NationStates Jolt Archive

Torture. Republicans have pussyfooted around the subject, and tried to avoid taking any responsibility for it. But, Our Glorious Leader seems to have made something of a mis-step, and I'm left kind of wondering why there's so little comment.

""And I'm in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him, and they gave me a list of tools. And I said, are these tools deemed to be legal. And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made. And I think when people study the history of this particular episode they'll find out we gained good information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in order to protect our country."

I don't think he realised what he said. Either that - or he just got pretty badly screwed by a speech-writer.

1) "...I'm in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed..." So - Bush was involved from the very start.

2) "...and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him..." The important phrase here is the "...so I ask..." phrase. That means he's admitting to instigating the discussion on interrogation practises.

3) "...and they gave me a list of tools..." So - Bush is admitting he did not discover later, was not unaware, was not uninvolved.

The interrogation choices were presented to him, at his own instigation, and he was involved in the process from the very start. This puts the blame for torture squarely on Bush's desk.

What will happen? What SHOULD happen?

Did Bush just get screwed by his speechwriter?

Edit: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/interview_with_bush_41_and_bus.html

What should happen? Charges. Justice.

What will happen? Nothing.

Am I suprised that he was behind it? No.

I heard that statement, and I don't believe it was written for him. I think that came straight from the horse's mouth. In idiot veritas.

The claims are patently ridiculous. Just because a monkey can type out the works of Shakespeare does not mean the monkey knows what its doing.

And he'll have a Presidential Library to celebrate his incompetence and flagrant abuses of human rights to boot.

Now if only someone could get him to rob a collectibles dealer in Vegas...

The question is now being asked by some in the "liberal" media (Mother Jones primarily) whether Bush may be able to pardon himself. Certainly I don't think there's anything in the Constitution prohibiting it. One way or another this asshat's going to get away with everything he did in office.

I'm becoming more and more convinced he knew 9/11 was going to happen, too, and deliberately did nothing effective to prevent it.

*awaits first claim that waterboarding isn't torture*

And he'll have a Presidential Library to celebrate his incompetence and flagrant abuses of human rights to boot.

Now if only someone could get him to rob a collectibles dealer in Vegas...

This. Win! :hail:

And he'll have a Presidential Library to celebrate his incompetence and flagrant abuses of human rights to boot.

Now if only someone could get him to rob a collectibles dealer in Vegas...
Oh please, oh please, oh please. :D

Reminds me of the scene "I was elected to lead, not to read." in "Simpsons: the Movie".

The question is now being asked by some in the "liberal" media (Mother Jones primarily) whether Bush may be able to pardon himself. Certainly I don't think there's anything in the Constitution prohibiting it. One way or another this asshat's going to get away with everything he did in office.

I'm becoming more and more convinced he knew 9/11 was going to happen, too, and deliberately did nothing effective to prevent it.

If he does actually pardon himself, that's all he'll ever be remembered for. Any itty-bitty shred of competence he might have enabled would be forgotten under the sewage tsunami of the economy, the occupation of Iraq, the violation of human rights, and the rather timely self-pardon.

It would be a huge taint on his "legacy", and Dear Leader makes it clear that he's too obcessed with what people will think of his "legacy" to do that. He won't pull such a blatant dick move, not unless he wants to actually make Rod Blagojevich look respectable in comparison.

Torture. Republicans have pussyfooted around the subject, and tried to avoid taking any responsibility for it. But, Our Glorious Leader seems to have made something of a mis-step, and I'm left kind of wondering why there's so little comment.



I don't think he realised what he said. Either that - or he just got pretty badly screwed by a speech-writer.

1) "...I'm in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed..." So - Bush was involved from the very start.

2) "...and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him..." The important phrase here is the "...so I ask..." phrase. That means he's admitting to instigating the discussion on interrogation practises.

3) "...and they gave me a list of tools..." So - Bush is admitting he did not discover later, was not unaware, was not uninvolved.

The interrogation choices were presented to him, at his own instigation, and he was involved in the process from the very start. This puts the blame for torture squarely on Bush's desk.

What will happen? What SHOULD happen?

Did Bush just get screwed by his speechwriter?

Edit: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/interview_with_bush_41_and_bus.html
what SHOULD happen is that george bush is tried for war crimes.

what will happen is some underling will take the fall instead.

I'm torn--I want to pin this on him, because the ignominy of being associated with torture and Bush together are tempting, but...

...I'd suspect he's trying to make himself look like he was involved in stuff, because he wants to gain goodie points for achieving "positive outcomes," because his current legacy has startlingly little of that.

I'm torn--I want to pin this on him, because the ignominy of being associated with torture and Bush together are tempting, but...

...I'd suspect he's trying to make himself look like he was involved in stuff, because he wants to gain goodie points for achieving "positive outcomes," because his current legacy has startlingly little of that.
yeah its quite possible that bush is claiming decisions that he never made and is too clueless to figure out what ones are good to claim and what ones might end him up in prison.

we executed people after ww2 for waterboarding.

yeah its quite possible that bush is claiming decisions that he never made and is too clueless to figure out what ones are good to claim and what ones might end him up in prison.

we executed people after ww2 for waterboarding.

But that's because we won and those damn dirty Japs did it to us, duh. When we do it and nobody beats us it's all peachy.

If he does actually pardon himself, that's all he'll ever be remembered for. Any itty-bitty shred of competence he might have enabled would be forgotten under the sewage tsunami of the economy, the occupation of Iraq, the violation of human rights, and the rather timely self-pardon.

It would be a huge taint on his "legacy", and Dear Leader makes it clear that he's too obcessed with what people will think of his "legacy" to do that. He won't pull such a blatant dick move, not unless he wants to actually make Rod Blagojevich look respectable in comparison.

It is funny watching him talk about how he didnt make decisions to be popular yadda yadda and then work so hard to get people to try and "remember the good times".

"I dont care what you think about me, but please remember how awesome I was!"

If he does actually pardon himself, that's all he'll ever be remembered for.

He'll never pardon himself, because he doesn't think he's ever done anything wrong. He honestly doesn't. I heard him in a press conference yesterday, and was just amazed that he thinks history will vindicate him because everything he's done was so wonderful.

He did admit that he was disappointed that they still haven't located the Iraqi WMD, but that's about it.

Torture. Republicans have pussyfooted around the subject, and tried to avoid taking any responsibility for it. But, Our Glorious Leader seems to have made something of a mis-step, and I'm left kind of wondering why there's so little comment.



I don't think he realised what he said. Either that - or he just got pretty badly screwed by a speech-writer.

1) "...I'm in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed..." So - Bush was involved from the very start.

2) "...and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him..." The important phrase here is the "...so I ask..." phrase. That means he's admitting to instigating the discussion on interrogation practises.

3) "...and they gave me a list of tools..." So - Bush is admitting he did not discover later, was not unaware, was not uninvolved.

The interrogation choices were presented to him, at his own instigation, and he was involved in the process from the very start. This puts the blame for torture squarely on Bush's desk.

What will happen? What SHOULD happen?

Did Bush just get screwed by his speechwriter?

Edit: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/interview_with_bush_41_and_bus.html
Whether waterboarding is torture or whether it isn't still could be debated. But Bush took a stand, probably prevented additional attacks and undoubtedly saved many American lives. I say that should waterboarding ever be determined to be torture, Bush had the responsibility to use it. the reasoning is much like the way Lincoln addressed his actions suspending habeas corpus. Lincoln asked, "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Bush understood the answer in wartime had to be no.

He'll never pardon himself, because he doesn't think he's ever done anything wrong. He honestly doesn't. I heard him in a press conference yesterday, and was just amazed that he thinks history will vindicate him because everything he's done was so wonderful.

He did admit that he was disappointed that they still haven't located the Iraqi WMD, but that's about it.
We'll need a reunion in thirty years, or so to really decide how well Bush did. Filtering a President's actions through that kind of time is what it takes. After all, look how time changed the perspective of how well Ike and Truman did in office.

Whether waterboarding is torture or whether it isn't still could be debated.

No, no it really cant. Anyone who thinks it isnt is lying to themselves, because I refuse to believe anyone is that delusional.


But Bush took a stand, probably prevented additional attacks and undoubtedly saved many American lives

Or probably not. I have as much evidence to go on then you. Probably more actually, since CIA operatives have said it didnt do too much.


I say that should waterboarding ever be determined to be torture, Bush had the responsibility to use it. the reasoning is much like the way Lincoln addressed his actions suspending habeas corpus. Lincoln asked, "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Bush understood the answer in wartime had to be no.

Big difference between your little scenario and this one. The Constitution grants the president the power to suspend Habeas Corpus. It doesnt give him the power to violate the Constitutional.

Your arguement is made of fail.
We'll need a reunion in thirty years, or so to really decide how well Bush did. Filtering a President's actions through that kind of time is what it takes. After all, look how time changed the perspective of how well Ike and Truman did in office.

And look how unchanged Carter's administration is. I dont hear you conservatives cheerleading to let history judge when its the other sides guy who wasnt so great. But, then again, double standards are SOP for the right.

Whether waterboarding is torture or whether it isn't still could be debated. But Bush took a stand, probably prevented additional attacks and undoubtedly saved many American lives. I say that should waterboarding ever be determined to be torture, Bush had the responsibility to use it. the reasoning is much like the way Lincoln addressed his actions suspending habeas corpus. Lincoln asked, "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Bush understood the answer in wartime had to be no.

So why is the U.S. government is right now trying to determine if waterboarding is torture or not when it was actually included amongst the charges of Japanese officers executed after World War 2? If it wasn't torture, then there would have been no need to include it in the first place given that said officers had done plenty of other things they could have been hung or shot for.

Whether waterboarding is torture or whether it isn't still could be debated.

Waterboarding is pretty uncontroversially torture. Only fanatics like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk say otherwise.


But Bush took a stand, probably prevented additional attacks and undoubtedly saved many American lives.

I have a rock that wards of tiger attacks! It really works!


I say that should waterboarding ever be determined to be torture, Bush had the responsibility to use it. the reasoning is much like the way Lincoln addressed his actions suspending habeas corpus. Lincoln asked, "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Bush understood the answer in wartime had to be no.

Yes, because everything that Lincoln ever did was right. And torture has been shown to be an effective interrogation method. And there's no risk of torturing innocent people. And even if there is, they'll just be m0zl3ms, so it's okay. :rolleyes:

So why is the U.S. government is right now trying to determine if waterboarding is torture or not when it was actually included amongst the charges of Japanese officers executed after World War 2? If it wasn't torture, then there would have been no need to include it in the first place given that said officers had done plenty of other things they could have been hung or shot for.

Because its only debatable when we do it, silly. After all, we're protecting freedom!

So why is the U.S. government is right now trying to determine if waterboarding is torture or not when it was actually included amongst the charges of Japanese officers executed after World War 2? If it wasn't torture, then there would have been no need to include it in the first place given that said officers had done plenty of other things they could have been hung or shot for.

Shhh, don't expose the right-winger to dangerous liberal ideas like "consistency." Those are just a part of the leftist socialist gay conspiracy to spread AIDS and atheism.

I'm becoming more and more convinced he knew 9/11 was going to happen, too, and deliberately did nothing effective to prevent it.
Of course he knew: a memo was sent to him "Osama Bin-Laden Determined to Strike Within United States" mentioning a plan to fly planes into buildings. That is well established. But as to whether he "deliberately" did nothing, I am more inclined to Hankel's Razor "Never attribute to malice what is readily explained by incompetence".

Yes, because everything that Lincoln ever did was right.

And most importantly, and I cant stress this enough, Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus was constitutional.

Violating the Consitution is not constitutional, but illegal.

And most importantly, and I cant stress this enough, Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus was constitutional.

Violating the Consitution is not constitutional, but illegal.

Violating the Constitution isn't constitutional? Really?

Violating the Constitution isn't constitutional? Really?

I know its like a "dur" statement, but youd be suprised who wouldnt think of that around here.

And most importantly, and I cant stress this enough, Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus was constitutional.

Violating the Consitution is not constitutional, but illegal.

Actually, no, he couldn't suspend it. Congress could, he couldn't.

Actually, no, he couldn't suspend it. Congress could, he couldn't.

While normally Id agree, it does not explicitly say that. Yes, it is in article one, but there is enough grey area where I can understand there being room for arguement. I dont agree with Lincoln's conclusion, but its not a blatant violation.

Besides, congress did suspend habeas corpus shortly after he did.

The key difference is there is no grey areas that makes waterboarding legal.

I know its like a "dur" statement, but youd be suprised who wouldnt think of that around here.

Well, the sarcasm was obvious, but I'm sure there are plenty of far right wingers who wouldn't mind unconstitutionally torturing people as long as they're "Ebil Muslimz"

Well, here's the thing that TRULY bothers me about the whole thing. I'm against torture, I am. I'll say that right here and right now, I am against torture.

But, part of me, that very small part of me, thinks that if torture can be used, effectively in stopping threats, real, legitimate threats to people then..part of me is willing to accept it. It's a part of me that I don't like, but some voice of dispationate reason prattels on in the back of my brain, telling me "what, you wouldn't inflict pain one ONE PERSON who already wants you and everyone you love dead, if it meant saving THOUSANDS of lives?" I don't like that part, but it's there. Desperate times, and all that

So I'm willing to...forgive the violations, I'm willing to forgive the gross disrespect for human rights, if I can feel that it really accomplished SOMETHING. But when we're asked, what exactly did it accomplish, did it make us any safer? was anything foiled as a result, we're met with a stone wall of silence about how we can't be told that for "national security".

And I'd be willing to buy that, if this wasn't the same administration that, at the first whiff of finding something that LOOKED like a WMD in Iraq, instead of carefully containing that evidence, and actually acting like a REAL INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, they reacted with such speed and vigor that you could practically hear Cheney and Rumsfeld linked arm in arm merrily prancing down the rose garden singing "we found them, we found them, praise jesus we found them!" and sent poor old Colin Powell down to the UN with a vial of model antrhax, in a career ending blunder, over what turned out to be trailers full of fucking sand

This is the same administration that cause demonstrable harm to our intelligence services by revealing a covert operative by name to the media.

This administration has proven they have no qualms about releasing sensitive information, when it suits their purposes. So when we are met with this great sucking void of silence over what, exactly, was accomplished here, I am left to conclude...absolutely nothing.

Well, here's the thing that TRULY bothers me about the whole thing. I'm against torture, I am. I'll say that right here and right now, I am against torture.

But, part of me, that very small part of me, thinks that if torture can be used, effectively in stopping threats, real, legitimate threats to people then..part of me is willing to accept it. It's a part of me that I don't like, but some voice of dispationate reason prattels on in the back of my brain, telling me "what, you wouldn't inflict pain one ONE PERSON who already wants you and everyone you love dead, if it meant saving THOUSANDS of lives?" I don't like that part, but it's there. Desperate times, and all that

So I'm willing to...forgive the violations, I'm willing to forgive the gross disrespect for human rights, if I can feel that it really accomplished SOMETHING. But when we're asked, what exactly did it accomplish, did it make us any safer? was anything foiled as a result, we're met with a stone wall of silence about how we can't be told that for "national security".

And I'd be willing to buy that, if this wasn't the same administration that, at the first whiff of finding something that LOOKED like a WMD in Iraq, instead of carefully containing that evidence, and actually acting like a REAL INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, they reacted with such speed and vigor that you could practically hear Cheney and Rumsfeld linked arm in arm merrily prancing down the rose garden singing "we found them, we found them, praise jesus we found them!" and sent poor old Colin Powell down to the UN with a vial of model antrhax, in a career ending blunder, over what turned out to be trailers full of fucking sand

This is the same administration that cause demonstrable harm to our intelligence services by revealing a covert operative by name to the media.

This administration has proven they have no qualms about releasing sensitive information, when it suits their purposes. So when we are met with this great sucking void of silence over what, exactly, was accomplished here, I am left to conclude...absolutely nothing.


Especially with how legacy hungry Bush is. If it had worked, he'd have told us. If only to make his legacy look shinier.

We'll need a reunion in thirty years, or so to really decide how well Bush did. Filtering a President's actions through that kind of time is what it takes.

Not always.
After all, look how time changed the perspective of how well Ike and Truman did in office.
Look how time didn't change the perspective of how well Harding and Hoover did.

Torture. Republicans have pussyfooted around the subject, and tried to avoid taking any responsibility for it. But, Our Glorious Leader seems to have made something of a mis-step, and I'm left kind of wondering why there's so little comment.



I don't think he realised what he said. Either that - or he just got pretty badly screwed by a speech-writer.

1) "...I'm in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed..." So - Bush was involved from the very start.

2) "...and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him..." The important phrase here is the "...so I ask..." phrase. That means he's admitting to instigating the discussion on interrogation practises.

3) "...and they gave me a list of tools..." So - Bush is admitting he did not discover later, was not unaware, was not uninvolved.

The interrogation choices were presented to him, at his own instigation, and he was involved in the process from the very start. This puts the blame for torture squarely on Bush's desk.

What will happen? What SHOULD happen?

Did Bush just get screwed by his speechwriter?

Edit: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/interview_with_bush_41_and_bus.html


Are you saying that Khalid Mohammed didn't break, and give up information (he certainly did)?

Now, it's not information you can use to convict, but at this point, Khalid is most anxious to not only confess, but get executed.

Did Khalid just screw himself completely?

Are you saying that Khalid Mohammed didn't break, and give up information (he certainly did)?

Now, it's not information you can use to convict, but at this point, Khalid is most anxious to not only confess, but get executed.

Did Khalid just screw himself completely?

Prove any of this.

He'll never pardon himself, because he doesn't think he's ever done anything wrong. He honestly doesn't. I heard him in a press conference yesterday, and was just amazed that he thinks history will vindicate him because everything he's done was so wonderful.

He did admit that he was disappointed that they still haven't located the Iraqi WMD, but that's about it.
did you happen to see rachel maddows refutation of his claim that the feds acted quickly after katrina?

OUCH. she left no stone unturned.

Prove any of this.

It's well known that Khalid gave up many, many names of al-Q operatives around the world, most of whom were killed later. This also led to finding and breaking others who were involved in the LA plot.

Well, here's the thing that TRULY bothers me about the whole thing. I'm against torture, I am. I'll say that right here and right now, I am against torture.

But, part of me, that very small part of me, thinks that if torture can be used, effectively in stopping threats, real, legitimate threats to people then..part of me is willing to accept it. It's a part of me that I don't like, but some voice of dispationate reason prattels on in the back of my brain, telling me "what, you wouldn't inflict pain one ONE PERSON who already wants you and everyone you love dead, if it meant saving THOUSANDS of lives?" I don't like that part, but it's there. Desperate times, and all that

So I'm willing to...forgive the violations, I'm willing to forgive the gross disrespect for human rights, if I can feel that it really accomplished SOMETHING. But when we're asked, what exactly did it accomplish, did it make us any safer? was anything foiled as a result, we're met with a stone wall of silence about how we can't be told that for "national security".

And I'd be willing to buy that, if this wasn't the same administration that, at the first whiff of finding something that LOOKED like a WMD in Iraq, instead of carefully containing that evidence, and actually acting like a REAL INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, they reacted with such speed and vigor that you could practically hear Cheney and Rumsfeld linked arm in arm merrily prancing down the rose garden singing "we found them, we found them, praise jesus we found them!" and sent poor old Colin Powell down to the UN with a vial of model antrhax, in a career ending blunder, over what turned out to be trailers full of fucking sand

This is the same administration that cause demonstrable harm to our intelligence services by revealing a covert operative by name to the media.

This administration has proven they have no qualms about releasing sensitive information, when it suits their purposes. So when we are met with this great sucking void of silence over what, exactly, was accomplished here, I am left to conclude...absolutely nothing.
turns out that after they waterboarded <that guy who masterminded 9/11> he spilled so much bullshit mixed in with a few grains of truth that they got no good actionable information out of him and instead wasted a ton of time and resources on chasing down his falsely confessed info.


having a real situation to deal with just doesnt change the part where torture is an ineffective way of getting critical information.

It's well known that Khalid gave up many, many names of al-Q operatives around the world, most of whom were killed later.

A) If its well known, shouldnt be hard to prove.
B) Show it was because of torture/waterboarding.

Well, here's the thing that TRULY bothers me about the whole thing. I'm against torture, I am. I'll say that right here and right now, I am against torture.

But, part of me, that very small part of me, thinks that if torture can be used, effectively in stopping threats, real, legitimate threats to people then..part of me is willing to accept it. It's a part of me that I don't like, but some voice of dispationate reason prattels on in the back of my brain, telling me "what, you wouldn't inflict pain one ONE PERSON who already wants you and everyone you love dead, if it meant saving THOUSANDS of lives?" I don't like that part, but it's there. Desperate times, and all that

So I'm willing to...forgive the violations, I'm willing to forgive the gross disrespect for human rights, if I can feel that it really accomplished SOMETHING. But when we're asked, what exactly did it accomplish, did it make us any safer? was anything foiled as a result, we're met with a stone wall of silence about how we can't be told that for "national security".

And I'd be willing to buy that, if this wasn't the same administration that, at the first whiff of finding something that LOOKED like a WMD in Iraq, instead of carefully containing that evidence, and actually acting like a REAL INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, they reacted with such speed and vigor that you could practically hear Cheney and Rumsfeld linked arm in arm merrily prancing down the rose garden singing "we found them, we found them, praise jesus we found them!" and sent poor old Colin Powell down to the UN with a vial of model antrhax, in a career ending blunder, over what turned out to be trailers full of fucking sand

This is the same administration that cause demonstrable harm to our intelligence services by revealing a covert operative by name to the media.

This administration has proven they have no qualms about releasing sensitive information, when it suits their purposes. So when we are met with this great sucking void of silence over what, exactly, was accomplished here, I am left to conclude...absolutely nothing.

Are you Alan Dershowitz.....? ;)

I have a rock that wards of tiger attacks! It really works!

PC, I would like to buy your rock.

I'm torn--I want to pin this on him, because the ignominy of being associated with torture and Bush together are tempting, but...

...I'd suspect he's trying to make himself look like he was involved in stuff, because he wants to gain goodie points for achieving "positive outcomes," because his current legacy has startlingly little of that.

I'm similarly torn.

See, for me - I don't see the intelligence community letting it stand if he hadn't had a hand in it. Especially since - in all likelihood - if anything DOES come of it, they're going to need another Scooter. The fact that there hasn't already been a response denying that the President had any involvement, makes me think they can't deny it.

Maybe he's playing up his part, maybe not. If he is - he's an idiot, as well as an instrument of a torturous regime. If he's not, he IS the regime.

Whether waterboarding is torture or whether it isn't still could be debated...

John McCain, who was tortured, says that waterboarding is torture.

Cheney, who dodged the draft, says it's not.

Veterans for Common Sense say it's torture.

Rush Limbaugh, who was found unfit for military service, says it's not.


The 'debate' is between people who actually have felt pain, and people who have let others feel the pain for them.

Waterboarding is torture.

While normally Id agree, it does not explicitly say that. Yes, it is in article one, but there is enough grey area where I can understand there being room for arguement. I dont agree with Lincoln's conclusion, but its not a blatant violation.

Besides, congress did suspend habeas corpus shortly after he did.

The key difference is there is no grey areas that makes waterboarding legal.

Also worth pointing out - the current regime hasn't exactly toed the line on habeus corpus either.

So - the response to Myrmi is basically "I'll see your debatable suspension of constitutional rights, and raise you some torture".

turns out that after they waterboarded <that guy who masterminded 9/11> he spilled so much bullshit mixed in with a few grains of truth that they got no good actionable information out of him and instead wasted a ton of time and resources on chasing down his falsely confessed info.

having a real situation to deal with just doesnt change the part where torture is an ineffective way of getting critical information.

Torture is quite well established as being a really bad way of obtaining good information.

Well, here's the thing that TRULY bothers me about the whole thing. I'm against torture, I am. I'll say that right here and right now, I am against torture.

But, part of me, that very small part of me, thinks that if torture can be used, effectively in stopping threats, real, legitimate threats to people then..part of me is willing to accept it...

I've had the same debate in my head. I'm quite open to "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few".

But everything I read says that torture just isn't very good at getting good information. Every indicator suggests that repeatedly asking the same questions, and expanding on that scope, and then cross-referncing your responses - is a far better way of getting information, of getting GOOD information, and of quality checking that information.

Knowing that - where is the justification for torture?

I've had the same debate in my head. I'm quite open to "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few".

But everything I read says that torture just isn't very good at getting good information. Every indicator suggests that repeatedly asking the same questions, and expanding on that scope, and then cross-referncing your responses - is a far better way of getting information, of getting GOOD information, and of quality checking that information.

Knowing that - where is the justification for torture?
Nowhere, which is why no attempt to justify it has ever succeeded.

it seemed to me at that press conference yesterday that george bush was saying that he was so freaked after 9/11 that he would have authorized anything that he was told would work.

without some kind of moral center, at least some belief that we need to abide by our international agreements like the geneva conventions, he had no way to understand that what he was doing was authorizing war crimes. authorizing what should never be allowed.

and that no, we are not extra special when something bad happens to us. the ban on torture is for when we really really want to do it as well as when someone else wants to do it.

it seemed to me at that press conference yesterday that george bush was saying that he was so freaked after 9/11 that he would have authorized anything that he was told would work.

without some kind of moral center, at least some belief that we need to abide by our international agreements like the geneva conventions, he had no way to understand that what he was doing was authorizing war crimes. authorizing what should never be allowed.

and that no, we are not extra special when something bad happens to us. the ban on torture is for when we really really want to do it as well as when someone else wants to do it.

Talking about the press conference... Bush referred to Europe as 'elites'. Apparently, the rest of the world is okay with what the US has been doing in Gitmo, etc... and it's just 'the elites' that have objected... which he later expanded on.. he means Europe.

Torture and human rights violations... Europe is objecting to them because 'they think they're better than us'? Is that what we're supposed to take away? Seriously - international class war as a justification?

Talking about the press conference... Bush referred to Europe as 'elites'. Apparently, the rest of the world is okay with what the US has been doing in Gitmo, etc... and it's just 'the elites' that have objected... which he later expanded on.. he means Europe.

Torture and human rights violations... Europe is objecting to them because 'they think they're better than us'? Is that what we're supposed to take away? Seriously - international class war as a justification?

See, Im pretty sure hes stopped even trying to not say stupid shit now that hes leaving.

Whether waterboarding is torture or whether it isn't still could be debated.

Are you volunteering to undergo waterboarding to prove that it isn't?

Talking about the press conference... Bush referred to Europe as 'elites'. Apparently, the rest of the world is okay with what the US has been doing in Gitmo, etc... and it's just 'the elites' that have objected... which he later expanded on.. he means Europe.

Torture and human rights violations... Europe is objecting to them because 'they think they're better than us'? Is that what we're supposed to take away? Seriously - international class war as a justification?
yeah them europeans dont count. elitist jerks.

according to chris matthews today bush has an 80% approval rating in africa. africa is what counts.

the complaint that killed me was that the countries that critisize gitmo the most refuse to take any of the detainees. as if they are somehow required to clean up our mess or co-operate in any way with the man who thinks they are elitist jerks.

Are you volunteering to undergo waterboarding to prove that it isn't?

Remember the guy that did?

See, Im pretty sure hes stopped even trying to not say stupid shit now that hes leaving.

He's kind of knocked me for six, to be honest. I watched that press conference... and it was bizarre. I mean... there are points where you can hear rage bubbling under the surface. Then, the next minute, he's smiling it off. It was the most manic performance I've seen since Dark Knight.

And the things he's been saying in the last couple of days... he basically warned Obama not to trust those close to him... he talks about not finding WMD's in Iraq as being disappointing, but not a mistake...

I'm looking back over 8 years, and I'm thinking of Bush acting like an idiot on so many occassions. I'm thinking about how little actual exposure he got (compare him to Obama)... and I'm wondering how much Bush has been 'handled' - like they did with Palin.

Then I think about these big performances we've seen in the last few days... and I compare it to the weird reactions to 9/11 (reading a book about... ducks, or something... to a group of schoolkids?) and Katrina (stayed on vacation two more days)... I honestly wouldn't be surprised to find out that Bush had a psychotic break.

Remember the guy that did?

There was one?

There was one?
Yes, he was a Justice Department official who, facing a question as to whether waterboarding was torture or not, went to the Pentagon facility where they train soldiers about how to deal with torture by subjecting them to torture (after they volunteer for it). This official showed up, said "waterboard me." They did. He went back to DOJ and said, "It's fucking torture, you assholes." I'm characterizing. What he actually said was that it was the single most terrifying experience of his life, that he felt absolutely that he was drowning and was going to die, even though he knew that the people doing it were not going to let him be hurt, let alone killed, and that there was no doubt in his mind that waterboarding is definitely torture, both physical and psychological. And Bush fired him.

EDIT: Google failed me. Hopefully someone else will have the story bookmarked to get his name and the details. He was second or third at DOJ under Ashcroft, I think. It's an old story that's been pushed off google by the fact that Christopher Hitchens decided to try it out, too, more recently. He thinks it's torture, too, now that he's tried it.

Yes, he was a Justice Department official who, facing a question as to whether waterboarding was torture or not, went to the Pentagon facility where they train soldiers about how to deal with torture by subjecting them to torture (after they volunteer for it). This official showed up, said "waterboard me." They did. He went back to JOD and said, "It's fucking torture, you assholes." And Bush fired him.

Could have sworn it was a journalist who was completely in favor of waterboarding, ended up volunteering to be waterboarded, and did a complete 180.

e;f;b

I never thought that Bush was the brain behind anything..

Could have sworn it was a journalist who was completely in favor of waterboarding, ended up volunteering to be waterboarded, and did a complete 180.

e;f;b
Well, that might have been Christopher Hitchens, as I said, but no, the guy I'm thinking of was an official at DOJ. *goes back and edits that*

I never thought that Bush was the brain behind anything..

The brain behind Bush was the brain behind it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Pinky_and_the_Brain_vol1.jpg

He's kind of knocked me for six, to be honest. I watched that press conference... and it was bizarre. I mean... there are points where you can hear rage bubbling under the surface. Then, the next minute, he's smiling it off. It was the most manic performance I've seen since Dark Knight.

And the things he's been saying in the last couple of days... he basically warned Obama not to trust those close to him... he talks about not finding WMD's in Iraq as being disappointing, but not a mistake...

I'm looking back over 8 years, and I'm thinking of Bush acting like an idiot on so many occassions. I'm thinking about how little actual exposure he got (compare him to Obama)... and I'm wondering how much Bush has been 'handled' - like they did with Palin.

Then I think about these big performances we've seen in the last few days... and I compare it to the weird reactions to 9/11 (reading a book about... ducks, or something... to a group of schoolkids?) and Katrina (stayed on vacation two more days)... I honestly wouldn't be surprised to find out that Bush had a psychotic break.
i wondered, what with those red cheeks, if he had had a few drinks before he went it. he was pretty erratic.

Well, that might have been Christopher Hitchens, as I said, but no, the guy I'm thinking of was an official at DOJ. *goes back and edits that*
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/03/waterboarding-abc-news-levin/

from '07

Last night, ABC World News reported that in 2004 then-acting assistant attorney general Daniel Levin was so concerned about the administration’s use of waterboarding that he went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure himself.

Levin took over former Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith’s job when he resigned and immediately began reassessing the administration’s interrogation techniques. Levin released a new memo in Dec. 2004 that replaced the 2002 Bybee memo. Levin’s memo declared that “Torture is abhorrent” but also cautioned in a footnote that his memo was not declaring the administration’s previous opinions illegal. “The White House, with Alberto Gonzales as the White House counsel, insisted that this footnote be included in the memo.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/03/waterboarding-abc-news-levin/

from '07

Last night, ABC World News reported that in 2004 then-acting assistant attorney general Daniel Levin was so concerned about the administration’s use of waterboarding that he went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure himself.

Levin took over former Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith’s job when he resigned and immediately began reassessing the administration’s interrogation techniques. Levin released a new memo in Dec. 2004 that replaced the 2002 Bybee memo. Levin’s memo declared that “Torture is abhorrent” but also cautioned in a footnote that his memo was not declaring the administration’s previous opinions illegal. “The White House, with Alberto Gonzales as the White House counsel, insisted that this footnote be included in the memo.”
Thank you! :D

The brain behind Bush was the brain behind it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Pinky_and_the_Brain_vol1.jpg

That would make a lot of sense out of Bushs' 2 terms.

Pinky has secretly been running America.......

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

the complaint that killed me was that the countries that critisize gitmo the most refuse to take any of the detainees. as if they are somehow required to clean up our mess or co-operate in any way with the man who thinks they are elitist jerks.
Worse: it's not even true. The European countries ARE volunteering to take the detainees: except, only on the condition that Gitmo is actually shut down. What Bush is complaining about is that they wouldn't help him to keep Gitmo going.

Pinky has secretly been running America.......

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

"Pinky, if we are to determine where Bin Ladin is hiding out I believe we must subject the... Enemy Combatants to interrogation techniques such as waterboarding."
"OOOOOH!! I LOVE WATERBOARDING BRAIN!! Almost as much as I love water skiing, but then we can all take everyone on a trip to Hawaii! And then we can all get those funny flowers over our heads and have a luau..."
"I'd consider having you waterboarded Pinky, except all we'd get out of it is even more useless blather from you than we have as it is."

Waterboarding is pretty uncontroversially torture. Only fanatics like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk say otherwise.
Another new year's resolution - "ilk" is too tepid a term in application to purulent rightwing genetic trash.

Worse: it's not even true. The European countries ARE volunteering to take the detainees: except, only on the condition that Gitmo is actually shut down. What Bush is complaining about is that they wouldn't help him to keep Gitmo going.
he is such an asshole!

i was just watching jon stewart going over his press conference again. he did a good job of focusing on what was wrong about the whole thing.

He was second or third at DOJ under Ashcroft, I think.
The DOJ had a few interesting characters, indeed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-justice14-2009jan14,0,3129787.story

The DOJ had a few interesting characters, indeed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-justice14-2009jan14,0,3129787.story
im hoping that the new attny general will prosecute this asshole. he belongs in jail.

The DOJ had a few interesting characters, indeed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-justice14-2009jan14,0,3129787.story
Ah, yes, Schlozman (great name). I can't wait to see him in the unemployment line.

he is such an asshole!

i was just watching jon stewart going over his press conference again. he did a good job of focusing on what was wrong about the whole thing.
In less than half an hour? What wasn't wrong with that press conference? It was like listening to a lunatic who'd been off his meds for a few days.

In less than half an hour? What wasn't wrong with that press conference? It was like listening to a lunatic who'd been off his meds for a few days.
its worth looking at online if you dont get comedy central on your tv.

im hoping that the new attny general will prosecute this asshole. he belongs in jail.
+
Ah, yes, Schlozman (great name). I can't wait to see him in the unemployment line.
Agreed and agreed.

Whether waterboarding is torture or whether it isn't still could be debated. But Bush took a stand, probably prevented additional attacks and undoubtedly saved many American lives. I say that should waterboarding ever be determined to be torture, Bush had the responsibility to use it. the reasoning is much like the way Lincoln addressed his actions suspending habeas corpus. Lincoln asked, "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Bush understood the answer in wartime had to be no.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

He's kind of knocked me for six, to be honest. I watched that press conference... and it was bizarre. I mean... there are points where you can hear rage bubbling under the surface. Then, the next minute, he's smiling it off. It was the most manic performance I've seen since Dark Knight.

And the things he's been saying in the last couple of days... he basically warned Obama not to trust those close to him... he talks about not finding WMD's in Iraq as being disappointing, but not a mistake...

I'm looking back over 8 years, and I'm thinking of Bush acting like an idiot on so many occassions. I'm thinking about how little actual exposure he got (compare him to Obama)... and I'm wondering how much Bush has been 'handled' - like they did with Palin.

Then I think about these big performances we've seen in the last few days... and I compare it to the weird reactions to 9/11 (reading a book about... ducks, or something... to a group of schoolkids?) and Katrina (stayed on vacation two more days)... I honestly wouldn't be surprised to find out that Bush had a psychotic break.

Has anyone seen Cheney recently? I'm thinking he's finally abandoned his rapidly decaying shell and taken on a new host. He's sort of a Yeerk, you see.

so mr bush was asked at that press conference whether or not he would be pardoning people in his administration.... he refused to answer the question.

do you think that he could possibly remember everyone that needs a pardon to avoid prison? how long would that list be that he will hand in on the morning of the 20th?

What should happen? Charges. Justice.

What will happen? Nothing.

Am I suprised that he was behind it? No.

^^^This....

do you think that he could possibly remember everyone that needs a pardon to avoid prison? how long would that list be that he will hand in on the morning of the 20th?

I'm sure they'll remember to remind Bush in case he forgets.

One way of interpreting why Bush is cautioning Obama not to trust those close to him is because of the way Bush's "allies" are all jumping ship and likely asking/demanding for favors from him. It would fit with the idea that he still believes everything he's done is aboveboard.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I really hate people who say that.

The idea that Bush was the mastermind behind anything in his administration makes me laugh. That guy doesn't have two brain cells to rub together and you think he was making decisions about things this important? Maybe - just maybe - he decided how he wanted his morning coffee, but the buck stops there.

Oh and also, if you want our President persecuted for war crimes... all I can say is there was no crime. Maybe a moral crime, but we don't send people to jail because they offend our sensibilities. And even if he did break a law, you really want to set that precedent? There's a reason we won't join the ICC and its not because we don't like the Netherlands (love it).

I really hate people who say that.
Why?

The idea that Bush was the mastermind behind anything in his administration makes me laugh. That guy doesn't have two brain cells to rub together and you think he was making decisions about things this important? Maybe - just maybe - he decided how he wanted his morning coffee, but the buck stops there.
Granted, but even an idiot can be a liar, too.

Oh and also, if you want our President persecuted for war crimes... all I can say is there was no crime. Maybe a moral crime, but we don't send people to jail because they offend our sensibilities. And even if he did break a law, you really want to set that precedent? There's a reason we won't join the ICC and its not because we don't like the Netherlands (love it).
I disagree. I believe laws were broken. US laws. The Netherlands need have nothing to do with it, if they don't want to.

Also, the precedent for prosecuting people for committing crimes was established long before now. No new ground would be broken by going after Bush for his misdeeds in office.

Maybe a moral crime, but we don't send people to jail because they offend our sensibilities.
Hey, are you busy? Limblob, Fannity, "Savage" Weiner, The Leprechaun, Adam's Apple Coulter and all those other seditious, infantile, bellicose chancres need a little of your perspective for some talking point fodder.

its worth looking at online if you dont get comedy central on your tv.

I'll be doing that.

I'll be doing that.Word.

Waterboarding is NOT Torture. If it CAN get you into Chico State University is NOT torture. Pulling out fingernails and beheading is torture. Putting 9 naked guys in a pyramid, is just Pledging!

I bet he didn't do it, he doesn't have the intelligence to think of that. I think he must have copied someone else.
why did no one assassinate Bush? he was useless as a president.

Waterboarding is NOT Torture.

the history of war crimes convictions says otherwise

the history of war crimes convictions says otherwise

*headdesks* PROOF! I DEMAND PROOF! If you cannot find proof, your argument is null and void.

*headdesks* PROOF! I DEMAND PROOF! If you cannot find proof, your argument is null and void.

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_pf.html)

Waterboarding: A Tortured History (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834)

Still going to deny it's a crime?

I bet he didn't do it, he doesn't have the intelligence to think of that. I think he must have copied someone else.
why did no one assassinate Bush? he was useless as a president.
Because some fucking idiot sold some bum grenades to someone over in Tblisi, and dagnabbit, that pretzel didn't swell fast enough. And that Segway didn't explode. And the Italian bike-mounted police are pansies when it comes to foreign indignitaries. And the bramble at the Crawford ranch runs far short in neurotoxins at the end of its barbing.
*grrrrrr*

Putting 9 naked guys in a pyramid, is just Pledging!So, did they pass? Whatever other hijinks are the members of that craaaaaaaaaaazy fraternity up to these days? Zany! Madcap! Hilarious!

What should happen to Bush?

Nothing at all.

So, did they pass? Whatever other hijinks are the members of that craaaaaaaaaaazy fraternity up to these days? Zany! Madcap! Hilarious!

Apperntly and women laughing at a guy's small *insert name here* happens to A LOT of guys.

What should happen to Bush?

Nothing at all.Not even a blockbuster speaking-engagement tour? FauX commentator?
Do you mean annihilation?
Ante up.

Apperntly and women laughing at a guy's small *insert name here* happens to A LOT of guys.
Boy howdy.
To quote a distressed citizen on a San Andreas beach ...
I'm NOT inadequate!

Not even a blockbuster speaking-engagement tour? FauX commentator?
Do you mean annihilation?
Ante up.

I mean he should be left alone.

The man has endured 8 years of slander and vitriol hurled at him, and will most likely have it hurled at him for many more.

He should be left alone.

The man has endured 8 years of slander and vitriol hurled at him, and will most likely have it hurled at him for many more.Could be that he earned it. Good thing he handled it so gracefully during that last press conference.

He should be left alone.
Alone .... with the ghosts and shambles in the ruin, with a keen eye on a sharp and inviting shard for his final run down the river.

Could be that he earned it. Good thing he handled it so gracefully during that last press conference.

Alone .... with the ghosts and shambles in the ruin, with a keen eye on a sharp and inviting shard for his final run down the river.

Eh, maybe.

I think he's earned some, but not all of it.

edit: what ghosts in what ruin?

Torture...

The idea of Bush being a "brain" is somewhat... hilarious.

Anyway, let's go biblical: an eye for an eye :D

Waterboarding is NOT Torture. It is.

...beheading is torture.
Beheading is not torture. Beheading is homicide (or manslaughter if unintentional).

He should be left alone.

Life in solitary confinement? Now that's something I could agree to.

what will happen is anybody's guess, in all probability something less the justice.
what 'should' happen is his extradition to face an international war crimes tribunal.

well, maybe someday,
when the world has changed a bit more, and if he should live so long for it to.

on the third hand, this is not quite so far beyond possibility either.
just not seeming the most probable outcome at the current moment.

I think history may excuse him for the dimwitted patsy he really is

dimwitted patsy he really is: yes.

should he be excused for being one? i almost never have been. whatever THAT means.

I know this won't sit well with many on this forum, but : If you give a monkey a gun and the monkey shoots someone, that's not the monkey's fault.

If you elect a monkey as president, the resulting chaos is not the monkey's fault. It's the fault of the people who put him in a place where he can do this much damage.
True, now, this particular monkey cheated his way in the first time round, but there were a good number of people who wanted him in charge for the 2nd term, when it was already well apparent that having a country run by a monkey will inevitably lead to problems.
If anything, those guys ought to be punished, not the monkey.

I know this won't sit well with many on this forum, but : If you give a monkey a gun and the monkey shoots someone, that's not the monkey's fault.

If you elect a monkey as president, the resulting chaos is not the monkey's fault. It's the fault of the people who put him in a place where he can do this much damage.
True, now, this particular monkey cheated his way in the first time round, but there were a good number of people who wanted him in charge for the 2nd term, when it was already well apparent that having a country run by a monkey will inevitably lead to problems.
If anything, those guys ought to be punished, not the monkey.

i absolutely aggree it was our collective thoughtlessness that created a market for what he represented, and thus everyone who bought into it shares some of the blame, but, as in any criminal activity, under law, this in no way absolves the culpability of the perpetrator. does it morally? hard to say. morally all culpability is real. but in practical reality, while deturance is questionable and vengence is counter productive, there is a message sent, that becomes part of cultural precedent, by how the perp is treated by the law and society. send a message of getting away with crime, and more such crimes are almost inevitable to occur.

i absolutely aggree it was our collective thoughtlessness that created a market for what he represented, and thus everyone who bought into it shares some of the blame, but, as in any criminal activity, under law, this in no way absolves the culpability of the perpetrator. does it morally? hard to say. morally all culpability is real. but in practical reality, while deturance is questionable and vengence is counter productive, there is a message sent, that becomes part of cultural precedent, by how the perp is treated by the law and society. send a message of getting away with crime, and more such crimes are almost inevitable to occur.

True, it doesn't fully excuse his actions. That's where my monkey-analogy fails, we have to expect every human being to live up to certain moral and more importantly legal standards. And he does qualify as human, after all.

However, if his action were criminal, and were known to the electorate by the time his re-election came around, any they put him back into the same place, with the same privileges, one has to ask the question if this wasn't in fact helping the criminal along on his way to commit more crimes.

Bush's greatest PR tool at his disposal, in terms of rehabilitating his image in history, is that many of us believe him to be so completely retarded, it is almost impolite to blame him. That, coupled with a public persona largely created by imitators and stand up comedians, and he's almost identifiable.

However, if his action were criminal, and were known to the electorate by the time his re-election came around, any they put him back into the same place, with the same privileges, one has to ask the question if this wasn't in fact helping the criminal along on his way to commit more crimes.

precisely.

the only thing that remains less then entirely certain is how well and widely his culpability was understood in 2004, and how accurately and honestly the votes in that election were counted. which in both elections he supposedly won, remain, and probably always will, under a considerable cloud of uncertainty.

those who know they voted intentionally for him, whatever they expected from doing so, know of course that they did.

Bush's greatest PR tool at his disposal, in terms of rehabilitating his image in history, is that many of us believe him to be so completely retarded, it is almost impolite to blame him. That, coupled with a public persona largely created by imitators and stand up comedians, and he's almost identifiable.

I suspect Bush is reasonably intelligent. However, he lacks wisdom and principles.

I mean he should be left alone.

The man has endured 8 years of slander and vitriol hurled at him, and will most likely have it hurled at him for many more.

He should be left alone.
its not slander when its true.

Torture. Republicans have pussyfooted around the subject, and tried to avoid taking any responsibility for it. But, Our Glorious Leader seems to have made something of a mis-step, and I'm left kind of wondering why there's so little comment.



I don't think he realised what he said. Either that - or he just got pretty badly screwed by a speech-writer.

1) "...I'm in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed..." So - Bush was involved from the very start.

2) "...and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him..." The important phrase here is the "...so I ask..." phrase. That means he's admitting to instigating the discussion on interrogation practises.

3) "...and they gave me a list of tools..." So - Bush is admitting he did not discover later, was not unaware, was not uninvolved.

The interrogation choices were presented to him, at his own instigation, and he was involved in the process from the very start. This puts the blame for torture squarely on Bush's desk.

What will happen? What SHOULD happen?

He admits, easily, to using torture devices to get information out of political prisioners. Wow.

As to what shou,d happen. He should be brought before a court and accused of, knowingly, commit crimes against prisioners of war or politics. Much like he did to Saddam Hussein. Wouldn't that be an irony of life?

Did Bush just get screwed by his speechwriter?

I really think Bush would have screwed himself anyway. With the things he's famous for saying, a slip like this was unavoidable, speechwriter present or not. Besides, guilt has a way of making the darkest and deepest secrets surface.

I mean he should be left alone.

The man has endured 8 years of slander and vitriol hurled at him, and will most likely have it hurled at him for many more.

He should be left alone.
But he'll always have you.

Eh, maybe.

I think he's earned some, but not all of it.

edit: what ghosts in what ruin?
The ghosts of the thousands who died in his war of choice, in the ruins of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the US legal system.

Life in solitary confinement? Now that's something I could agree to.
I vote for this one, too. There are few things I'd like more than to live in a future world where I can occasionally find blurry youtube clips of Bush wandering around alone in a prison yard, wearing an orange jumpsuit. I know I won't get that, but it's what I want.

I think history may excuse him for the dimwitted patsy he really is
Dimwitted patsies don't earn a pass from history when they are the leaders of nations. Being stupid and gullible is a blameworth fault in a leader, especially when they leave office with their nation in the condition ours is in right now.

Also, being stupid is not a defense. It doesn't get you off the hook if you break the law.

Yes, Khalid talked after being waterboarded.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/how-the-cia-bro.html

When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was strapped down to the water-board, he felt humiliated — not by the treatment but by the fact that a woman, a red-headed CIA supervisor, was allowed to witness the spectacle, a former intelligence officer told ABC News.

The al Qaeda mastermind, known as KSM, stubbornly held out for about two minutes — far longer than any of the other “high-value” terror targets who were subjected to the technique, the harshest from a list of six techniques approved for use by the CIA and Bush administration lawyers, sources said.

Then KSM started talking, in idiomatic English he learned as a high school foreign exchange student and polished at a North Carolina college in the 1980s, sources said.

Yes, Khalid talked after being waterboarded.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/how-the-cia-bro.html
No kidding. Anyone will talk when they are being tortured. They'll say anything to make it stop. Most of the time, it's just blather and nonsense, made up on the spot to satisfy the torturers. So, now that you've demonstrated the obvious, show us how Khalid Shiek Mohammed delivered GOOD INTELLIGENCE as a result of torture.

Because all the reports I've heard have suggested there are serious doubts about that.

But since you are known for your inside connections, I'm sure you can prove otherwise for us.

No kidding. Anyone will talk when they are being tortured. They'll say anything to make it stop. Most of the time, it's just blather and nonsense, made up on the spot to satisfy the torturers. So, now that you've demonstrated the obvious, show us how Khalid Shiek Mohammed delivered GOOD INTELLIGENCE as a result of torture.

Because all the reports I've heard have suggested there are serious doubts about that.

But since you are known for your inside connections, I'm sure you can prove otherwise for us.

Maybe you should read the articles online. He gave up a lot of useful information. Names, networks, and the LA plot.

But you're the one who thinks that it never, ever works. Sorry to prove you wrong.

Maybe you should read the articles online. He gave up a lot of useful information. Names, networks, and the LA plot.

But you're the one who thinks that it never, ever works. Sorry to prove you wrong.

Then you condone torturing people?

here is an excellent article on torture from the vanity fair website.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812


here is a quote relevant to the discussion at hand but it is mostly not about KSM

As for K.S.M. himself, who (as Jane Mayer writes) was waterboarded, reportedly hung for hours on end from his wrists, beaten, and subjected to other agonies for weeks, Bush said he provided “many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans.” K.S.M. was certainly knowledgeable. It would be surprising if he gave up nothing of value. But according to a former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M., “90 percent of it was total fucking bullshit.” A former Pentagon analyst adds: “K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.”


and while we're at it, here is that op-ed piece by "matthew alexander" the psuedonym of a US military interrogator. its well worth reading.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html

The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.


of course rumsfeld and cheney didnt count american soldiers as americans. as im sure we all remember they WANTED to use american soldiers as magnets to bring all "terrorists" to iraq so we could kill them there instead of waiting until they got here. (as stupid plan on the face of it)

Then you condone torturing people?

Usually not. But those who say it never works are fools.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2176359/Khalid-Sheikh-Mohammed-The-interrogator-who-made-him-talk.html

Obviously, it worked.

Then you condone torturing people?

This is Hotwife we're talking about here.

Usually not. But those who say it never works are fools.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2176359/Khalid-Sheikh-Mohammed-The-interrogator-who-made-him-talk.html

Obviously, it worked.

That was good cop-bad cop on steroids.

Usually not. But those who say it never works are fools.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2176359/Khalid-Sheikh-Mohammed-The-interrogator-who-made-him-talk.html

Obviously, it worked.

You do know, I'm sure, that the fear of pain or torture can make someone say anything, right? It worked wonders for the Inquisition. Torture is not justifiable, in any case, even if it's about "our nation's security". By doing this, Bush is just a common criminal, no different than Saddam, and should be taken to court.

You do know, I'm sure, that the fear of pain or torture can make someone say anything, right? It worked wonders for the Inquisition. Torture is not justifiable, in any case, even if it's about "our nation's security". By doing this, Bush is just a common criminal, no different than Saddam, and should be taken to court.

I'm primarily in favor of it if you believe that someone

a) isn't going to give up the information in a timely manner, and
b) you're in a "ticking time bomb" scenario

Otherwise, you can wait for the guy to get bored and talk.

So, hypothetically, if I had the location of a 5 megaton nuclear device that was going to go off in an hour in a major city, and you had to find it, you wouldn't torture me to find out?

Knowing that I'd tell you if you inflicted enough pain?

maybe you should read the articles online. He gave up a lot of useful information. Names, networks, and the la plot.

But you're the one who thinks that it never, ever works. Sorry to prove you wrong.
HaHaHaHa!!

I'm primarily in favor of it if you believe that someone

a) isn't going to give up the information in a timely manner, and
b) you're in a "ticking time bomb" scenario

Otherwise, you can wait for the guy to get bored and talk.

So, hypothetically, if I had the location of a 5 megaton nuclear device that was going to go off in an hour in a major city, and you had to find it, you wouldn't torture me to find out?

Knowing that I'd tell you if you inflicted enough pain?

So you do condone torture, which was my main question.

And no, I wouldn't torture you firstly because I am not the government, and second because there are other, suitable ways of getting vital information out of people.

hahahaha!!

Of course - Muravyets can't be bothered to read the Telegraph article.

Of course - Muravyets can't be bothered to read the Telegraph article.
As usual, Hotwife thinks he has psychic powers and knows what other people do, even though he can't see them. I did read it. I have read it. I've read the articles Ashmoria just linked. I've been reading about this since the Iraq war started. You and I have been arguing about this that long. I've bombarded you with articles and government reports during all that time.

On you, it has no effect, of course, because for YOU, torture is porn, and you treat it with all the seriousness of a porn movie storyline. You bring the same depth to the debate about it, too.

Your claims that torture work are bogus. Your Telegraph article proves nothing. You are overwhelmed by mountains of evidence from intelligence experts and professional interrogators that torture does not yield useful information -- i.e. does not work -- which have been in existence for decades. And you still run headlong into the undeniable fact that torture is illegal.

I'm primarily in favor of it if you believe that someone

a) isn't going to give up the information in a timely manner, and
b) you're in a "ticking time bomb" scenario

Otherwise, you can wait for the guy to get bored and talk.

So, hypothetically, if I had the location of a 5 megaton nuclear device that was going to go off in an hour in a major city, and you had to find it, you wouldn't torture me to find out?

Knowing that I'd tell you if you inflicted enough pain?

The thing about torture is, the information you obtain is highly unreliable. As one of the article provided said, "90% of it was total bullshit".

People will say just about anything under torture, see Spanish Inquisition and Witch Hunts.

On you, it has not effect, of course, because for YOU, torture is porn, and you treat it with all the seriousness of a porn movie storyline.


Attacking the poster.

Yes, Khalid talked after being waterboarded.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/how-the-cia-bro.html

Awesome. Now find me something that isnt a blog. Youre telegraph aritcle that doesnt say (or more accutaly prove) what you think it does doesnt count either.

I want experts saying it does. I want examples of the "useful information" we got from torture. And I want them from CIA officials. Hell, Id even take them from the administration.

Attacking the poster.

Awesome. You ignore everything else she said and just play victim.

Intellegence experts, victims of torture, and those who have committed it say it doesnt work.

Hotwife and a few right wing "journalists", polititians, and bloggers say it works.

God, I dont know who to believe. Can someone help me choose?

But torturing Muslims is better then sex, right? Or is it only killing them that gets one's rocks off?

EDIT: And even if it does work (which it doesnt), its illegal. There is that problem too.

Awesome. Now find me something that isnt a blog.

See the Telegraph link. Awesome.

So you do condone torture, which was my main question.

And no, I wouldn't torture you firstly because I am not the government, and second because there are other, suitable ways of getting vital information out of people.
Hotwife is well established as one of our resident torture enthusiasts. He always claims that he has evidence that it has worked, does work, and is working against terrorists right now. He always fails to produce such evidence. The best he can manage is what he did here, which is to link to articles that do not really say what he hopes they do. Meanwhile, he blindly gainsays everything that anyone else comes up with that says the opposite of what he claims, even if it comes from the Pentagon and CIA themselves. And when his back is up against the wall, he always trots out that tired old Jack Bauer/24 television script scenario that is so unrealistic, it sounds like something a 12-year-old boy would have thought up.

In this, he is following the pattern of all torture apologists, including some US politicians and even Dick Cheney himself, who was quoted as saying nearly the exact same thing just this week on a radio interview.

In less than half an hour? What wasn't wrong with that press conference? It was like listening to a lunatic who'd been off his meds for a few days.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=215905&title=six-days-seven-nights

enjoy.

Hotwife is well established as one of our resident torture enthusiasts. He always claims that he has evidence that it has worked, does work, and is working against terrorists right now. He always fails to produce such evidence. The best he can manage is what he did here, which is to link to articles that do not really say what he hopes they do. Meanwhile, he blindly gainsays everything that anyone else comes up with that says the opposite of what he claims, even if it comes from the Pentagon and CIA themselves. And when his back is up against the wall, he always trots out that tired old Jack Bauer/24 television script scenario that is so unrealistic, it sounds like something a 12-year-old boy would have thought up.

In this, he is following the pattern of all torture apologists, including some US politicians and even Dick Cheney himself, who was quoted as saying nearly the exact same thing just this week on a radio interview.

Yes, I can see that. Just like I can see that having a debate with Hotwife can be impossible.

See the Telegraph link. Awesome.
See the links in this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14397499&postcount=119

Which say the opposite of what you claim. Kindly reconcile that. We'll wait.

Hotwife is well established as one of our resident torture enthusiasts. He always claims that he has evidence that it has worked, does work, and is working against terrorists right now. He always fails to produce such evidence. The best he can manage is what he did here, which is to link to articles that do not really say what he hopes they do.

Maybe you should read the articles.

Torture has worked. Maybe you should also read what I post (it's very apparent you did not). I'm not in favor of torture under all circumstances, and the "ticking time bomb" scenario is not a 24-invention - it's a scenario used by governments and think tanks.

Not 12 year old boys. Your alluding to me as a 12 year old boy is attacking the poster.

Torture has worked.

Nope.

Nope.

Which is exactly what we have been trying to tell him.

Oh, for fucks sake DK:

Security sources told the New York Times that Mohammed, the self-confessed chief planner of al-Qa'eda's September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, revealed little information under torture until Mr Martinez managed to befriend him.

Thats from your own God damned article. In fact, its from the second fucking paragraph. For God's sake, are you blind, or do you just think we are? Seriously. Are you even trying? By the way, this guy wrote a book, and his done interviews. Martinez has flat out said, in every interview of his I have seen, that the torture did jack shit.


EDIT: In fact, he used a very popular, effective interogation techinique. It was popular with the Nazis when they were interogating US POWs. Read some of their stories. Nazi officers would befriend them, give them cigarettes, talk to them, take them for works in near by forests, things like that. Establish common ground. And then the US troops would let their guard down and kind of "slip up".

Usually not. But those who say it never works are fools.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2176359/Khalid-Sheikh-Mohammed-The-interrogator-who-made-him-talk.html

Obviously, it worked.
did you read your own link?

what worked was not the torture but the more common interrogation techniques.

nothing in there credits torture with good information.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=215905&title=six-days-seven-nights

enjoy.
Grr. Can't play it. I'll catch it in rerun.

Maybe you should read the articles.

Torture has worked. Maybe you should also read what I post (it's very apparent you did not). I'm not in favor of torture under all circumstances, and the "ticking time bomb" scenario is not a 24-invention - it's a scenario used by governments and think tanks.

Not 12 year old boys. Your alluding to me as a 12 year old boy is attacking the poster.
Are you attempting to lure me into talking more about you than about the topic so that you can accuse me of flaming you again?

Here, take this flame: You. Are. Wrong.

People who know shitloads more about torturing people than you do have been declaring for decades that torture DOES NOT WORK. You have failed to show any evidence that proves otherwise. The Telegraph article does not serve to prove all the experts in the US military and intelligence agencies wrong. In fact, it proves them right.

Are you attempting to lure me into talking more about you than about the topic so that you can accuse me of flaming you again?

Here, take this flame: You. Are. Wrong.

People who know shitloads more about torturing people than you do have been declaring for decades that torture DOES NOT WORK. You have failed to show any evidence that proves otherwise. The Telegraph article does not serve to prove all the experts in the US military and intelligence agencies wrong.


Save your breath sweetheart. Read my quote of the telegraph article. His own source says torture didnt work. Hes just trolling. Or cant read. One or the other.


I have class. Hopefully some ideological opposite of ours actually capable of debate will be on when I get back.

Grr. Can't play it. I'll catch it in rerun.
well its on several times today yet...

i tried finding it on youtube but had no luck.

Save your breath sweetheart. Read my quote of the telegraph article. His own source says torture didnt work. Hes just trolling. Or cant read. One or the other.


I have class. Hopefully some ideological opposite of ours actually capable of debate will be on when I get back.
It's clear what he's trying to do here. The article clearly states that the interrogators who used torture believed they were getting bad information, but some information that may have turned out to be right was gotten by the guy WHO DID NOT ABUSE THE PRISONER.

Hotwife is clearly trying to suggest something that is not in the article, namely that the torture "softened KSM up" so that he'd talk to the guy who was nice to him. That, of course, would be pure bullshit, because it is in no way suggested by the article. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Meanwhile, Ashmoria linked to articles that show experts in interrogation in general and in the KSM case specifically, all echoing our argument, that the torture of KSM got us nothing and nowhere. All DK can find to counter that is one article that talks about something entirely different, and he has to dress it up with implications about things that aren't even in it.

Which makes his complaint that I didn't read his article even funnier, since no matter how many times we read it, we're never going see what he claims is there -- because it isn't.

Also, let's not be fooled. Having once succeeded in getting me wrist-slapped for losing my cool with him, he is now trying to turn any post of mine at all into a flame against him. Example: His attempt to turn my criticism of "24" scripts into a personal attack against him. It would be good for him if he could make that work, since he obviously cannot answer any real arguments, but it's not going to work.

well its on several times today yet...

i tried finding it on youtube but had no luck.
I'll catch it. I missed it because I was online here. :p

Maybe you should read the articles.

yes, yes dk, i'm sure they all said torture is fun for the whole family and humanitarians the world over are clamoring for some good old fashioned genocide against muslims, just like all articles you have ever posted do.

yes, yes dk, i'm sure they all said torture is fun for the whole family and humanitarians the world over are clamoring for some good old fashioned genocide against muslims, just like all articles you have ever posted do.
the interesting thing is that they didnt.

they didnt say anything of the sort.

the interesting thing is that they didnt.

they didnt say anything of the sort.

sure they did. i mean, otherwise we'd be forced to say that dk has been engaged in a multi-year campaign of willfully and negligently blatantly misrepresenting every article he's ever posted. and that's just crazy.

Nope.

There must be cases where torture has worked.

There must be cases where torture has worked.

Despite what KoL would like to believe, torture can and does work on the rare occasion. However, this leads some people to believe that it works more often than not, is more efficient, more effective and faster than other forms of evidence gathering.

It doesn't.

There must be cases where torture has worked.

But that's not the case of this article and this thread. Besides, the person in question wasn't tortured.

There must be cases where torture has worked.
Why do you say so? I find it far from obvious that there ever have been such cases. There isn't any famous case that people point to: do you have an example?

Despite what KoL would like to believe, torture can and does work on the rare occasion.

Nice. Of course it works on rare, rare occasions. Just like cheesey pick up lines work on occasion. The "nope" is a very general statement, a rebuttle to the general "torture works" statement.


That doesnt mean its reliable, desirable, or legal.


EDIT: Besides, its fine to say "it doesnt work", because there really hasnt been a case we know of where it has.

Nice. Of course it works on rare, rare occasions. Just like cheesey pick up lines work on occasion. The "nope" is a very general statement, a rebuttle to the general "torture works" statement.

I know that. However giving a blanket statement such as "it never works" only for examples to be given undermines your argument. It is better (because it is accurate) to say it hardly ever works, thus making it undesirable as a tool.


EDIT: Besides, its fine to say "it doesnt work", because there really hasnt been a case we know of where it has.
No, that's not exactly true either. If you want examples of confessional torture 'working', then General Massau in Algiers is a good example. However, it must be noted that torture was a cumbersome, inefficient use of their time where informants, bribes and curfews worked more effectively to combat the FLN than specific instances of torture.

Torture works perfectly, every single time, if your goal is to terrorize a population.

If what you want to do is get reliable information that you can use as a basis for military or law enforcment action that will be useful and effective, no, torture does not work.

Pointing out that, once in a great while, someone who is being tortured will say something that turns out, after independent checking, to be true, does not mean that torture works for getting information. Just like the fact that if you throw a hammer at a window, it will break the glass does not make a hammer a good tool for opening windows.

yeah its quite possible that bush is claiming decisions that he never made and is too clueless to figure out what ones are good to claim and what ones might end him up in prison.

we executed people after ww2 for waterboarding.

to my knowledge there was only one sentenced for water boarding, among kicking, clubbing, and burning cigarettes.
Yukio Asano he was not executed he was only sentenced to 15 years.
the other executions were normally for crimes against humanity (baby's on bayonets and the like).

and according to this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html water boarding was authorized as early the Kennedy administration from declassified CIA manuals.

whats going to happen? We will clearly make water boarding illegal, this is good.

what should happen? We should clearly make it illegal and that is all. Trying to prosecute someone in a legal gray area that has a precedent of over 50 years of use is a waste of time and is a silly emotional response.

what should happen? We should clearly make it illegal and that is all. Trying to prosecute someone in a legal gray area that has a precedent of over 50 years of use is a waste of time and is a silly emotional response.

Except its not a legal grey area. Its pretty clear cut. Only right wing apologists and sociopaths pretend its a legal grey area.

Trying to prosecute someone in a legal gray area that has a precedent of over 50 years of use is a waste of time and is a silly emotional response.

It's not grey in the slightest.

Torture works perfectly, every single time, if your goal is to terrorize a population.

If what you want to do is get reliable information that you can use as a basis for military or law enforcment action that will be useful and effective, no, torture does not work.

Pointing out that, once in a great while, someone who is being tortured will say something that turns out, after independent checking, to be true, does not mean that torture works for getting information. Just like the fact that if you throw a hammer at a window, it will break the glass does not make a hammer a good tool for opening windows.

This. Exactly this. ^^

Except its not a legal grey area. Its pretty clear cut. Only right wing apologists and sociopaths pretend its a legal grey area.

then we have to arrest and try every former president that's still alive for not rescinding the order(originally authorized by Kennedy) , including Carter, Bush senior, and Clinton.

...foreign indignitaries...

This, I'll be stealing. :)

Beheading is not torture. Beheading is homicide (or manslaughter if unintentional).

Maybe if you do it REAL slow...

He admits, easily, to using torture devices to get information out of political prisioners. Wow.

As to what shou,d happen. He should be brought before a court and accused of, knowingly, commit crimes against prisioners of war or politics. Much like he did to Saddam Hussein. Wouldn't that be an irony of life?


Personally, I agree. Bush should face the same scrutiny he demanded.

I'm not surprised that Bush was involved. I figured he would at least know what was going on. What surprised me, was that he openly claims to be an instigator, not just a tool.

He either has balls of iron... or brains of sawdust.

What it does to my image of him, is that I can no longer consider him just ineffectual, easily lead, and stupid. Now I have to consider that he's the sort of person who uses the highest office in the land to commit actual acts of 'evil'.


I really think Bush would have screwed himself anyway. With the things he's famous for saying, a slip like this was unavoidable, speechwriter present or not. Besides, guilt has a way of making the darkest and deepest secrets surface.

I'm not sure how much these things are scripted anyway. I imagine that most questions that can be reasonably assumed to be asked... will probably have had something of a trial run, and some attempt to polish. So - I assume that there was SOME interference in Bush's answers. The question is whether he was spitting what someone else fed him, or digging a grave one mouthful at a time.

Yes, Khalid talked after being waterboarded.


Whether or not he talked, is irrelevent. WHat matter is - what good did it do, and COULD it have been done better by other methods. And that is where experts agree that torture falls down.

I'm primarily in favor of it if you believe that someone

a) isn't going to give up the information in a timely manner, and
b) you're in a "ticking time bomb" scenario

Otherwise, you can wait for the guy to get bored and talk.

So, hypothetically, if I had the location of a 5 megaton nuclear device that was going to go off in an hour in a major city, and you had to find it, you wouldn't torture me to find out?

Knowing that I'd tell you if you inflicted enough pain?

But you don't know that. Your torture would elicit responses, yes - but wouldn't necessarily tell us where the bomb was.

And other methods are more effective - so your ticking time bomb is bullshit, because torture is largely going to be WASTING time - and wasting time when you could be using it prductively, in that situation... somewhere between dumb and criminal.

Maybe you should read the articles.

Torture has worked.

Torture has made people talk. This is not news. Algetic responses are long established.

What is also long established, however, is that torture testimony is extremely unreliable.

Which is why it's 'great' for forcing confessions for things that people hadn't really done... and less useful for getting good, worthwhile intelligence.

Waterboarding is NOT Torture. If it CAN get you into Chico State University is NOT torture. Pulling out fingernails and beheading is torture. Putting 9 naked guys in a pyramid, is just Pledging!

Wrong on every single level ever conceived of by man. In fact, it's not even wrong. Being wrong implies the absence of being right but this is beyond that. This post is somehow comprised of some kind of anti-rightness, and as a result, somewhere in the universe some essential rightness has been forever drained away leaving a withering husk of civilization that will eternally cry out in anguish until finally silenced by the end of days.

I really hate people who say that.

Yeah, and?

The idea that Bush was the mastermind behind anything in his administration makes me laugh. That guy doesn't have two brain cells to rub together and you think he was making decisions about things this important? Maybe - just maybe - he decided how he wanted his morning coffee, but the buck stops there.

Clearly it was just obfuscating stupidity.

Oh and also, if you want our President persecuted for war crimes... all I can say is there was no crime.

all I can say is there was no crime

there was no crime

...

Really?

Wrong on every single level ever conceived of by man. In fact, it's not even wrong. Being wrong implies the absence of being right but this is beyond that. This post is somehow comprised of some kind of anti-rightness, and as a result, somewhere in the universe some essential rightness has been forever drained away leaving a withering husk of civilization that will eternally cry out in anguish until finally silenced by the end of days.


^ Winner.

Wrong on every single level ever conceived of by man. In fact, it's not even wrong. Being wrong implies the absence of being right but this is beyond that. This post is somehow comprised of some kind of anti-rightness, and as a result, somewhere in the universe some essential rightness has been forever drained away leaving a withering husk of civilization that will eternally cry out in anguish until finally silenced by the end of days.


Siged.

Ah Bush, the liberals old time Boogyman :rolleyes:, it seems that whenever something comes out of his mouth, all of a sudden people start ripping it apart sentence by sentence and then suddenly shouting "ZOMMG! HE'S A HITLER IN DIZGUIZE!!!!! HEZ GONNA RUIN THE PLANETS POLAR BEARZ AND SUSZBEND OUR RIGHTS!"

And now being tried for war crimes...this late in his presidency? That sounds a bit desperate, as you can see that their is only 6 days untill he hands over the keys to the president elect. War Crimes, Suspension of Civil Rights, Destruction of the Planet....seriously people, he has 6 days left in office, is this really nessecary?

I wonder what will happen to those reporters that only talk about how Bush is a 'player hater' (:p)....

"ZOMMG! HE'S A HITLER IN DIZGUIZE!!!!! HEZ GONNA RUIN THE PLANETS POLAR BEARZ AND SUSZBEND OUR RIGHTS!"

Oh, you mean like he...did?

And now being tried for war crimes...this late in his presidency? That sounds a bit desperate, as you can see that their is only 6 days untill he hands over the keys to the president elect. War Crimes, Suspension of Civil Rights, Destruction of the Planet....seriously people, he has 6 days left in office, is this really nessecary?


Law breakers should be tried no matter what.

Oh, you mean like he...did?

Proof? When did he actually kill Polar Bears? Suspend Civil Rights?

No president can kill polar bears, no matter how ruthless they may be, because Polar Bears can swim. *nods*.

Law breakers should be tried no matter what.

Thats not my point, he was accused of war crimes far before this, so wouldn't it have made more sense to deal with it...I don't know, say a year or 2 ago? Rather than wait and then "okay, lets put him on trial now"?

Proof? When did he actually kill Polar Bears? Suspend Civil Rights?

Pulled out of Kyoto and signed the Patriot Act into law, as well as the Patriot Act 2. You may want to look at what he did while in office sometime.

Proof? When did he actually kill Polar Bears? Suspend Civil Rights?

No president can kill polar bears, no matter how ruthless they may be, because Polar Bears can swim. *nods*.

There is a great deal of evidence of abuse of civil rights, from denying people right to counsel and trial, torture, illegal wiretapping, etc.

And while he hasnt personally shot a polar bear (to my knowledge) he has supported and implimented policies that are responsible for their deaths


Thats not my point, he was accused of war crimes far before this, so wouldn't it have made more sense to deal with it...I don't know, say a year or 2 ago? Rather than wait and then "okay, lets put him on trial now"?

Its far easier to charge someone when they are no longer president. Well, unless congress had a spine and impeached him. But Ive stopped hoping congress will have a spine. Im always disappointed.

Despite what KoL would like to believe, torture can and does work on the rare occasion.

When I was at Uni, one night in the Student bar we watched this very drunk guy wander around to every girl there and slur, "Wannafuck?". Eventually, after about 100 slap-in-the-faces, he found some fugly with low enough self-esteem to say, "yeah, ok" and off they went.

From this social experiment, and using Hotwife's patented 'blinkered worldview' (TM) glasses, we can now safely conclude that the best, most effective, way to get a girl is to drink heavily then mumble, "Wannafuck?" at them.
This has proven to work and thus no amount of so-called evidence to the contrary will suggest otherwise. Anyone claiming this method is a ridiculous waste of time obviously has not read the articles properly.

Attacking the poster.

"Killing Muslims is better than sex."

There is a great deal of evidence of abuse of civil rights, from denying people right to counsel and trial, torture, illegal wiretapping, etc.

Most of the above things that you have listed are commonly refered to as "terrorist related". The denial of the right to a counsel and trial is mainly for terrorists' in Guantanamo, who are not U.S. citizens. Wiretapping terrorists' phones is also not an abridgement of civil rights, as again, they are not U.S. citizens. The 'torture' of these people commonly refers to solitary confinement...oh the horror of being left alone...


And while he hasnt personally shot a polar bear (to my knowledge) he has supported and implimented policies that are responsible for their deaths

Any of our past presidents could be blamed for killing polar bears via global warming...what makes Bush so special?

Actually, since polar bears can swim from place to place, they have a great deal of advantages of moving around, even so to move to colder climates. Also, fish stocks have moved to colder areas, perfect hunting grounds for polar bears.


Its far easier to charge someone when they are no longer president. Well, unless congress had a spine and impeached him. But Ive stopped hoping congress will have a spine. Im always disappointed.

I'm dissapointed in Congress, then again, no congress would have a spine with a 14% approval rating...

Most of the above things that you have listed are commonly refered to as "terrorist related". The denial of the right to a counsel and trial is mainly for terrorists' in Guantanamo, who are not U.S. citizens. Wiretapping terrorists' phones is also not an abridgement of civil rights, as again, they are not U.S. citizens.

Excellent. Constitutional protections need not apply to American citizens outside of America, including things like laws against murder. Perhaps you will go abroad one day. I shall prepare a greeting just for you.


The 'torture' of these people commonly refers to solitary confinement...oh the horror of being left alone...

No, it commonly refers to things like waterboarding and other means that the Guantanamo Bay prison overseer admits (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html?hpid=topnews) were torture.

Maybe you'll deny it's torture. In which case, would you be willing to undergo the treatments to prove that they aren't?

Wiretapping terrorists' phones is also not an abridgement of civil rights, as again, they are not U.S. citizens.
The wiretapping was principally of the calls of US citizens abroad, especially the troops. The wiretappers spent most of their time collecting and passing around sexual talk between lonely soldiers and their wives.

Most of the above things that you have listed are commonly refered to as "terrorist related". The denial of the right to a counsel and trial is mainly for terrorists' in Guantanamo, who are not U.S. citizens. Wiretapping terrorists' phones is also not an abridgement of civil rights, as again, they are not U.S. citizens. The 'torture' of these people commonly refers to solitary confinement...oh the horror of being left alone...


1. The Supreme Court disagrees. Our constitutional protections apply to terrorist citizens. Denial of civil rights. Besides, some of the "terrorists" have been use citizens. Denial of civil rights.
2. Wiretapping, see arguement above. That, and most of the wiretapping has been done to US citizens.
3. Ignoring your apparent lack of knowlede about the damage solitary confinement does to a human mind, the torture has far exceeded solitary confinement.

Despite what KoL would like to believe, torture can and does work on the rare occasion. However, this leads some people to believe that it works more often than not, is more efficient, more effective and faster than other forms of evidence gathering.

It doesn't.

Throwing a dart at a board to find out what temperature it is outside does give the right answer sometimes. That does not mean it works.

Eh, maybe.

I think he's earned some, but not all of it.I'll see your some and raise to "most, not all". That's probably agreeable.

edit: what ghosts in what ruin?Like when Homer's mouth was wired shut and he couldn't win the Duffman Challenge, Lenny had a pretty good response to the situation. A lot like that.

How about we also charge the house and senate with war crimes?

Who approved the Patriot Act twice? Who has known all along about Gitmo, yet refused to do anything about it such as suspending the funds? Who decided they did not have the balls to do their job, so they ceeded all responsibility and authority to the president?

For some reason folks seem to believe that the president has this incredible power and authority to do whatever he wants. The problem is that the legislative branch failed again by not standing up to the administrative branch. Just like all the pussyfooting and sissy bitching from the congress about the war in Iraq being illegal. They passed the resolution, gave the president the authority to go there, and has been approving the funds to keep them the at war. The congress has also been approving all appropriations for Gitmo.

How about we also charge the house and senate with war crimes?

Who approved the Patriot Act twice? Who has known all along about Gitmo, yet refused to do anything about it such as suspending the funds? Who decided they did not have the balls to do their job, so they ceeded all responsibility and authority to the president?

For some reason folks seem to believe that the president has this incredible power and authority to do whatever he wants. The problem is that the legislative branch failed again by not standing up to the administrative branch. Just like all the pussyfooting and sissy bitching from the congress about the war in Iraq being illegal. They passed the resolution, gave the president the authority to go there, and has been approving the funds to keep them the at war. The congress has also been approving all appropriations for Gitmo.
Go for it. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with calling every single member of Congress before an independent judicial investigation to account for their actions during the Bush adminstration.

However, whatever the wrongdoings of others might be, that does not let Bush and his cabinet off the hook for their wrongdoings. Bush was the commander-in-chief and as such he had the power to direct the actions of the US military. He is directly and personally responsible for abuses of prisoners in military custody. He is directly and personally responsible for presenting false intelligence to Congress and the public to justify a war of choice.

As president, he also claimed -- falsely, in my personal opinion -- the power to pick and choose what parts of the law he would enforce or follow, and issued executive orders that established operating procedures in the executive branch that completely bypassed Congressional or judicial review. He is, therefore, directly and personally responsible for any and all negative results of such actions.

He deserves to be investigated in his own right, regardless of how many others also deserve to be investigated.

Throwing a dart at a board to find out what temperature it is outside does give the right answer sometimes. That does not mean it works.

Which was my point....

Go for it. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with calling every single member of Congress before an independent judicial investigation to account for their actions during the Bush adminstration.

However, whatever the wrongdoings of others might be, that does not let Bush and his cabinet off the hook for their wrongdoings. Bush was the commander-in-chief and as such he had the power to direct the actions of the US military. He is directly and personally responsible for abuses of prisoners in military custody. He is directly and personally responsible for presenting false intelligence to Congress and the public to justify a war of choice.

As president, he also claimed -- falsely, in my personal opinion -- the power to pick and choose what parts of the law he would enforce or follow, and issued executive orders that established operating procedures in the executive branch that completely bypassed Congressional or judicial review. He is, therefore, directly and personally responsible for any and all negative results of such actions.

He deserves to be investigated in his own right, regardless of how many others also deserve to be investigated.

First of all, thank you for such an inciting response. This is no different than the Nurnberg Trials, in which it was decided that following orders is not a defense by itself. But what really bites my balls is the way that congress did not offer any type of resistance, nor did they try to do any sort of judicial review of the executive orders. I don't think that the US Supreme Court has the authority to do something like pick a case that has not made it thru the appeal process.

And yes, as the Commander in Chief, he holds the ultimate responsibility for those actions and orders. And as usual, in all their spineless and gutless glory, the congress decided once again to avoid their duty and responsibility. Oh, it was so much better to publicly complain about it for all these years while they kept voting the approvals to whatever Bush asked for. And now these same dick heads want to do special investigation into war crimes? They may want to be careful what they wish for, because I'm pretty sure that the senate and house leadership knew what was going on and tacitly approved of it. That makes them just as guilty, since they approved of the orders being given.

And if I remember correct, congress is directly responsible for overseeing the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which was approved and passed by the congress as the military law system.

Of course, when was the last time that congress stood up for the citizens, or for that matter, for what was right?

"Killing Muslims is better than sex."

Is that an actual quote? And if so... do you have a link?

Is that an actual quote? And if so... do you have a link?

It was posted under Deep Kimchi, so much as we'd love to bring it back up it's probably been erased from the database.

It was posted under Deep Kimchi, so much as we'd love to bring it back up it's probably been erased from the database.

When confronted with it, he usually doesnt deny it however.

Is that an actual quote? And if so... do you have a link?

Yes, and no, respectively. The thread wasn't saved in the last database purge.

The brain behind Bush was the brain behind it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Pinky_and_the_Brain_vol1.jpg

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5714/pinkybushqa7.png (http://imageshack.us):D

Yes, and no, respectively. The thread wasn't saved in the last database purge.

Ah. I see. That's pretty scary.

I'm primarily in favor of it if you believe that someone

a) isn't going to give up the information in a timely manner, and
b) you're in a "ticking time bomb" scenario

Otherwise, you can wait for the guy to get bored and talk.

So, hypothetically, if I had the location of a 5 megaton nuclear device that was going to go off in an hour in a major city, and you had to find it, you wouldn't torture me to find out?

Knowing that I'd tell you if you inflicted enough pain?
And how do I 'know' that you'll talk if I inflict enough pain on you? Did you tell me that yourself? How very gentlemanly of you!
"I won't tell you anything! But I am scared of torture. Please don't torture me! If you did, I'd tell you where the bomb is!"

If you hate the world that much to plant a 5 megaton nuclear device in a city, it's very likely that no amount of torture is going to get you to talk - especially if you need only to hold out for an hour before having it go off. And especially since you know you'll be scentence to death either way.
Even if you are extremely adverse to torture, you need only give them false information that will waste your captor's time and allow your bomb to go off.

Put simply: Your totally improbable and ludicrous scenario fails miserably. Much like your entire argument.

Why?

It just seems like such a cop out. Civil liberties are important, but everyone does a little sacrificing.

I disagree. I believe laws were broken. US laws.

That's a legit concern, but I don't think that the President (even if he were a hypothetical, ableminded man - Obamaesque) makes decisions that would directly effect things such as abuses at Abu Ghraib or a soldier in Iraq killing civilians. And those are the only tangible crimes that I see committed in reference to our wars.

Also, the precedent for prosecuting people for committing crimes was established long before now. No new ground would be broken by going after Bush for his misdeeds in office.

I was referring to the precedent that would be set by allowing the ICC to do anything. Obviously persecuting people who break US laws in US courts isn't groundbreaking.

Hey, are you busy? Limblob, Fannity, "Savage" Weiner, The Leprechaun, Adam's Apple Coulter and all those other seditious, infantile, bellicose chancres need a little of your perspective for some talking point fodder.

I don't know what to make of that. Is that a compliment or an insult?

I don't think that the US Supreme Court has the authority to do something like pick a case that has not made it thru the appeal process.

Er...don't they? The court usually only has appellate jurisdiction, but I believe they have original jurisdiction when it comes to United States laws.

It just seems like such a cop out. Civil liberties are important, but everyone does a little sacrificing.
Then you don't understand the quote.

That's a legit concern, but I don't think that the President (even if he were a hypothetical, ableminded man - Obamaesque) makes decisions that would directly effect things such as abuses at Abu Ghraib or a soldier in Iraq killing civilians. And those are the only tangible crimes that I see committed in reference to our wars.
There is a legitimate argument that the Iraq war itself was a criminal act. Also, lack of direct connection to any given incidence of abuse does not matter. He is the commander-in-chief. He is responsible for all of it, especially as he has either tacitly or openly condoned such actions after learning about them.

I was referring to the precedent that would be set by allowing the ICC to do anything.
I personally would have no problem with that.

Obviously persecuting people who break US laws in US courts isn't groundbreaking.
PROsecute.

You prosecute people for crimes.

I don't think that the US Supreme Court has the authority to do something like pick a case that has not made it thru the appeal process.

Er...don't they? The court usually only has appellate jurisdiction, but I believe they have original jurisdiction when it comes to United States laws.
The Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" (takes up the case first, without any lower court hearing it) only in a small range of unusual cases, spelled out in the constitution (such as one state suing another state, e.g. Tennessee v. North Carolina about the exact placement of a poorly-surveyed section of their borderline). However, they can issue a "writ of extraordinary certiorari", plucking a case away from the lower courts prematurely, if they think a quick decision is vital to the nation; this they have only done a half-dozen or so times (the ones I know are U.S. v. Nixon, about the Watergate tapes; and Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Truman, about nationalizing the steel industry).

Which was my point....

You said it sometimes works. I said it doesn't. How can we be making the same point? Methinks you either didn't understand what you said or didn't understand what I said.

A clock that is right only twice a day does not work. You claimed that because it's right on rare occasion that means at those time it works.

Torture can and does work on the rare occasion.

"Free Speech Zones" Anyone who wants an example of "Surpressed Free speech".

Well there you go.

Allowing people to protest something... Only if they are in a spot 6 blocks away from the thing they want to protest.

"Free Speech Zones" Anyone who wants an example of "Surpressed Free speech".

Well there you go.

Allowing people to protest something... Only if they are in a spot 6 blocks away from the thing they want to protest.

"You have right to express yourself as you want... as long as it's far, far away from people who'd actually listen and do something about it."

Got to love an administration that keeps crowing about Bringing Democracy to the Middle East, but shuts off funding to the Palestinians when they legitimately and democratically elect Hamas into power.

I don't know what to make of that. Is that a compliment or an insult?
Not an insult to you, to be sure. No worries.

You said it sometimes works. I said it doesn't. How can we be making the same point? Methinks you either didn't understand what you said or didn't understand what I said.

A clock that is right only twice a day does not work.

Yes, but if the clock is right twice a day it works as it tells you the time... for those, and only those two specific moments. Likewise, if the goal of torturing someone to to gain some information from them, and information is gained (even once), then it is said torture 'works'.

It might only be 1 in 10,000 interrogations, but it is enough for someone to believe they should keep trying, just in case their suspect is that magical 1 in 10,000. That is why it is still used. "It worked once, so it might work again".

There are mounds of evidence to show that it does work, however, as I already said, there is ten times the amount of evidence to show how inefficient it is, and how ineffective it is in comparison to other methods of evidence gathering. It is simply not worth using.

You claimed that because it's right on rare occasion that means at those time it works.
I'm not saying it's "right" at all, just to clarify. I'm just saying it is used for a certain goal, and sometimes, extremely rarely, that goal is met by using the methods.

Torture. Republicans have pussyfooted around the subject, and tried to avoid taking any responsibility for it. But, Our Glorious Leader seems to have made something of a mis-step, and I'm left kind of wondering why there's so little comment.

I don't think he realised what he said. Either that - or he just got pretty badly screwed by a speech-writer.

1) "...I'm in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed..." So - Bush was involved from the very start.

2) "...and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him..." The important phrase here is the "...so I ask..." phrase. That means he's admitting to instigating the discussion on interrogation practises.

3) "...and they gave me a list of tools..." So - Bush is admitting he did not discover later, was not unaware, was not uninvolved.

The interrogation choices were presented to him, at his own instigation, and he was involved in the process from the very start. This puts the blame for torture squarely on Bush's desk.

What will happen? What SHOULD happen?

Did Bush just get screwed by his speechwriter?

Edit: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/interview_with_bush_41_and_bus.html

As much as I am not a fan of George Bush you overlooked one really important thing:

And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made
So unless the people who gave the legal advice said "No, don't do it, its torture." and I am sure that if they had said that then not even Dubbya would have been dumb enough to go "Well OK then lets set up a little water boardin'!"

Or perhaps he thought it was a Sport.

Yes, but if the clock is right twice a day it works as it tells you the time... for those, and only those two specific moments. Likewise, if the goal of torturing someone to to gain some information from them, and information is gained (even once), then it is said torture 'works'.

It might only be 1 in 10,000 interrogations, but it is enough for someone to believe they should keep trying, just in case their suspect is that magical 1 in 10,000. That is why it is still used. "It worked once, so it might work again".

There are mounds of evidence to show that it does work, however, as I already said, there is ten times the amount of evidence to show how inefficient it is, and how ineffective it is in comparison to other methods of evidence gathering. It is simply not worth using.


I'm not saying it's "right" at all, just to clarify. I'm just saying it is used for a certain goal, and sometimes, extremely rarely, that goal is met by using the methods.
excellent analogy.

it gets the time right twice but you can never know when.

while you come to rely on the clock for the time because it is sometimes right the problems caused by the vast majority of the time being wrong accumulate quickly and with terrible effect.

and I am sure that if they had said that then not even Dubbya would have been dumb enough to go "Well OK then lets set up a little water boardin'!"

The problem is that, by what he said, it seems he was admitting to that. :S

The problem is that, by what he said, it seems he was admitting to that. :S

He did say it, but he's under the impression, or at least was under the impression, that it was a legal procedure and not a type of torture as defined by the Geneva conventions.

He did say it, but he's under the impression, or at least was under the impression, that it was a legal procedure and not a type of torture as defined by the Geneva conventions.

Then G.W. Bush is dumber and less aware of internatiional law than I thought. And it's a shame, he was the president of one of the most powerful nations currently.

Then G.W. Bush is dumber and less aware of internatiional law than I thought. And it's a shame, he was the president of one of the most powerful nations currently.

That makes you wonder about his legal council too.

He did say it, but he's under the impression, or at least was under the impression, that it was a legal procedure and not a type of torture as defined by the Geneva conventions.
he (and his advisors) seem to be under the impression that if they can come up with a rationale for it being legal, that makes it legal. ignoring the part where what they are doing is rationalizing, not analysing. a lawyer can come up with any legal opinion that you want.

That makes you wonder about his legal council too.

It makes one wonder about the government of the US as a whole.

excellent analogy.

it gets the time right twice but you can never know when.

while you come to rely on the clock for the time because it is sometimes right the problems caused by the vast majority of the time being wrong accumulate quickly and with terrible effect.

Absolutely spot on, and I couldn't agree more.

He did say it, but he's under the impression, or at least was under the impression, that it was a legal procedure and not a type of torture as defined by the Geneva conventions.

the problem is it's ass backwards logic. OK, lawyers told him it was justified.

Who appointed the lawyers?

the problem is it's ass backwards logic. OK, lawyers told him it was justified.

Who appointed the lawyers?
It's the definition of "self-serving."

It's the definition of "self-serving."
it explains why mr bush has been a failure at so many things where he is the big decision maker.

he looks for rationalizations instead of analysis.

he wanted to go to war with iraq so he asked for and received the intel that justified it. he didnt ask for analysis. he didnt ask for a well rounded opinion--those people were pushed out in short order.

he is told that we might need to use torture on certain prisoners and he seeks justifications not true legal opinions. and that is what he got.

no wonder all his businesses failed.

it explains why mr bush has been a failure at so many things where he is the big decision maker.

he looks for rationalizations instead of analysis.

he wanted to go to war with iraq so he asked for and received the intel that justified it. he didnt ask for analysis. he didnt ask for a well rounded opinion--those people were pushed out in short order.

he is told that we might need to use torture on certain prisoners and he seeks justifications not true legal opinions. and that is what he got.

no wonder all his businesses failed.
Very well said. I agree with this analysis completely.

A lot of people, not just Bush's supporters, considered it a good trait the way he would never waiver from his course or his goals, but I hope people will be able see, now that we'll have the clear vision of hindsight, that stubbornness is not the same as determination, and doing whatever it takes to get your way regardless of reality or consequences is not the same as being resolute in one's duty.

the problem is it's ass backwards logic. OK, lawyers told him it was justified.

Who appointed the lawyers?

This is the point I was just about to make (when I read further on and found you'd already done it...)

Bush surrounded himself by people that agreed with him - and by 'him', I mean 'Dick Cheney'. If you ask yes-men for their input, you know what they'll say, right?

There is a legitimate argument that the Iraq war itself was a criminal act.
I disagree. Unless you mean inasmuch as the President doesn't have the authority to engage our troops, in which case take it up with Congress. Presidents have been bending the truth or using convenient facts and disregarding others to sway the American people for decades. Yeah, they don't usually start endless and disastrous wars because of it, but its a tried and true method. Also, I stubbornly refuse to think that the Bush Administration is head of some sort of evil plot. I think they did what they thought was right, albeit they were wrong.

Yes, but if the clock is right twice a day it works as it tells you the time... for those, and only those two specific moments. Likewise, if the goal of torturing someone to to gain some information from them, and information is gained (even once), then it is said torture 'works'.
Uh, no, it doesn't. At all. That's what's stupid about your claim. The clock doesn't tell you time. It happens to be right, but because it's broken something else has to tell you the time and then you realize it happened to be on the right time. That is not a rational definition of working. A broken clock is always broken and torture never works.

It might only be 1 in 10,000 interrogations, but it is enough for someone to believe they should keep trying, just in case their suspect is that magical 1 in 10,000. That is why it is still used. "It worked once, so it might work again".

There are mounds of evidence to show that it does work, however, as I already said, there is ten times the amount of evidence to show how inefficient it is, and how ineffective it is in comparison to other methods of evidence gathering. It is simply not worth using.

No, there aren't mounds of evidence to show that it does work. There are mounds of evidence that show the opposite. If you get bad information nearly all the time and you'll appear to get good information whether it's good or not and the only way to tell is to use other methods to get information that you should have used in the first place, then torture is useless.

I'm not saying it's "right" at all, just to clarify. I'm just saying it is used for a certain goal, and sometimes, extremely rarely, that goal is met by using the methods.

Except, the goal isn't met. The goal of torture is to get information that you either cannot get another way or that you cannot get as quickly another way. The fact is neither is true. In EVERY case, you have to verify the information because it's unreliable and because you can't tell beforehand whether it will pan out it's always the wrong strategy. It never works. Ever. At all. By definition.

Absolutely spot on, and I couldn't agree more.

I strongly suspect that you don't actually understand the analogy since it's says the opposite of what you do.

A clock that is right twice a day is broken. It doesn't work, not even at those two times. That's the point of the analogy and Ashmoria's post. So if you "couldn't agree more" then your earlier posts were nonsense.

I disagree. There's no law against being wrong, if that's what you want to do.

Unless you mean inasmuch as the President doesn't have the authority to engage our troops, in which case take it up with Congress.
If he had taken it up properly with Congress, and if Congress had done what they were supposed to when it did come up, we wouldn't be arguing about it now.

Presidents have been bending the truth or using convenient facts and disregarding others to sway the American people for decades. Yeah, they don't usually start endless and disastrous wars because of it, but its a tried and true method. Also, I stubbornly refuse to think that the Bush Administration is head of some sort of evil plot. I think they did what they thought was right, albeit they were wrong.
Suit yourself. Some people will stubbornly refuse to think all kinds of things, whether they are true or not. Like I said above, there's no law against it.

EDIT: Also, kindly point out where I said anything about an "evil plot." All I said was that their actions were in violation of US law. There doesn't have to be a plot, evil or otherwise, for them to do that.

If he had taken it up properly with Congress, and if Congress had done what they were supposed to when it did come up
What was our last Congress-authorized war? Congress needs to grow a pair, sure, but you can't blame them. They are just single-minded seekers of reelection, and every war looks good when you are trying to start it.

Some people will stubbornly refuse to think all kinds of things, whether they are true or not.
Obama agrees with me, at least. With him on my side the sting of your retort is slightly lessened.

Obama agrees with me, at least. With him on my side the sting of your retort is slightly lessened.

That just makes him wrong too.

that just makes him wrong too.

what?!

I'm sorry I'm not so cynical as you. Or rather, I'm sorry you're so cynical.

what SHOULD happen is that george bush is tried for war crimes.

what will happen is some underling will take the fall instead.
lol war crimes?

lol war crimes?

He stated he authorized the use of torture. That is a war crime.

He stated he authorized the use of torture. That is a war crime.
No he didn't, he said he asked for a list of tools available and then the legal options of using them. No where did he admit to waterboarding as the OP would like you to believe. For all you know, those "tools" could have been sticking someone in a room and playing Barney the Dinosaur for 24 hours straight.

No he didn't, he said he asked for a list of tools available and then the legal options of using them. No where did he admit to waterboarding as the OP would like you to believe. For all you know, those "tools" could have been sticking someone in a room and playing Barney the Dinosaur for 24 hours straight.
that is for the courts to decide.

No he didn't, he said he asked for a list of tools available and then the legal options of using them. No where did he admit to waterboarding as the OP would like you to believe. For all you know, those "tools" could have been sticking someone in a room and playing Barney the Dinosaur for 24 hours straight.

Uh, only if you don't actually know what Bush is talking about.

HUME: Now, the enhanced interrogation techniques, as some call them - - torture, as others call them...

G.W. BUSH: Yes.

HUME: ... are being argued over to this -- to this hour. Some are saying you never get any good information by rough stuff, and others have said more than once that if we hadn't used these techniques, we wouldn't have had vital information, and attacks could have been -- or would have been carried out on this country. Your view of that?

G.W. BUSH: My view is -- is that the techniques were -- are -- were necessary and are necessary to be used on a rare occasion to get information necessary to protect the American people.

One such person who gave us information was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was the mastermind of the September the 11th, 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on our soil. And I'm in the Oval Office, and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country.

So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him, and -- and they gave me a list of tools. And I said, "Are these tools deemed to be legal?" And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made.

And I think when people study the history of this particular episode they'll find out...

HUME: Well, what happened?

G.W. BUSH: ... we gained good information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in order to protect our country.

HUME: Well, how good and how important and what's the...

G.W. BUSH: We believe that the information we gained helped save lives on American soil.

HUME: Can you be more specific than that?

G.W. BUSH: Well, I have said in speeches -- and as a matter of fact, when this program was leaked to the press, I actually gave a speech that, you know, said to the American people, "Yes, we're doing this." And -- but I also emphasized we were doing it within the law.

The stuff that came out and the speeches he is referring to were specifically about the treatment of Khalid, specifically about waterboarding. He was discussing the torture they used on them. Now, of course, he doesn't consider it torture, but he is by no means admitting in the interview to doing the bullshit you're claiming. He is admitting plainly to waterboarding. One would have to be unfamiliar with his references to not realize this.

Now, as far as whether or not it IS torture, it's not a question. The US has long decided that it is torture and we have a history of not only trying people for using it, but of convicting them for torture.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834

In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

"All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

There is no question that Bush is admitted to authorizing what has long been considered torture in the US. And if there were any question as to whether the administration knew that, then why when Dick Cheney admitted to waterboarding in an interview did they immediately claim he wasn't actually talking about waterboarding? It's because they knew that they would be admitting to torturing prisoners.

I strongly suspect that you don't actually understand the analogy since it's says the opposite of what you do.

A clock that is right twice a day is broken. It doesn't work, not even at those two times. That's the point of the analogy and Ashmoria's post. So if you "couldn't agree more" then your earlier posts were nonsense.

To be fair, it does occasionally work, in the sense that it serves its desired function, but it's so unreliable that, like a broken clock, you wouldn't know if it worked unless you double checked it with another method (or clock) probably could have saved time just by checking the second fucking clock in first place.

So... yeah, torture still doesn't come out looking nice.

To be fair, it does occasionally work, in the sense that it serves its desired function, but it's so unreliable that, like a broken clock, you wouldn't know if it worked unless you double checked it with another method (or clock) probably could have saved time just by checking the second fucking clock in first place.

So... yeah, torture still doesn't come out looking nice.

Even when it displays the correct time, the clock didn't work, it just temporarily resembled a working clock. But it isn't any more a working clock than is a photograph of a clock.

No he didn't, he said he asked for a list of tools available and then the legal options of using them. No where did he admit to waterboarding as the OP would like you to believe. For all you know, those "tools" could have been sticking someone in a room and playing Barney the Dinosaur for 24 hours straight.

Context, darling.

Read Jocabia's post. I made the assumption that anyone wanting to click on a link titled as this thread was... would probably have been at least casually following the history of the story.

Even when it displays the correct time, the clock didn't work, it just temporarily resembled a working clock. But it isn't any more a working clock than is a photograph of a clock.

This. ^^

Even when it displays the correct time, the clock didn't work, it just temporarily resembled a working clock. But it isn't any more a working clock than is a photograph of a clock.

I have to say, I absolutely love that extension on my analogy.

Even when it displays the correct time, the clock didn't work, it just temporarily resembled a working clock. But it isn't any more a working clock than is a photograph of a clock.

Doesn't it though? I suppose that comes down to whether the function of a clock is to display the correct time, or to keep the correct time. It works twice a day if its the former, and never if its the latter.

Doesn't it though? I suppose that comes down to whether the function of a clock is to display the correct time, or to keep the correct time. It works twice a day if its the former, and never if its the latter.

Given that time is, by its nature, only really meaningful in the context of the time before and after it, I would think that the purpose of a clock is, indeed, to keep the correct time. (Especially because clocks are often used, not to tell the current time per se, but to tell how long some event has been going on, e.g., how long a pizza has been in the oven.)

Doesn't it though? I suppose that comes down to whether the function of a clock is to display the correct time, or to keep the correct time. It works twice a day if its the former, and never if its the latter.

It certainly wouldn't be to just display the correct time. It's an information source. As such, it can't just display the correct time, but it has to reliably be the correct time. If you have to check somewhere else to find out if it's right, then it serves no function at all.

On the other hand, your clock would display the correct time every hour, if you factor time zones into it all.

Or perhaps this is a ridiculous discussion. Could just be me.

On the other hand, your clock would display the correct time every hour, if you factor time zones into it all.

Or perhaps this is a ridiculous discussion. Could just be me.
its not just you.

On the other hand, your clock would display the correct time every hour, if you factor time zones into it all.

Or perhaps this is a ridiculous discussion. Could just be me.
So, if you confirm by independent sources in one time zone, that it is actually, say, 3:15, and then hold the broken clock in your hands while you race around the world fast enough to be in each time zone in exactly one hour --EDIT: sorry, every three hours --, and do that forever, then you can rely on your broken clock to always be right?

Ashmoria's right. It's not just you. ;)

It certainly wouldn't be to just display the correct time. It's an information source. As such, it can't just display the correct time, but it has to reliably be the correct time. If you have to check somewhere else to find out if it's right, then it serves no function at all.

Alright, alright, alright. Enough about the friggin' clocks!

"Torture and Democracy" by Darius M. Rejali - it's available on google books on a preview basis. Have a flick through it whenever you get some free time. It is an extensive and thorough analysis of the use of torture, it's successes and it's failures. It gives methods, examples, first hand accounts, historical successes, simple failures and the issue of allowing legally permissable use of torture ('torture warrants'). It shows why people think it works, why they still use it, and why it isn't effective. And it's a fascinating read.

That's all I'm saying, I'm not condoning it or saying it's right. I'm saying it is used because people think it works. If they didn't think it worked, it wouldn't be in consistent use. That's all.

Alright, alright, alright. Enough about the friggin' clocks!

"Torture and Democracy" by Darius M. Rejali - it's available on google books on a preview basis. Have a flick through it whenever you get some free time. It is an extensive and thorough analysis of the use of torture, it's successes and it's failures. It gives methods, examples, first hand accounts, historical successes, simple failures and the issue of allowing legally permissable use of torture ('torture warrants'). It shows why people think it works, why they still use it, and why it isn't effective. And it's a fascinating read.

That's all I'm saying, I'm not condoning it or saying it's right. I'm saying it is used because people think it works. If they didn't think it worked, it wouldn't be in consistent use. That's all.

It probably doesn't help that the collective subconscious of society are gorehounds. Think of the success of all the Saw franchise and other films with even less tangible of a storyline that make them almost straight gorenography.

Alright, alright, alright. Enough about the friggin' clocks!

"Torture and Democracy" by Darius M. Rejali - it's available on google books on a preview basis. Have a flick through it whenever you get some free time. It is an extensive and thorough analysis of the use of torture, it's successes and it's failures. It gives methods, examples, first hand accounts, historical successes, simple failures and the issue of allowing legally permissable use of torture ('torture warrants'). It shows why people think it works, why they still use it, and why it isn't effective. And it's a fascinating read.

That's all I'm saying, I'm not condoning it or saying it's right. I'm saying it is used because people think it works. If they didn't think it worked, it wouldn't be in consistent use. That's all.
stand firm, comrade.

bill clinton did some renditions. i dont remember if it was a large number or not but he apparently felt that there was some use to torture.

do you know anything about whether or not those cases ever got any useful information?

That's all I'm saying, I'm not condoning it or saying it's right. I'm saying it is used because people think it works. If they didn't think it worked, it wouldn't be in consistent use. That's all.

Would that also go for the other abuses of prisoners? The... human pyramids for example?

Are these really the rational attempts to gain intelligence, or just prisoners being tortured and abused because that's what happens when you give guards too much power, and have the prisoners with absolutely no power? When you declare that people are "terrorists" and put them in a locked cell with a bunch of goons to do with as they please, this is what happens.

Abuse and yes, torture of prisoners happens consistently because this situation happens consistently, not because people honestly believe "works" to some alleged valuable goal.

Would that also go for the other abuses of prisoners? The... human pyramids for example?

Are these really the rational attempts to gain intelligence, or just prisoners being tortured and abused because that's what happens when you give guards too much power, and have the prisoners with absolutely no power? When you declare that people are "terrorists" and put them in a locked cell with a bunch of goons to do with as they please, this is what happens.

Abuse and yes, torture of prisoners happens consistently because this situation happens consistently, not because people honestly believe "works" to some alleged valuable goal.
everything they did was under orders from above.

is that stuff torture? beats me. we have experts to make those decisions.

everything they did was under orders from above.

is that stuff torture? beats me. we have experts to make those decisions.
Playing bizarre games of what one general denounced angrily as "slap-ass" with prisoners may not be torture if it does not include certain things, such as waterboarding, stress positions, etc, but it is still abuse, because there can be no question that these prisoners were not willing participants in the "games" (you know, the way a drunken frat pledge might be). Because of that lack of consent, there can be no doubt that such things were meant for no reason other than to humiliate, degrade and dehumanize the prisoners. There is a good argument to be made that such things constitute psychological torture, but regardless of what one thinks of that, they are abuse and are illegal in their own right under both US law and international law to which the US is a signatory.

So that leaves us right back where we started.

stand firm, comrade.

bill clinton did some renditions. i dont remember if it was a large number or not but he apparently felt that there was some use to torture.

do you know anything about whether or not those cases ever got any useful information?

I don't know if Clinton did order prisoners to be tortured or not. I don't know if any information was obtained, or if the information obtained was credible or useful in any way shape or form. It's less to do with what various US administrations have done, and more the prevailing mindset that belongs to the people to order torture in the place. "Better safe than sorry".

Would that also go for the other abuses of prisoners? The... human pyramids for example?

Are these really the rational attempts to gain intelligence, or just prisoners being tortured and abused because that's what happens when you give guards too much power, and have the prisoners with absolutely no power? When you declare that people are "terrorists" and put them in a locked cell with a bunch of goons to do with as they please, this is what happens.
Do you stack naked humans for interrogational purposes specifically? Or do you do it to inflict humiliation, fear, power and petty sadism? The goal of human pyramids might not be to gain specific information. It might not be considered 'confessional' torture, but maybe simply 'sadistic' torture or abuse.

Abuse and yes, torture of prisoners happens consistently because this situation happens consistently, not because people honestly believe "works" to some alleged valuable goal.

If it gains 'credibility' in the eyes of a leader or organisation because some method elicited information one time - then it is enough to be authorised again. [Rejali shows in his book an example of an RUC officer in Northern Ireland who shoved lit matches up the noses of suspects. One suspect gave an accurate name one time. It never worked again, but the officer kept trying because it worked that one time previously.]
Because torture isn't regulated and it doesn't have oversight, there are no ready stats to hand - it's harder to provide hard evidence to someone that it doesn't work, as opposed to someone saying "Well, I heard it worked for the Israelis (or the French, or the Nicaraguans or the British etc etc)" which is a concept that is easier to grasp on a basic level. Combine that "word of mouth" or "Chinese whispers" syndrome with the fear of doing nothing is worse than doing something, you've got a horrible, flawed and frankly stupid policy.

I don't know if Clinton did order prisoners to be tortured or not. I don't know if any information was obtained, or if the information obtained was credible or useful in any way shape or form. It's less to do with what various US administrations have done, and more the prevailing mindset that belongs to the people to order torture in the place. "Better safe than sorry".


i dont think he ordered them to be tortured but that he knew they would be tortured because of the way things are done in the places he sent them to.

i guess i could look it up.

Alright, alright, alright. Enough about the friggin' clocks!

"Torture and Democracy" by Darius M. Rejali - it's available on google books on a preview basis. Have a flick through it whenever you get some free time. It is an extensive and thorough analysis of the use of torture, it's successes and it's failures. It gives methods, examples, first hand accounts, historical successes, simple failures and the issue of allowing legally permissable use of torture ('torture warrants'). It shows why people think it works, why they still use it, and why it isn't effective. And it's a fascinating read.

That's all I'm saying, I'm not condoning it or saying it's right. I'm saying it is used because people think it works. If they didn't think it worked, it wouldn't be in consistent use. That's all.

And how does that change anything? What people are protesting is that you said that it does occasionally work and that someone else was wrong for saying it doesn't. All the while, you basically admitted that it works about as well as a picture of a clock does as a cronometer, which is to say, it doesn't work at all and every once in a while it turns out to be right if you go through the effort to find out if the information is accurate some other way.

You sigh like anyone was disagreeing with what you say the book presents, but the fact of the matter is that the bulk of experts agree with the current argument being made. Even if what you were saying had some merit beyond the points that most of us have already agreed to, it would be one source that you unsurprisingly can't reference here facing up against the bulk of the evidence.

As to your last bit, plain out nasty, runny, grass-filled bullshit. People still give credit information to people in Kenya to help protect money from being absorbed by their government when some prince dies. Must work, right? People regularly pray for money and protection. Must work, right? There are a million things that people, even people claiming to be experts, do. They aren't automatically right just because they're ignorant enough to think they work.