I want to see thousands of soldiers go to a country that doesnt want our help? No. But please tell me what would you have sugggested we do after the 9-11 attacks? People that say "we shouldnt have gone to war" NEVER offer a plan of what we should have done instead to respond to being attacked on our own turf. Sit down and 'talk'? It's pretty obvious that the time for talking was far gone. The terrorists have even resorted to strapping bombs to women & small children....how do you reason with (or fight against)someone that places NO value on human life?
Do I believe in torture? That's where it gets tricky. I value human life, so not as a general rule...BUT if torture uncovered a plot that was intended to mass murder thousands of Americans? Maybe.... and I know that's a shaky answer. Do the ends justify the means? Will we ever be privvy to the information the military gleaned from these interrogations? I would suggest that you are welcome and entitled to your opinions on the previous administration (some of which i share, but I find it amusing when they folks who "Bush-bash" get super heated when anyone dares make even the slightest negative thing about Obama. If YOU have the right, dont they? This all comes from, like I said, a political fence rider's mind. I vote person and issues, not party, which sometimes is a pain and it's not that you are really voting FOR someone so much as AGAINST someone else.... I have hope that there will be "change" in many aspects of what's going on in the world today. It MUST change, because things sure aren't working like they are now!

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Whether or not you support torture is irrelevant. It is against the law. If we needed to torture - the president should have gone to Congress and asked that we repeal the Geneva and UN conventions.

Instead, Bush had his lawyers tried to find technicalities and loopholes to skirt the law. What good is our word as a country if we can't follow laws we have agreed to? The conventions don't make torture illegal only if it involves other signers - it makes it illegal for the person committing the crime (what other law depends on the type of victim?). Presidents don't get to MAKE law - they have to FOLLOW it.

Finally, those conventions also state that we will PROSECUTE anyone who violates the conventions. We don't have a choice on that.

BnB

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Should all the Congress people, both Republicans and Democrats who were briefed on what was going on at the time be prosecuted also?

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

When America's Aushwitz...I mean Guantanamo closes, three cells need to be reserved...one for Bush, one for Cheney and one for Rumsfeld...and they should be there for the remainder of their wretched lives.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike