We should find out when one of the torturers is giving a speech somewhere, and then hold them under citizens arrest and deliver them to the world court.
And what'll you do when the security people/bodyguards start smashing your fragile head with billy clubs?
We should find out when one of the torturers is giving a speech somewhere, and then hold them under citizens arrest and deliver them to the world court.
And what'll you do when the security people/bodyguards start smashing your fragile head with billy clubs?
We should find out when one of the torturers is giving a speech somewhere, and then hold them under citizens arrest and deliver them to the world court.
And what'll you do when the security people/bodyguards start smashing your fragile head with billy clubs?
Some of the legal advice the torturers relied upon came from the office of John Rizzo, Acting General Counsel of the CIA. Guess who wrote them? Jay Bybee, one of the guys mentioned earlier in this thread along with John Yoo. You can read the memos through the link. I think anyone with any common sense would see that it would be unreasonable to rely upon this advice.
The guidance that was provided during this period of time, I think will go down in history as some of the most irresponsible and short-sighted legal analysis ever provided to our nation's military and intelligence communities.
The memos conclude that the techniques used would not cause sever pain, but seventy people were killed by "gross recklessness, abuse or torture." The stress positions the memos analyzed as not causing sever pain actually killed people and nearly ripped one guy's arms out of their sockets. The memos analyze keeping people awake for long periods of time and concluded that these actions do not cause severe pain, but a 1956 CIA commissioned medical study of Soviet torture found that standing for extended time periods, such as 18-24 hours, causes "excruciating pain as ankles double in size, skin becomes 'tense and intensely painful,' blisters erupt oozing 'watery serum,' heart rates soar, kidneys shut down, and delusions deepen." The US had prisoners standing for more than 40 hours. In 2001, the US characterized sleep deprivation as torture. Source.
A legal opinion that torture lite does not constitute torture is not reasonable when the opinions, as concluded by the Senate Committee, "distorted the meaning and intent of anti-torture laws" and "rationalized the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody." When considered in the full context of what the US held to constitute torture, as discussed above, it is not reasonable to rely on legal memos that reached opinions contrary to the domestic and international torture laws.
While that is true, it will never smother my righteous indignation at the fact that I am party to a government which has condoned and engaged in torture. If I am ever in a position to alter this outcome, I will be morally obligated to pursue it.
Something needs to change. That's where the energy should be spent. We can argue all we want about whether the decision not to charge was correct. At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter. We don't get to make the decision. Obama and his administration do.
They're normal people. They go to the grocery store.
Are you talking about the people who did the actual torturing or the administration types like Rumsfeld? I'll bet Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Bush haven't seen the inside of a grocery store in years.
Are you talking about the people who did the actual torturing or the administration types like Rumsfeld? I'll bet Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Bush haven't seen the inside of a grocery store in years.
What bothers me more than anything here is that this isn't Nazi Germany. It's not as though, by refusing to engage in or condone the torture, these people were risking their lives or the lives of their families. The US Military wasn't going to shoot anyone for failing to torture a prisoner.
The fact that no one involved had the moral decency to refuse what was, if not illegal, then definitely immoral, order, sickens me. People were truly willing to torture another human being to avoid a court martial or some economic discomfort from a lost job? There is no excuse for that.
What bothers me more than anything here is that this isn't Nazi Germany. It's not as though, by refusing to engage in or condone the torture, these people were risking their lives or the lives of their families. The US Military wasn't going to shoot anyone for failing to torture a prisoner.
The fact that no one involved had the moral decency to refuse what was, if not illegal, then definitely immoral, order, sickens me. People were truly willing to torture another human being to avoid a court martial or some economic discomfort from a lost job? There is no excuse for that.
That's not true at all Rym, a lot of interrogators did not agree with these practices and went about getting the information the army way. It was mainly out-sourced CIA and I believe FBI interrogators that were the problem and even in those pools I'm pretty sure a bunch decided not to get involved.
Just a note, they are still looking into whether they are going to go after the lawyers that provided cover. For some reason I hate these guys more.
Actually, if you read what Obama and Holder actually said, they didn't exclude any of the CIA, WH, or DOJ brass from prosecution. They also didn't exclude people whose reliance on legal advice was not reasonable. The Obama administration is very precise about its language, so its exclusion of those people from its statement might very well mean that those people will be prosecuted. There's certainly room in their statements for such prosecutions. That would be a much better result than the Abu Ghraib prosecutions, where only the lower-level types were sanctioned.
What bothers me more than anything here is that this isn't Nazi Germany. It's not as though, by refusing to engage in or condone the torture, these people were risking their lives or the lives of their families. The US Military wasn't going to shoot anyone for failing to torture a prisoner.
I don't think the setting makes a difference. In order for a military to function, a soldier has to take orders, no matter how unpleasant those orders may be. If those CIA interrogators didn't do what they were ordered to do, the military would've just found someone else to do it. The situation wouldn't have changed much at all. And who knows, maybe they were pressured into it otherwise. We don't know the circumstances of what really went on in there, and that's part of the problem.
At the end of the day, I always excuse a soldier for following orders. If they were going beyond the scope of their orders, that's a different story, but a soldier cannot be faulted for doing what they're told. It's literally the equivalent of blaming a gun for a death. A soldier is a tool in the military, like it or not, and that's how they need to function.
Prosecute the fuck out of the people who gave the orders, I say. I will be very dissatisfied with Obama if that doesn't happen.
Article 90—Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer
“Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) Striking or assaulting superior commissioned officer.
(a) That the accused struck, drew, or lifted up a weapon against, or offered violence against, a certain commissioned officer;
(b) That the officer was the superior commissioned officer of the accused;
(c) That the accused then knew that the officer was the accused’s superior commissioned officer; and
(d) That the superior commissioned officer was then in the execution of office.
(2) Disobeying superior commissioned officer.
(a) That the accused received a lawful command from a certain commissioned officer;
(b) That this officer was the superior commissioned officer of the accused;
(c) That the accused then knew that this officer was the accused’s superior commissioned officer; and
(d) That the accused willfully disobeyed the lawful command.
Article 90 protects military members who choose not to follow an unlawful order.
Hmm... I remember this comment not too long ago...
Say, I'm going to a reception later today for the congressional delegation from NH. I'm going to print out this thread to show people how conservatives have the sad, delusional ability to try to twist every topic into a criticism of Obama. We'll all be laughing. Good times.
And then you have the audacity to post a Keith Olberman clip in which he decries Obama's decision. Is he just a sad, delusional conservative?
Joe, your politics blinded you. People like you made it easy for Obama to decline prosecution. You, and others who tried to mute pressure being put on the administration, are enablers. I hope it was worth a "laugh" and the "good times" at some cocktail party.
This was never about politics. It was about human rights. Shame on you.
Say, I'm going to a reception later today for the congressional delegation from NH. I'm going to print out this thread to show people how conservatives have the sad, delusional ability to try to twist every topic into a criticism of Obama. We'll all be laughing. Good times.
And then you have the audacity to post a Keith Olberman clip in which he decries Obama's decision. Is he just a sad, delusional conservative?
Just because Joe has argued that some people make baseless accusations at Obama doesn't mean that he now has to defend every action of his. Joe never said that this issue was about politics, at least as far as I've seen. There's a difference in level and intent between "Obama wants to [pick one: Turn everyone Muslim, sell our country to France for pennies on the dollar, Obama is Hitler because I don't agree with him]" and "Obama is wrong on this issue, and even though I respect and like him, he's wrong and he should change his mind".
Listening to some of the methods described in the memos I can't help but think that most kids in America practice torture.
Using bugs as torture? My brothers and I used to do that to each other all the time. Slamming up against the wall? Who didn't either give or receive that one in childhood?
I keep expecting to have it revealed that wedgies, wet willies and holding someone down while letting spit drip towards their open mouth from yours before sucking it all back in at the last minute were also used.
When people talk about torture I think broken bones, the rack, gouging out eyeballs, electrocution, etc...
Listening to some of the methods described in the memos I can't help but think that most kids in America practice torture.
Using bugs as torture? My brothers and I used to do that to each other all the time. Slamming up against the wall? Who didn't either give or receive that one in childhood?
I keep expecting to have it revealed that wedgies, wet willies and holding someone down while letting spit drip towards their open mouth from yours before sucking it all back in at the last minute were also used.
When people talk about torture I think broken bones, the rack, gouging out eyeballs, electrocution, etc...
That is either a lame attempt at trolling for attention or the most stupid thing you've ever said in a long career of saying very stupid things. Either way, it's an epic fail.
That is either a lame attempt at trolling for attention or the most stupid thing you've ever said in a long career of saying very stupid things. Either way, it's an epic fail.
You are entitled to your opinion.
I'm simply pointing out that *some* of the items listed as torture sound more like hazing than torture.
The only distinction between some forms of hazing and torture is the purpose of the act. Also,
The effect is probably somewhat more traumatic when you are also being detained by the authorities.
True. I just feel less outrage over the "bug box" (which was never done) type of torture than I would feel if it was revealed that people were being electrocuted or having their fingers chopped off until they talked.
Listening to some of the methods described in the memos I can't help but think that most kids in America practice torture.
Using bugs as torture? My brothers and I used to do that to each other all the time. Slamming up against the wall? Who didn't either give or receive that one in childhood?
I just feel less outrage over the "bug box" (which was never done) type of torture
So, they didn't actually place Zubaydah in the bug-box. They just waterboarded him 83 times in one month. That's not torture at all, I suppose. Steve, this person had a phobia concerning insects. Of course it would be torture to place him in or threaten to place him in a confinement box with insects. The only reason you can make light of it is that you don't have the same phobia and you lack the imagination and compassion necessary to understand what he would have felt if they told him they were going to place him in a confinement box with insects
You have told us before on this board that you are allergic to dogs. How would you feel if you were placed in a confinement box with dogs? That would probably be torture for you even though I wouldn't feel tortured in the same circumstance because I'm not allergic to dogs. You have also told us that you are allergic to red meat. If you were forced to eat red meat, that would probably be torture for you even though I wouldn't feel tortured in the same circumstance because I'm not allergic to red meat.
For some people, I imagine being placed in a "confinement box" would be torture in and of itself.
People died from torture while in U.S. custody. People. died. Is that torturous enough for you? When you were kids, did you torture each other to death? Thesetwo articles should give you a better understanding about what's actually been happening and the real damage done by torture if you will actually read them.
Comments
The memos conclude that the techniques used would not cause sever pain, but seventy people were killed by "gross recklessness, abuse or torture." The stress positions the memos analyzed as not causing sever pain actually killed people and nearly ripped one guy's arms out of their sockets. The memos analyze keeping people awake for long periods of time and concluded that these actions do not cause severe pain, but a 1956 CIA commissioned medical study of Soviet torture found that standing for extended time periods, such as 18-24 hours, causes "excruciating pain as ankles double in size, skin becomes 'tense and intensely painful,' blisters erupt oozing 'watery serum,' heart rates soar, kidneys shut down, and delusions deepen." The US had prisoners standing for more than 40 hours. In 2001, the US characterized sleep deprivation as torture. Source. Source. Emphasis mine.
The fact that no one involved had the moral decency to refuse what was, if not illegal, then definitely immoral, order, sickens me. People were truly willing to torture another human being to avoid a court martial or some economic discomfort from a lost job? There is no excuse for that.
At the end of the day, I always excuse a soldier for following orders. If they were going beyond the scope of their orders, that's a different story, but a soldier cannot be faulted for doing what they're told. It's literally the equivalent of blaming a gun for a death. A soldier is a tool in the military, like it or not, and that's how they need to function.
Prosecute the fuck out of the people who gave the orders, I say. I will be very dissatisfied with Obama if that doesn't happen.
“Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) Striking or assaulting superior commissioned officer.
(a) That the accused struck, drew, or lifted up a weapon against, or offered violence against, a certain commissioned officer;
(b) That the officer was the superior commissioned officer of the accused;
(c) That the accused then knew that the officer was the accused’s superior commissioned officer; and
(d) That the superior commissioned officer was then in the execution of office.
(2) Disobeying superior commissioned officer.
(a) That the accused received a lawful command from a certain commissioned officer;
(b) That this officer was the superior commissioned officer of the accused;
(c) That the accused then knew that this officer was the accused’s superior commissioned officer; and
(d) That the accused willfully disobeyed the lawful command.
Article 90 protects military members who choose not to follow an unlawful order.
Joe, your politics blinded you. People like you made it easy for Obama to decline prosecution. You, and others who tried to mute pressure being put on the administration, are enablers. I hope it was worth a "laugh" and the "good times" at some cocktail party.
This was never about politics. It was about human rights. Shame on you.
Using bugs as torture? My brothers and I used to do that to each other all the time. Slamming up against the wall? Who didn't either give or receive that one in childhood?
I keep expecting to have it revealed that wedgies, wet willies and holding someone down while letting spit drip towards their open mouth from yours before sucking it all back in at the last minute were also used.
When people talk about torture I think broken bones, the rack, gouging out eyeballs, electrocution, etc...
Whether or not you think Waterboarding is torture.... That is a bit excessive.
Seriously though, the U.S. has severely disappointed me.
I'm simply pointing out that *some* of the items listed as torture sound more like hazing than torture.
You have told us before on this board that you are allergic to dogs. How would you feel if you were placed in a confinement box with dogs? That would probably be torture for you even though I wouldn't feel tortured in the same circumstance because I'm not allergic to dogs. You have also told us that you are allergic to red meat. If you were forced to eat red meat, that would probably be torture for you even though I wouldn't feel tortured in the same circumstance because I'm not allergic to red meat.
For some people, I imagine being placed in a "confinement box" would be torture in and of itself.
People died from torture while in U.S. custody. People. died. Is that torturous enough for you? When you were kids, did you torture each other to death? These two articles should give you a better understanding about what's actually been happening and the real damage done by torture if you will actually read them.