Date: 20/07/25 - 15:36 PM   48060 Topics and 694399 Posts

Author Topic: Guliani on Torture  (Read 2001 times)

October 25, 2007, 02:36:51 PM
Read 2001 times

Kat Kid

  • Administrator
  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 8821
  • Personal Text
    warm up the EMAW
Quote
Asked whether waterboarding constituted torture, he [Guliani] replied:

    It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it.

Wow.  The Constitution really would not last the full term of another Republican president.  Would an executive order declaring himself unbound by our quaint little Constitution be part of his first 100 day agenda?
ksufanscopycat my friends.

October 25, 2007, 02:39:28 PM
Reply #1

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
He's, like, leading, right?

fave political blogs?

October 25, 2007, 02:47:27 PM
Reply #2

ECN

  • Classless Cat
  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 12184
ask him about that face to face and he'll reply with:

9/11


crowd cheers, and then boo you.

We all know there's been a conspiracy. Only the failures have been recorded.
We all pay too much attention to Icarus, and not enough to his father.

October 25, 2007, 03:13:58 PM
Reply #3

Kat Kid

  • Administrator
  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 8821
  • Personal Text
    warm up the EMAW
My fave political blogs:

The Atlantic:
I read these the most (usually multiple times daily).  They have 6 different bloggers.
My favorite is Andrew Sullivan (british, gay, conservative, anti-torture, good links and very thoughful), I like Yglesias (fairly standard moderate-lefty jewish new york dude), McCardle does econ blogging and is libertarian/environmentalist, Ambinder is blogging the campaign and Fallows lives in China most of the year and blogs the least.

Really nerdy point:
I'm not really into blogs because as a message board poster I just find it really kind of beneath me to spend all my time discussing/arguing in comments on someone else's blog.  Sullivan's blog doesn't have comments and I kind of like this.  He posts a few e-mails from readers everyday and you don't get bogged down for 20 minutes on one interesting post reading through the comments which are 90% b.s.

Other than the Atlantic bloggers I like to read some other blogs that are mostly linked from those guys:

Ann Althouse (Sullivan blogroll)- intolerable law prof. from Wisconsin.  Just the absolute perfect example of the aloof, white, female upper-class.  She doesn't realize this at all.  She does some photo-blogging, she is reeeeallly good at tearing apart people's books (her job on Clarence Thomas' book and Toobin's book on SCOTUS were well worth reading) and she is usually good for at least one hilarious meltdown or ridiculous post per month.  Sullivan demolished her after she suggested that the reason the U.S. was making Jose Padilla wear these blacked out goggle things was so that he could not communicate to his fellow terrorists by blinking code.  Never mind that the govt. was in control of whatever video was released to the public to start with.

Bainbridge (Sullivan blogroll)-  Another lawyer.  read him sometimes.  He is like Althouse without the joy.  He took a couple days off because his dog died and then asked readers to pray for his buddy who just lost his brand new house in Malibu during the fires.  I really hope his buddy will be able to get insurance to cover another bmw 7 series through a rental company  :rolleyes:.

Ezra Klein- pretty well thought out lefty.  Don't really read much.

NRO (The Corner)- National Review Online.  Like reading Phog.net except more delusional.  Their online editor has endorsed at last count: Condi for president, Petraeous to run in '08, Lynn Cheney to run for a Senate seat, Laura Bush to run for something.  I mean it really is a laugh a minute.

TPM Talking Points Memo- Johua Micah Marshall.  Like John Stewart but with fewer laughs and more damning research.  Does takedowns of pretty much any congressional committee move and in-depth research on any nominee or legislation or story of the week.  Has done good work on Guliani advisers like Norman Podhoretz.  He's pretty devastating whenever he comes after you.

The best part about the blogosphere is that if you pick Sullivan, Yglesias or Ezra Klein (part of the blog establishment) you pretty much are guaranteed to find out most everything of note you would if you read one of the others because they all link to each other and talk about the same things.  The nice part is the filler and Sullivan is good culture and is much more prolific in his posting but Yglesias is an NBA fan which is nice.

I mean I could list more that I visit occaisionally but for the most part:

Andrew Sullivan- I read everything
Everything else I listed I try to read as often as possible before I realize I have to do some schoolwork or post on Ksufans.com
ksufanscopycat my friends.

October 25, 2007, 03:17:01 PM
Reply #4

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
thx.

I also hate extensive blog comment discussions.  I don't think I could stomach a music message board, though. (I mostly read music blogs)

Getting an rss reader makes it easy to ignore comments.

October 25, 2007, 03:19:16 PM
Reply #5

Kat Kid

  • Administrator
  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 8821
  • Personal Text
    warm up the EMAW
thx.

I also hate extensive blog comment discussions.  I don't think I could stomach a music message board, though. (I mostly read music blogs)

Getting an rss reader makes it easy to ignore comments.

i tried an rss reader, but then you add too many blogs and news services and it becomes overwhelmning.  I feared opening it up and seeing 10,000 stories to read!

I'll go where the news is, thanks.  I already have a cell phone and a message box, I don't want to be scolded.
ksufanscopycat my friends.

October 25, 2007, 03:25:45 PM
Reply #6

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
I just browse headlines when I'm overwhelmed, and set up a download manager to download all the linked mp3's and read about them later.

Or, I just mark all as read.

Um, except that Sullivan guy has like 100 posts a day!

:eek:

October 25, 2007, 05:00:49 PM
Reply #7

Kat Kid

  • Administrator
  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 8821
  • Personal Text
    warm up the EMAW
I just browse headlines when I'm overwhelmed, and set up a download manager to download all the linked mp3's and read about them later.

Or, I just mark all as read.

Um, except that Sullivan guy has like 100 posts a day!

:eek:

correct.  I read a lot.  I don't like to quantify my internet addiction.
ksufanscopycat my friends.

October 25, 2007, 09:39:08 PM
Reply #8

greasd up deaf guy

  • Guest
ask him about that face to face and he'll reply with:

9/11


crowd cheers, and then boo you.


:thumbsup:

October 25, 2007, 10:35:30 PM
Reply #9

Dan Rydell

  • Senior Cub

  • Offline
  • *

  • 2728
Blogs were cool in 2003.

Now they're just another place where the lefties and the righties repeat their lies over and over until enough people accept them as true.

October 25, 2007, 10:45:19 PM
Reply #10

Kat Kid

  • Administrator
  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 8821
  • Personal Text
    warm up the EMAW
Blogs were cool in 2003.

Now they're just another place where the lefties and the righties repeat their lies over and over until enough people accept them as true.

you should really read sullivan.

He is a conservative with principles.  I can't read Daily Kos anymore.  I stopped reading it after the '06 elections.  You could just tell the place was going to be unbearable.  What I like about blogs?  Some of the reporting/news analysis that occurs that you will never get on tv, print and a general overview of stuff plus tons of fun weird interesting facts.

Sullivan, TPM (Josh Marshall) and Yglesias for serious people who like to think and want an overview and current political reporting

Totten for live Iraq blogging/reporting (he's pretty pro-war, but thoughtful), riverbend for an Iraqi (now in Syria) if you've never read her look her up and you will be captivated

there are TONS of great bloggers worth reading that don't toe every partisan line and act like retards.
ksufanscopycat my friends.

October 25, 2007, 10:54:28 PM
Reply #11

Dan Rydell

  • Senior Cub

  • Offline
  • *

  • 2728
Blogs were cool in 2003.

Now they're just another place where the lefties and the righties repeat their lies over and over until enough people accept them as true.

you should really read sullivan.

He is a conservative with principles.  I can't read Daily Kos anymore.  I stopped reading it after the '06 elections.  You could just tell the place was going to be unbearable.  What I like about blogs?  Some of the reporting/news analysis that occurs that you will never get on tv, print and a general overview of stuff plus tons of fun weird interesting facts.

Sullivan, TPM (Josh Marshall) and Yglesias for serious people who like to think and want an overview and current political reporting

Totten for live Iraq blogging/reporting (he's pretty pro-war, but thoughtful), riverbend for an Iraqi (now in Syria) if you've never read her look her up and you will be captivated

there are TONS of great bloggers worth reading that don't toe every partisan line and act like retards.

Oh, I hear ya.   My last post was a bit snarkier than it should have been.

I'm familiar with all of them.  I used to be really big into following a bunch of them.  There are still a couple I check, but I've just lost a lot of interest in them over the past couple of years, for a variety of reasons.

It's a great way to check out different viewpoints on the issues of the day.  But you guys are definitely right about the comments...they just drag it down.

October 26, 2007, 09:09:15 AM
Reply #12

jeffy

  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • **

  • 7000
  • Personal Text
    ku Swallows
If certain people were in charge, our method of info extraction would consist of a cup of coffee and a soccer game on TV, while reminiscing about the days of yore.

Face it, anything that forcibly makes anyone talk can be construed as torture.

October 26, 2007, 10:00:59 AM
Reply #13

chum1

  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • **

  • 6944
What he said is true.  If done by consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom, it wouldn't be torture.

October 26, 2007, 11:58:19 AM
Reply #14

Kat Kid

  • Administrator
  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 8821
  • Personal Text
    warm up the EMAW
If certain people were in charge, our method of info extraction would consist of a cup of coffee and a soccer game on TV, while reminiscing about the days of yore.

Face it, anything that forcibly makes anyone talk can be construed as torture.

So we waterboard people because yelling at them might be labeled torture?

Why don't you come out and defend what the government is actually doing to people (that which has been empirically proven) instead of playing around in your fun little la-la land of hear no evil, see no evil. 

The United States didn't torture people when George Washington was commanding troops against the British and we were in an actual armed struggle for our survival, so why again are we doing it now?  Are we at a greater time of peril for our nation's existence than the Revolutionary War?  I'd love to hear you explain why.  The magna carta enshrines more rights for the accused than the Bush administration, think about that.
ksufanscopycat my friends.

October 26, 2007, 12:35:08 PM
Reply #15

konofo

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 992
This thread is torturous.

kono

October 26, 2007, 01:43:50 PM
Reply #16

mjrod

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 11246
    • MJROD Consulting Services, Inc
If certain people were in charge, our method of info extraction would consist of a cup of coffee and a soccer game on TV, while reminiscing about the days of yore.

Face it, anything that forcibly makes anyone talk can be construed as torture.

So we waterboard people because yelling at them might be labeled torture?

Why don't you come out and defend what the government is actually doing to people (that which has been empirically proven) instead of playing around in your fun little la-la land of hear no evil, see no evil. 

The United States didn't torture people when George Washington was commanding troops against the British and we were in an actual armed struggle for our survival, so why again are we doing it now?  Are we at a greater time of peril for our nation's existence than the Revolutionary War?  I'd love to hear you explain why.  The magna carta enshrines more rights for the accused than the Bush administration, think about that.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence that while George Washington wasn't torturing, a lot of his subordinates were and quite brutally.


October 26, 2007, 01:47:22 PM
Reply #17

The Whale

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 850

October 26, 2007, 03:11:28 PM
Reply #18

Kat Kid

  • Administrator
  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 8821
  • Personal Text
    warm up the EMAW
back to the original topic:

At least Guliani is honest enough to talk about torture as a policy position.  He's crazy as balls, but at least he isn't denying it at every turn.  I hope every Presidential candidate makes clear their official position on torture.

The clearest that I've heard so far:

Pro-
Guliani: "Depends on who does it." - Pretty clear, but still questions whether waterboarding (a technique used by the Khmer Rouge) constitutes torture.  All in all pretty willing to discuss his stance in favor.

Romney: "Double Gitmo."  Won't mention the word that must never be uttered, but makes clear to any honest observer that he will continue the use of torture, rendition and extra-legal black sites.

Anti-
Obama: called the Military Commissions Act "betrayal of American values."  Also:
"Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction."

Ron Paul: called Brit Hume's shilling for the administration with his adoption of their "enhanced interrogation technique" rhetoric on torture "newspeak."  He believes in george Washington's America.  No Treasury, No Torture.

As for McCain, he has spoken eloquently at times against torture but his support of the Military Commissions Act makes him less than perfect.  He is clearly in the anti-torture camp (probably in part because he was tortured), but I fear that his wavering can only be called bravery because of the hearty embrace given by the rest of the field

ksufanscopycat my friends.

October 26, 2007, 05:39:18 PM
Reply #19

mjrod

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 11246
    • MJROD Consulting Services, Inc
So you're avoiding the torture of British military members by colonial forces?   I find it odd you made no comment about that.

October 27, 2007, 08:21:05 PM
Reply #20

Kat Kid

  • Administrator
  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 8821
  • Personal Text
    warm up the EMAW
If you care about the United States not continuing to be a country that tortures, if you really care about this country not becoming like some of the countries we mock for being given seats at the U.N. Human Rights Council because of their own Human Rights record, then you absolutely cannot vote for Guliani.

Quote
They talk about sleep deprivation. I mean, on that theory, I'm getting tortured running for president of the United States. That's plain silly. That's silly.
-Guliani

Here is what an inmate at the Soviet gulag said about sleep deprivation:

Quote
"wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire to sleep, to sleep just a little, not to get up, to lie, to rest, to forget ... Anyone who has experienced the desire knows that not even hunger or thirst are comparable it with it."

Hilarious.

Let me also give McCain props for this:

Quote
Rudolph W. Giuliani’s statement on Wednesday that he was uncertain whether waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique, was torture drew a sharp rebuke yesterday from Senator John McCain, who said that his failure to call it torture reflected his inexperience.

All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today,” Mr. McCain, who spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, said in a telephone interview.

Of presidential candidates like Mr. Giuliani, who say that they are unsure whether waterboarding is torture, Mr. McCain said: “They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/politics/26giuliani.html?_r=1&ref=politics&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
ksufanscopycat my friends.

October 28, 2007, 12:26:13 AM
Reply #21

mjrod

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 11246
    • MJROD Consulting Services, Inc
I find it interesting that you focus on the one issue that is relatively a minor issue with most people and say that I should care intensely about whether subjecting foreign terrorists to interrogation techniques that some people feel is torture.   And if I don't really place that much emphasis on it, I somehow don't "care" about the US.  Laughable.

Let me put in this perspective, and perhaps, maybe you'll get it (or maybe not, since your perspective is extremely naive.)

When we talk about torture and you quote Russians, Chinese, Cuban, Taliban, etc.. you are trying to parallel what the US is to these countries.

First off, we're not Russia, China, Cuba, Pakistan, etc.   We don't round up citizens to torture them and then later kill them in a sham.   Our system of justice is so much more predicated on doing human rights and I think that anyone who would suggest we abandon it for the styles of these other countries should be shot.

Secondly, most US citizens would probably tell you that it would be wrong for the US to torture anyone, but asking them if known terrorists were captured and we needed to extract information out of them to prevent innocent people from dying, (such as 9/11) then I think you'd get a completely different response.   While some of the more "moral purists" may say differently, you'd find real quick that a lot of people would say "I don't care, just do whatever to get him/her to talk."

You need to be clear.  I'm not suggesting that we round up hundreds of "suspected" terrorists and subject them to torture.   You don't have too.   Many would give intelligence information that might prove valuable.   However, those in critical positions of terrorist networks are trained to deceive and to use anti-interrogation techniques.    They can't just be asked "OK, what do you know?" and for them to just tell you.   And if they are in the middle of planning a big event that would strike at the US or other interests around the world that would cause death and destruction to innocent people who just want to live their lives in peace, then I'm not so sure that people are going to give a rats ass what happens to terrorists.   You know, the terrorists?  The ones that don't give a rats ass about you and would just as soon scream Allah Akuhbar while sawing into larynx trying to separate your head from your body?

You see, I get the idea that we shouldn't torture for the sake of torture.  I certainly don't want the US to be known as a country that condones torture.   It is wrong to do so.   However,  there may be circumstances that require techniques that some might think is torture in order to prevent them from succeeding and hurting a school, a business district, or a mosque/church/synagogue.

As I said, you're being extremely naive in your views about torture and trying to make us all "care" if we do or not.  You seem to be too purist and not enough rational.   National Security, public safety, etc must all be weighed to determine a course of action and create a policy that balances it out.   

I'll just remind you of a couple little things.  While you're busy trying to rid the world of terrorists, two US soldiers who were killed in Iraq were captured by Al Quaida.   It was said by a member of the group that was captured that had participated in the kidnapping, that Al Quaida members tortured the men severely, asking about information of troop strength, headquarters locations, etc, and when they were finished, the soldiers, who should be guaranteed rights of the Geneva Convention, were then killed.

The same can be said for thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who lost family members under similar circumstances who are already reeling from the destruction and chaos following the US invasion.    So if we capture a couple of high value targets that have information on impending attacks on innocents whether here or there, I'm not going to complain too much if they don't get enough sleep and we can prevent innocent people from dying.


October 28, 2007, 12:49:19 AM
Reply #22

swish1

  • Classless Cat
  • Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 1168
I find it interesting that you focus on the one issue that is relatively a minor issue with most people and say that I should care intensely about whether subjecting foreign terrorists to interrogation techniques that some people feel is torture.   And if I don't really place that much emphasis on it, I somehow don't "care" about the US.  Laughable.

Let me put in this perspective, and perhaps, maybe you'll get it (or maybe not, since your perspective is extremely naive.)

When we talk about torture and you quote Russians, Chinese, Cuban, Taliban, etc.. you are trying to parallel what the US is to these countries.

First off, we're not Russia, China, Cuba, Pakistan, etc.   We don't round up citizens to torture them and then later kill them in a sham.   Our system of justice is so much more predicated on doing human rights and I think that anyone who would suggest we abandon it for the styles of these other countries should be shot.

Secondly, most US citizens would probably tell you that it would be wrong for the US to torture anyone, but asking them if known terrorists were captured and we needed to extract information out of them to prevent innocent people from dying, (such as 9/11) then I think you'd get a completely different response.   While some of the more "moral purists" may say differently, you'd find real quick that a lot of people would say "I don't care, just do whatever to get him/her to talk."

You need to be clear.  I'm not suggesting that we round up hundreds of "suspected" terrorists and subject them to torture.   You don't have too.   Many would give intelligence information that might prove valuable.   However, those in critical positions of terrorist networks are trained to deceive and to use anti-interrogation techniques.    They can't just be asked "OK, what do you know?" and for them to just tell you.   And if they are in the middle of planning a big event that would strike at the US or other interests around the world that would cause death and destruction to innocent people who just want to live their lives in peace, then I'm not so sure that people are going to give a rats ass what happens to terrorists.   You know, the terrorists?  The ones that don't give a rats ass about you and would just as soon scream Allah Akuhbar while sawing into larynx trying to separate your head from your body?

You see, I get the idea that we shouldn't torture for the sake of torture.  I certainly don't want the US to be known as a country that condones torture.   It is wrong to do so.   However,  there may be circumstances that require techniques that some might think is torture in order to prevent them from succeeding and hurting a school, a business district, or a mosque/church/synagogue.

As I said, you're being extremely naive in your views about torture and trying to make us all "care" if we do or not.  You seem to be too purist and not enough rational.   National Security, public safety, etc must all be weighed to determine a course of action and create a policy that balances it out.   

I'll just remind you of a couple little things.  While you're busy trying to rid the world of terrorists, two US soldiers who were killed in Iraq were captured by Al Quaida.   It was said by a member of the group that was captured that had participated in the kidnapping, that Al Quaida members tortured the men severely, asking about information of troop strength, headquarters locations, etc, and when they were finished, the soldiers, who should be guaranteed rights of the Geneva Convention, were then killed.

The same can be said for thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who lost family members under similar circumstances who are already reeling from the destruction and chaos following the US invasion.    So if we capture a couple of high value targets that have information on impending attacks on innocents whether here or there, I'm not going to complain too much if they don't get enough sleep and we can prevent innocent people from dying.



QFT

&@#% hippies, commies and liberals... they are all one in the same

October 28, 2007, 01:51:19 AM
Reply #23

Kat Kid

  • Administrator
  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 8821
  • Personal Text
    warm up the EMAW
MJ-

A couple of things that are the basis for the rest:

This is the definition of torture that the U.S. is legally obliged to uphold through its signing of the U.N. Convention on torture.  You don't get to define it, Guliani doesn't get to define it and this President doesn't get to define it unless he publicly pulls out of our publicly stated, internationally recognized and legally binding commitment-
Quote
"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession."


Also, if you truly care about whether or not this country is torturing then I would recommend that you read these two papers done by reputable Human Rights organizations.  Whatever your justification, you should know what is actually being done, if you care to know.:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511892006?open&of=ENG-USA
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1868355

One of this country's rallying cries during its formative years was 'Give me liberty or give me death.'  This country was founded on principles that expressly opposed the concentration of power in the federal government, specifically that of the executive, and erected a system of justice that put the burden of proof on the accuser and gave many protections to the accused.  There is a reason that we are keeping people in Guantanamo and at black sites around the world, if we applied U.S. law to them, we would have to release them because no U.S. court would accept their continued detention as legitimate and any evidence collected against them was inherently under duress and the result of coercion.  What was being done at Guantanamo was opposed by the top JAG in the Marineshttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1868355.  But I guess he was just being naive. 

Ok, let's just review what procedures the United States is actually using.  "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" the rhetoric itself should tell you that the true meaning has reason to be concealed.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1207633,00.html

Quote
In one of the few actual logs we have of a high-level interrogation, that of Mohammed al-Qhatani (first reported in TIME), doctors were present during the long process of constant sleep deprivation over 55 days, and they induced hypothermia and the use of threatening dogs, among other techniques. According to Miles, Medics had to administer three bags of medical saline to Qhatani — while he was strapped to a chair — and aggressively treat him for hypothermia in the hospital. They then returned him to his interrogators. Elsewhere in Guantanamo, one prisoner had a gunshot wound that was left to fester during three days of interrogation before treatment, and two others were denied antibiotics for wounds.

Meanwhile am American citizen, Jose Padilla, has been subjected to the same abuse.  He was detained for 4 years before facing trial and wasn't even charged with the dirty bomb plot that was the basis for his original detention.  The video of his last day in U.S. custody as an 'enemy combatant' before that determination was ruled illegitimate was "lost" by our government.  Padilla was subjected to sleep deprivation, extended solitary confinement and sensory deprivation (see photo).



Here is Dr. Angela Hegarty who worked to determine Padilla's fitness to stand trial:

Quote
DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: I think there’s two things, really. Number one, his family, more than anything, and his friends, who had a chance to see him by the time I spoke with them, said he was changed. There was something wrong. There was something very “weird” -- was the word one of his siblings used -- something weird about him. There was something not right. He was a different man. And the second thing was his absolute state of terror, terror alternating with numbness, largely. It was as though the interrogators were in the room with us. He was like -- perhaps like a trauma victim who knew that they were going to be sent back to the person who hurt them and that he would, as I said earlier, he would subsequently pay a price if he revealed what happened. So I think those would be the two main things.

Also he had developed, actually, a third thing. He had developed really a tremendous identification with the goals and interests of the government. I really considered a diagnosis of Stockholm syndrome. For example, at one point in the proceedings, his attorneys had, you know, done well at cross-examining an FBI agent, and instead of feeling happy about it like all the other defendants I’ve seen over the years, he was actually very angry with them. He was very angry that the civil proceedings were "unfair to the commander-in-chief," quote/unquote. And in fact, one of the things that happened that disturbed me particularly was when he saw his mother. He wanted her to contact President Bush to help him, help him out of his dilemma. He expected that the government might help him, if he was “good,” quote/unquote.

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental...

Now that we have a good idea about WHAT is being done, let's get an idea about WHO it is being done to:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16227791/

If there is truly a scenario where massive amounts of Americans are put at risk and they can be saved by torture, then there is little doubt that whoever is there will torture.  When they stand trial as the hero that they are, they can be acquitted through an act of jury nullification.  We saw this in the Zenger trial.  Enshrining torture as the policy will only ensure that it is used for more and more people, "high-level" becomes just another false pretense and abuse becomes entrenched.

If you can seriously examine the issue, stare all that in the face and continue to condone and support torture, then fine.  But perhaps the reason that people think this is a "minor issue" of U.S. policy is because Bush won't even answer questions about waterboarding or publicly state the definition of torture.  It sure as hell isn't because of some saturation of exposure.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 01:53:45 AM by Kat Kid »
ksufanscopycat my friends.

October 30, 2007, 02:08:10 AM
Reply #24

Leyton

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 1757
Our system of justice is so much more predicated on doing human rights and I think that anyone who would suggest we abandon it for the styles of these other countries should be shot.

...

It is wrong to do so.   However,  there may be circumstances that require techniques that some might think is torture in order to prevent them from succeeding and hurting a school, a business district, or a mosque/church/synagogue.

Mmm...lemme think about it - no, torture still isn't okay.  Not at all.  Having said that, this thread sucks.  We won't see significant changes until dubya is out.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2007, 02:10:17 AM by Leyton »

October 30, 2007, 04:45:32 PM
Reply #25

AzCat

  • Classless Cat
  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 7320
The problem is definitional:

Torture - Shoving a glass rod into one's penis and smashing it with a hammer, then soaking the bloody appendage in acid.

Not torture - Sleep deprivation and nearly all of the things the lefties would like to label as torture.

HTH.

Oh and Rantbug is just about the last blog left worth reading though the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is occasionally good for a blast from the right wing (and should be required reading for all lefties so they'll know what actual right-wingers think and hopefully stop labeling all moderates as barking mad far right religious zealot wingnuts). 
Ladies & gentlemen, I present: The Problem

October 30, 2007, 05:01:47 PM
Reply #26

Kat Kid

  • Administrator
  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 8821
  • Personal Text
    warm up the EMAW
The problem is definitional:

Torture - Shoving a glass rod into one's penis and smashing it with a hammer, then soaking the bloody appendage in acid.

Not torture - Sleep deprivation and nearly all of the things the lefties would like to label as torture.

HTH.

Oh and Rantbug is just about the last blog left worth reading though the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is occasionally good for a blast from the right wing (and should be required reading for all lefties so they'll know what actual right-wingers think and hopefully stop labeling all moderates as barking mad far right religious zealot wingnuts). 

Like I said, you don't get to define torture.  U.S. law does.  I refer back to what I posted before.

Also, John McCain and Menachem Begin (you know, men that have actually faced down torture) heartily disagree with your stance.  Feel free to call them out as "left wingers" or FP because they think water boarding and sleep deprivation are torture.

Take it away Begin!

Quote
Menachem Begin was subjected to sleep deprivation as a torture technique in the Soviet Gulag. He describes a torture victim who is:
    "wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire to sleep, to sleep just a little, not to get up, to lie, to rest, to forget ... Anyone who has experienced the desire knows that not even hunger or thirst are comparable it with it."
ksufanscopycat my friends.

October 30, 2007, 05:45:03 PM
Reply #27

AzCat

  • Classless Cat
  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 7320
Laws can, and frequently should, be changed.  This process often occurs following elections in which voters purge those who oppose their views and replace them with others whose perspectives are more in line with their own.  Thus in the long run I *do* get to define torture if such a definition is to be found in the laws of the United States.  Besides, what's so great about definitions concocted by the likes of San Fran Nan and Ron Paul? 

At least until Hitlary declares martial law and installs herself as chair of the Politburo. 
« Last Edit: October 30, 2007, 06:08:41 PM by Åz©a† »
Ladies & gentlemen, I present: The Problem

October 30, 2007, 06:00:11 PM
Reply #28

cireksu

  • Guest
for some reason I don't think the CIA began torturing people after 9-11, they just got caught after 9-11.

October 30, 2007, 06:49:47 PM
Reply #29

Kat Kid

  • Administrator
  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 8821
  • Personal Text
    warm up the EMAW
Laws can, and frequently should, be changed.  This process often occurs following elections in which voters purge those who oppose their views and replace them with others whose perspectives are more in line with their own.  Thus in the long run I *do* get to define torture if such a definition is to be found in the laws of the United States.  Besides, what's so great about definitions concocted by the likes of San Fran Nan and Ron Paul? 

At least until Hitlary declares martial law and installs herself as chair of the Politburo. 

Laws aren't asserted by fiat, signing statements or executive orders.  We have a legislative body for that.  Bush seems to view the legislative and judicial branches of government as mere annoyances and the Constitution as an obstacle.  Law is worthless if everyone is not subject to it.  Bush hasn't changed the law, he's changed his interpretation of the law in such a blatantly dishonest, casually indifferent and astonishingly arrogant way as to render the law meaningless.  There is a difference and it is quite clear both in process and result.
ksufanscopycat my friends.