Canada puts US on 'torture list'

[bullypulpit]

Colin Powell warned of this...Condi Rice warned of this...as did many others both in and out of the halls of power. The blowback of GITMO and US torture of detainees there and at other facilities around the world.

<blockquote>The United States has been listed as a country where prisoners are at risk of torture in a training document produced by the Canadian foreign ministry. - <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7195276.stm>BBC</a></blockquote>

<blockquote>Canada's foreign ministry has put the United States and Israel on a watch list of countries where prisoners risk being tortured and also classifies some U.S. interrogation techniques as torture... - <a href=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17388465.htm>Reuters</a></blockquote>

That Canada, our ally and friend to the north, has taken this step shows just how out of touch the Bush administration is with the rest of the world. In the aftermath of WW II, the use of techniques against Allied POW's such as water-boarding, forced nudity, sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, prolonged us of 'stress positions', and other techniques; <a href=http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66954/>were prosecuted as war crimes and commonly regarded as torture</a>. This matter is settled law in both the US and internationally. Or it was until <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37687-2004Dec30.html>the Bush administration sought to redefine the very meaning of torture</a> in order to justify the use of those techniques and shield both those who engaged in such practices and those who ordered them to be used, from prosecution.

Rather than uniting the world in order to pursue and eliminate terrorist cells and organizations which threaten the safety of people all over the world, the Bush administration has only further isolated America from her allies at a time when they are needed. The effort to curb terrorist activities can only be successful within the context of a multi-national effort. We cannot do it alone, and military force by itself is insufficient to the task, even were our military not stretched to the breaking point.

[red states rule]

I guess Canada was looking forward to Hillary's TV ads

CIA Destroys Hillary's Campaign Commercials
Republicans and dirty tricks go hand in hand, but the amount of dirty tricks they've pulled in this election cycle alone could fill a whole new blog category. Now it seems that the CIA has destroyed hundreds of hours worth of video tapes documenting the brutal torture of innocent Muslim prisoners, thus depriving Hillary Clinton and other Democrat candidates of valuable material for their campaign commercials. The videos, taken deep inside secret CIA torture chambers scattered across Europe, are purported to show agents moistening two so-called "Terrorist suspects" and, in all likelihood, mishandling their Qurans in an attempt to extract useless information about non-events. The footage would have gone a long way towards demonstrating how low Republicans will go just to save a few thousand American lives.

Poof! Gone!

With the Bush Junta still stubbornly refusing to parade flag-draped coffins before the TV cameras for our viewing pleasure, and Mike Huckabee's crudely photoshopped images of Joseph Smith buggering a goat on the altar of Satan having been recently debunked, it's a wonder Democrats have anything left to run on at all.

Convenient, isn't it?

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2007/12/cia-destroys-hi.html

[Nukeman]

Like we really care that Canada puts us on a torture list!!! Please what have they done for us anyway!!!!!!

[AFbombloader]

Screw them, the only good things they have given us are Rush, and Mooshead Beer. We should Torture all of them just because Celiene Dion is Canadian.

AF:salute:

[bullypulpit]

Wow. You guys REALLY ARE that stupid.

[AFbombloader]

Wow. You guys REALLY ARE that stupid.

No, not really. You just missed the sarcasm. Idon't really want to torture Canadians. But there should be repercussions for Mrs. Dion. Have a sense of humor.

AF:salute:

[Nukeman]

No, not really. You just missed the sarcasm. Idon't really want to torture Canadians. But there should be repercussions for Mrs. Dion. Have a sense of humor.

AF:salute:Don't even try AF bully is completely lost when it comes to sarcasm. He only see's the evil in the current admin and that is it....

[AFbombloader]

Don't even try AF bully is completely lost when it comes to sarcasm. He only see's the evil in the current admin and that is it....

Thanks Nuke. Sometimes I forget who I am posting to. It's late and I need to get some sleep. Have a great Friday.

I do feel that the only truly good things that have given us are Rush and Mooshead, maybe that wiskey that I cant remember the name of too. But that has to be all.

AF

[NATO AIR]

Its very pathetic that we've come to this. I spent considerable time in Alberta and British Columbia over the past year (gotta love Vancouver, Victoria and the bitter, almost other-worldly qualities of the tar sands/oil shale areas) and noted a lot of disapproval from the Canadians for the US military in particular.

Why?

Western Canada is much more like America than the rest of Canada. More similar political values and beliefs. Remember Mark Steyn is from this part....

In their media especially, the argument over torture is a serious one, unlike in America, where John McCain or Malcolm Nance are forced to parry against a moronic fictional character like Jack Bauer.

They have real, informed debates, including a very good one in October between Mark Bowden (the author of an Atlantic article in 2003 condoning the use of torture in limited circumstances based on his experiences with the CIA & the military over the past 15 years) and former FBI director Louis Freeh.

We have not really had these debates in America, hence the average American ignorance to the realities of and the penalties for torture.

Most of the world thinks we've abandoned our own laws and morals.

We have. We always prosecuted torture (from the American Revolution to Kosovo) and our leaders always stood up and made sure to be counted on the issue. Our professional services found that other methods worked better than torture anyway.

After 9/11, the gloves came off, and all common sense went out the window. A myth of the "hardened jihadist" developed and spread throughout the country, this untrue, unproven myth that terrorists could not be turned into intelligence assets the way other criminals and enemy soldiers have in the past. This is a blatant lie, as known terrorists from the one responsible for the Kenya embassy bombing to several high-ranking AQI figures have spilled their beans under considerable interrogation (without torture of course).

So blatant lies and myths have become the mantra of official Washington policy on the issue. The CIA broke its own laws in not videotaping its torture interrogations of subjects, while figures in the White House & Justice Department broke the law in authorizing torture on numerous occasions. The world knows this because the media actually reports this in detail in their country, whereas in America its treated like a silly sideshow.

Folks, we're throwing away our greatest asset (the rule of law) we have, as well as our honor (and our discipline, as numerous senior NCO's in the military can tell you after having had to deal with peons who think that torture is legal because they heard the president authorized it).

This is not a moment to say "****" Canada, its a moment to say "Oh ****" and do something about the peons in Washington destroying this country's good name and messing up the war on terrorism.

Also keep in mind that the US has illegally and falsely claimed several Canadians were terrorists and utilized extraordinary rendition to send them to rogue nations like Syria and Egypt to be tortured. All this has been disproved but the US blatantly still refuses to apologize to these Canadian citizens despite them being cleared of any terrorism links.

[bullypulpit]

No, not really. You just missed the sarcasm. Idon't really want to torture Canadians. But there should be repercussions for Mrs. Dion. Have a sense of humor.

AF:salute:

Wasn't refering to you. Your post wasn't there when I started to reply to the two troglodytes before you.

[Immanuel]

WTF(udge)? We don't torture prisoners! Mr Bush tolds me so. :D

Immie

[Nukeman]

Bully the problem is that WE being the United States of America actually ADMIT to torture type techniques used to get information. You damn sure better believe that EVERY and I mean EVERY country would resort to some sort of DICOMFORT that could be classified as torture to keep their citizens safe.

Because WE are willing to acknowledge this we are vilified in the world theater and YOU have the audacity to come on here and 1. condemn them for saying so, 2. call anyone who doesn't follow your way of thinking a troglodyte.

Get a f***ing life and realize we are about the only country willing to come out and admit that we will do WHAT IT TAKES TO KEEP OUR CITIZENS SAFE.

Does this mean I agree with torture?? No it doesn't! Do I think that sometimes someone may need a little help "remembering" key details of their plans to bomb our country? YES!

I have a question for you.. IF your family was taken be extremist and you had one in your possesion and needed to force him to talk, would you?? If so how? If not, why would you let your family suffer when you coud save them?

[Hagbard Celine]

Bully the problem is that WE being the United States of America actually ADMIT to torture type techniques used to get information. You damn sure better believe that EVERY and I mean EVERY country would resort to some sort of DICOMFORT that could be classified as torture to keep their citizens safe.

Because WE are willing to acknowledge this we are vilified in the world theater and YOU have the audacity to come on here and 1. condemn them for saying so, 2. call anyone who doesn't follow your way of thinking a troglodyte.

Get a f***ing life and realize we are about the only country willing to come out and admit that we will do WHAT IT TAKES TO KEEP OUR CITIZENS SAFE.

Does this mean I agree with torture?? No it doesn't! Do I think that sometimes someone may need a little help "remembering" key details of their plans to bomb our country? YES!

I have a question for you.. IF your family was taken be extremist and you had one in your possesion and needed to force him to talk, would you?? If so how? If not, why would you let your family suffer when you coud save them?

The importance of subtlety and appearance has been grossly overlooked by this administration. Our government is a joke run by a bunch of incompetent yahoo rednecks who've apparently decided to throw class out the window. Admitting to torture isn't in our interest. It's yet another step backward.

[Nukeman]

The importance of subtlety and appearance has been grossly overlooked by this administration. Our government is a joke run by a bunch of incompetent yahoo rednecks who've apparently decided to throw class out the window. Admitting to torture isn't in our interest. It's yet another step backward.
But its not our governments fault that they admitted to torture, its unfortunate that we have media outlets that would rather see our country look bad globally than lose a rating or two. We have government officials that feel the same way. If they can make their politicle enemies look bad they will do anything possible, evan at the cost of making ALL of America look bad.. IMHO

I agree our government should NOT admit to this in anyway. Our President needs to keep "plausable deniability", if he doesn't know he cant be caught lying....

[theHawk]

Locking people up in cages like animals is torture. Thus every country in the world that has prisons are guilty of torture.

Now, can we move on already to more important issues?

[bullypulpit]

Let's address your inanities one at a time, shall we?


Bully the problem is that WE being the United States of America actually ADMIT to torture type techniques used to get information. You damn sure better believe that EVERY and I mean EVERY country would resort to some sort of DICOMFORT that could be classified as torture to keep their citizens safe.

Firstly, they are not "torture type" anything. Waterboarding, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation, prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures, among others, all meet the criteria for torture laid out in the <a href=http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html>UN Convention Against Torture</a>, which the US is signatory to. Thus the treaty obligations imposed carry the full weight of US law under the Constitution.


Because WE are willing to acknowledge this we are vilified in the world theater and YOU have the audacity to come on here and 1. condemn them for saying so, 2. call anyone who doesn't follow your way of thinking a troglodyte.

You got a freakin' mouse in your pocket? The Bush administration deserves vilification as does any who support the Administration's willful disregard for US law and treaty obligations as well as international law. They cannot claim ignorance. former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, Jay Bybee, and his deputy John Yoo, redefined torture in a manner which is regarded by many as evidencing war crimes. This definition departs radically from the UNCAT definition of torture:

<blockquote>...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.</blockquote>

The Bybee Memo, on the other hand, defines torture as:

<blockquote>Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent to intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. - <a href=http://www.tomjoad.org/bybeememo.htm>The Bybee Memo</a></blockquote>


Get a f***ing life and realize we are about the only country willing to come out and admit that we will do WHAT IT TAKES TO KEEP OUR CITIZENS SAFE.

So the ends justify the means? When a government abandons the rule of law, regardless of the nobility of the cause, it becomes the sworn enemy of those it claims that it seeks to protect. In abandoning the rule of law, the Bush administration has undermined the very foundation of this nation. The Founders knew that a free society must be ruled by laws and not men.


Does this mean I agree with torture?? No it doesn't! Do I think that sometimes someone may need a little help "remembering" key details of their plans to bomb our country? YES!

Deny it all you wish, but you are "agreeing" with torture. As for the ticking time bomb scenario, you've been watching too many reruns of "24".


I have a question for you.. IF your family was taken be extremist and you had one in your possesion and needed to force him to talk, would you?? If so how? If not, why would you let your family suffer when you coud save them?

Your scenario is a false one. Should "force" be used to make an individual "talk" any statements made under duress would be inadmissable in a court of law. Admissions made under duress are always of questionable reliability, which is why they are prohibited under federal law. It is also why the Bush administration sought an extra-legal system as was established at GITMO and other black sites. It is also the reason that, in more than six years the Administration has failed to secure a single conviction of any of the detainees at GITMO.

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont give a dam what those fudge packing pussies think of us or israel. I would like to see canada deal with what israel does, then they can open their fagget mouths, and as far as the u.s., we didnt ask those fuckers, and they dont have 12-20 million illegals in their country

canada...

:fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu:





Colin Powell warned of this...Condi Rice warned of this...as did many others both in and out of the halls of power. The blowback of GITMO and US torture of detainees there and at other facilities around the world.

<blockquote>The United States has been listed as a country where prisoners are at risk of torture in a training document produced by the Canadian foreign ministry. - <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7195276.stm>BBC</a></blockquote>

<blockquote>Canada's foreign ministry has put the United States and Israel on a watch list of countries where prisoners risk being tortured and also classifies some U.S. interrogation techniques as torture... - <a href=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17388465.htm>Reuters</a></blockquote>

That Canada, our ally and friend to the north, has taken this step shows just how out of touch the Bush administration is with the rest of the world. In the aftermath of WW II, the use of techniques against Allied POW's such as water-boarding, forced nudity, sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, prolonged us of 'stress positions', and other techniques; <a href=http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66954/>were prosecuted as war crimes and commonly regarded as torture</a>. This matter is settled law in both the US and internationally. Or it was until <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37687-2004Dec30.html>the Bush administration sought to redefine the very meaning of torture</a> in order to justify the use of those techniques and shield both those who engaged in such practices and those who ordered them to be used, from prosecution.

Rather than uniting the world in order to pursue and eliminate terrorist cells and organizations which threaten the safety of people all over the world, the Bush administration has only further isolated America from her allies at a time when they are needed. The effort to curb terrorist activities can only be successful within the context of a multi-national effort. We cannot do it alone, and military force by itself is insufficient to the task, even were our military not stretched to the breaking point.

[actsnoblemartin]

youre approach seems to be, we disagree were stupid.

Dont be so confrontational


Wow. You guys REALLY ARE that stupid.

[Yurt]

I dont give a dam what those fudge packing pussies think of us or israel. I would like to see canada deal with what israel does, then they can open their fagget mouths, and as far as the u.s., we didnt ask those fuckers, and they dont have 12-20 million illegals in their country

canada...

:fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu:

my wife, her family, and her friends are canadian.......................................... ................

they are my family and friends......

[jimnyc]

Firstly, they are not "torture type" anything. Waterboarding, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation, prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures, among others, all meet the criteria for torture laid out in the UN Convention Against Torture (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html), which the US is signatory to. Thus the treaty obligations imposed carry the full weight of US law under the Constitution.

Do the UN treaties and conventions really mean that much to you? Do you feel people should be held to what the UN decides and votes on? What if the UN imposed sanctions against the US for "torture" and warned of consequences if we didn't cease such activity? Should the UN stick to their word, uphold those sanctions, and actually deliver consequences if we didn't stop? What if we repeatedly ignored what the UN had to say in the matter and thumbed our noses at their threats? Does the fact that multiple countries voted on this mean that it's of the utmost importance? Should these countries be involved if they don't plan on sticking with their plan and working as a "world body". Does the paper that they put these things on really carry that much weight with you and the rest of the world?

Funny how the UN didn't hold themselves to such standards concerning Iraq and 17 resolutions over a 12 year period.

[Yurt]

Do the UN treaties and conventions really mean that much to you? Do you feel people should be held to what the UN decides and votes on? What if the UN imposed sanctions against the US for "torture" and warned of consequences if we didn't cease such activity? Should the UN stick to their word, uphold those sanctions, and actually deliver consequences if we didn't stop? What if we repeatedly ignored what the UN had to say in the matter and thumbed our noses at their threats? Does the fact that multiple countries voted on this mean that it's of the utmost importance? Should these countries be involved if they don't plan on sticking with their plan and working as a "world body". Does the paper that they put these things on really carry that much weight with you and the rest of the world?

Funny how the UN didn't hold themselves to such standards concerning Iraq and 17 resolutions over a 12 year period.

2 BILLION

http://www.ugo.com/movies/oj-simpsons-criminal-masterminds/images/dr-evil.jpg

[actsnoblemartin]

common, im talking about the canadian government, i have a best friend in canada for christ sakes

:salute:


my wife, her family, and her friends are canadian.......................................... ................

they are my family and friends......

[Yurt]

common, im talking about the canadian government, i have a best friend in canada for christ sakes

:salute:

christ drinks sakes?

http://www.uncrate.com/men/images/wakatake-daiginjo-sake.jpg

:D

[bullypulpit]

Do the UN treaties and conventions really mean that much to you? Do you feel people should be held to what the UN decides and votes on? What if the UN imposed sanctions against the US for "torture" and warned of consequences if we didn't cease such activity? Should the UN stick to their word, uphold those sanctions, and actually deliver consequences if we didn't stop? What if we repeatedly ignored what the UN had to say in the matter and thumbed our noses at their threats? Does the fact that multiple countries voted on this mean that it's of the utmost importance? Should these countries be involved if they don't plan on sticking with their plan and working as a "world body". Does the paper that they put these things on really carry that much weight with you and the rest of the world?

Funny how the UN didn't hold themselves to such standards concerning Iraq and 17 resolutions over a 12 year period.

It's called the rule of law. Absent that, the Republic dies. Since the US is signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, it has the full weight of federal law. Violate the provisions of the treaty and you violate the law...WHich the Bush administration has done, repeatedly.

[jimnyc]

It's called the rule of law. Absent that, the Republic dies.

Just my opinion of course, but the UN's "rule of law" died when their relationships and kickbacks took a front seat to upholding the rules they set forth in the prior 17 resolutions with Iraq. I just find it odd that they can be looked at as an authority at times and at other times they turn their backs on the very rules that seem so important. When we start cherry picking which "rules" set forth by the UN is important and which can be put on the back burner, then the UN ceases to be any type of authority.

[bullypulpit]

Just my opinion of course, but the UN's "rule of law" died when their relationships and kickbacks took a front seat to upholding the rules they set forth in the prior 17 resolutions with Iraq. I just find it odd that they can be looked at as an authority at times and at other times they turn their backs on the very rules that seem so important. When we start cherry picking which "rules" set forth by the UN is important and which can be put on the back burner, then the UN ceases to be any type of authority.

The authority in question here isn't vested in the UN. It's vested in the Constitution. And as long as you're down with our own troops being tortured when they're captured by enemy forces...You can complain about the UN Convention Against Torture all you want.

[jimnyc]

The authority in question here isn't vested in the UN. It's vested in the Constitution. And as long as you're down with our own troops being tortured when they're captured by enemy forces...You can complain about the UN Convention Against Torture all you want.

My bad, I thought the quote I had from you was about a UN convention on torture, and not the US Constitution. I don't think our constitution was designed to follow the rule of law set forth by a corrupted and crippled body that puts financial interest and relationships ahead of said rule of law.

[actsnoblemartin]

The United States ratified the Convention, but lodged a declaration that "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."[4] The reason for this is that the United States Government lacks constitutional authority to enter into any treaty that violates any civil rights or other provisions within the Constitution of the United States.[5] Torture is illegal within the United States and is illegal if practised by American military personnel anywhere at any time.[6][7] "Human rights have been a cornerstone of American values since the country's birth and the United States is committed to support the work of the UN Commission in promoting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture#Conventi on_provisions




It's called the rule of law. Absent that, the Republic dies. Since the US is signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, it has the full weight of federal law. Violate the provisions of the treaty and you violate the law...WHich the Bush administration has done, repeatedly.

[actsnoblemartin]

I do not believe enemy combatants deserve any rights, they are not u.s. citizens and not entitled to any protections that u.s. citizens get, and the geneva convention does not apply to terrorists fighters, who are not part of an official government army.

[actsnoblemartin]

this is ridiculous, have you not heard of beheading. we should fight the war with 1 hand behind our backs, so you can feel all warm and fuzzy?

Lets fight a realistic war mmm k?


The authority in question here isn't vested in the UN. It's vested in the Constitution. And as long as you're down with our own troops being tortured when they're captured by enemy forces...You can complain about the UN Convention Against Torture all you want.

[manu1959]

canada is a french colony and killed thousand of eskimos....fuck em....

[bullypulpit]

canada is a french colony and killed thousand of eskimos....fuck em....

Nice, well reasoned, incisive response that. :lame2:

[Immanuel]

I do not believe enemy combatants deserve any rights, they are not u.s. citizens and not entitled to any protections that u.s. citizens get, and the geneva convention does not apply to terrorists fighters, who are not part of an official government army.

So human rights only apply to Americans?

What about those who are declared enemy combatants that have never lifted so much as a finger (should I insert that flipping emoticon here?) against the U.S. or even had a sour thought against us, but just happen to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and crossed paths with our military?

Immie

[red states rule]

So human rights only apply to Americans?

What about those who are declared enemy combatants that have never lifted so much as a finger (should I insert that flipping emoticon here?) against the U.S. or even had a sour thought against us, but just happen to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and crossed paths with our military?

Immie

Any examples of the poor misunderstood terrorists who made a wrong turn and was picked up on the battlefield shooting at US troops - and were locked up in error?

There have been many examples of terrorists released, and picked up AGAIN on the battlefield

[Nukeman]

Let's address your inanities one at a time, shall we?.








So the ends justify the means? When a government abandons the rule of law, regardless of the nobility of the cause, it becomes the sworn enemy of those it claims that it seeks to protect. In abandoning the rule of law, the Bush administration has undermined the very foundation of this nation. The Founders knew that a free society must be ruled by laws and not men.Sometimes you have to do that which you may find morally objecionable to stop even more needless pain and suffering.




Deny it all you wish, but you are "agreeing" with torture. As for the ticking time bomb scenario, you've been watching too many reruns of "24".Don't watch 24 haven't seen it in years!!! Moot point..



Your scenario is a false one. Should "force" be used to make an individual "talk" any statements made under duress would be inadmissable in a court of law. Admissions made under duress are always of questionable reliability, which is why they are prohibited under federal law. It is also why the Bush administration sought an extra-legal system as was established at GITMO and other black sites. It is also the reason that, in more than six years the Administration has failed to secure a single conviction of any of the detainees at GITMO You still didn't answer my question. You skirted around the whole thing I asked you a point blank question as to what you would do IF IT WAS YOUR FAMILY AND YOU COULD HELP THEM BY HURTING SOMEONE ELSE WOULD YOU OR WOULDN'T YOU?? If you wouldn't why would you allow your family to be caused needless pain and suffering at the hands of others?? If you would your whole argument is shot to hell, either way your screwed on how you answer this question so I can see why you wouldn't want to take a stand one way or another.

[red states rule]

Do not hold your breath waiting for an answer from BP.

[Nukeman]

Do not hold your breath waiting for an answer from BP.
I know but one can alawys hope!!! You know some times I agree with Bully (not often mind you), but when he gets on his moral high horse and refuses to see that there are some very evil people in this world that "just need killing" it drives me crazy.

I fully understand what he is saying and I repect that but there are times when you have to do that which you wouldn't at any other time so some times the end does justify the means. SOME TIMES

[red states rule]

I know but one can alawys hope!!! You know some times I agree with Bully (not often mind you), but when he gets on his moral high horse and refuses to see that there are some very evil people in this world that "just need killing" it drives me crazy.

I fully understand what he is saying and I repect that but there are times when you have to do that which you wouldn't at any other time so some times the end does justify the means. SOME TIMES

The "torture" BP is ranting about is waterboarding. I proved to him waterboarding has not been used in years, it was used only 3 times, each time it was used attacks were stoped and other terorists were picked up

BP still ignores those facts, and still bellows how the US is the bad guy

He ignores the fact his beloved Dems saw the tapes of terrorists being waterboarded (for less then 1 minute I might add) and saw then crack and give up the information

The US does not torture, but libs are more worried about the comfort of terrorists then saving innocent lives

[Sir Evil]

My bad, I thought the quote I had from you was about a UN convention on torture, and not the US Constitution. I don't think our constitution was designed to follow the rule of law set forth by a corrupted and crippled body that puts financial interest and relationships ahead of said rule of law.

That fuckwad is just using the convention rules when convenient for his argument, then when you call him on it somehow it becomes a issue of the constitution.

So there you have it straight from Bully, UN rules must be followed to the book by the US but when everyone else bends those rules for personal gain it's ok.
Those 17 resolutions were not put in place to be enforced, they were merely a figment of Bullys imagination. :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

That fuckwad is just using the convention rules when convenient for his argument, then when you call him on it somehow it becomes a issue of the constitution.

So there you have it straight from Bully, UN rules must be followed to the book by the US but when everyone else bends those rules for personal gain it's ok.
Those 17 resolutions were not put in place to be enforced, they were merely a figment of Bullys imagination. :rolleyes:

Libs like BP and MM seem to have these stupid belief the US can wage and win a PC war

[Immanuel]

Any examples of the poor misunderstood terrorists who made a wrong turn and was picked up on the battlefield shooting at US troops - and were locked up in error?

There have been many examples of terrorists released, and picked up AGAIN on the battlefield

Got any names or proof of that statement?

I don't have names, but we know there are plenty that have been released from our custody who have never been accused of a crime and have returned to civilian life without trouble. The Bush Administration gloats over the fact that they have released prisoners that were not terrorists. Wow! So good of them to have taken years of these people's lives and wasted them.

I can't believe good people like you would support the destruction of other innocent people's lives simply because Mr. Bush believes that if he can lock up every Muslim there won't be any terrorists left out on the street.

Immie

[Said1]

Colin Powell warned of this...Condi Rice warned of this...as did many others both in and out of the halls of power. The blowback of GITMO and US torture of detainees there and at other facilities around the world.

<blockquote>The United States has been listed as a country where prisoners are at risk of torture in a training document produced by the Canadian foreign ministry. - <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7195276.stm>BBC</a></blockquote>

<blockquote>Canada's foreign ministry has put the United States and Israel on a watch list of countries where prisoners risk being tortured and also classifies some U.S. interrogation techniques as torture... - <a href=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17388465.htm>Reuters</a></blockquote>

That Canada, our ally and friend to the north, has taken this step shows just how out of touch the Bush administration is with the rest of the world. In the aftermath of WW II, the use of techniques against Allied POW's such as water-boarding, forced nudity, sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, prolonged us of 'stress positions', and other techniques; <a href=http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66954/>were prosecuted as war crimes and commonly regarded as torture</a>. This matter is settled law in both the US and internationally. Or it was until <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37687-2004Dec30.html>the Bush administration sought to redefine the very meaning of torture</a> in order to justify the use of those techniques and shield both those who engaged in such practices and those who ordered them to be used, from prosecution.

Rather than uniting the world in order to pursue and eliminate terrorist cells and organizations which threaten the safety of people all over the world, the Bush administration has only further isolated America from her allies at a time when they are needed. The effort to curb terrorist activities can only be successful within the context of a multi-national effort. We cannot do it alone, and military force by itself is insufficient to the task, even were our military not stretched to the breaking point.


From the first link:


"The training manual is not a policy document and does not reflect the views or policies of this government," said a spokesman for Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier.

Diplomats and other memebers of our Foreign Services need to know what can happen to our citizens if they are detained as suspected terrorists, in each nation, around the world. Knowing foreign laws, policies, due processes and procedures are part of their job. What's the big deal?

[bullypulpit]

That fuckwad is just using the convention rules when convenient for his argument, then when you call him on it somehow it becomes a issue of the constitution.

So there you have it straight from Bully, UN rules must be followed to the book by the US but when everyone else bends those rules for personal gain it's ok.
Those 17 resolutions were not put in place to be enforced, they were merely a figment of Bullys imagination. :rolleyes:

You so funny...You make me laugh! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

The US is signatory to the UN Conventions Against Torture. Thus, this treaty obligation is given the full force and weight of law by THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES under Article Six which states,

<blockquote>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and <i><b>all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land</b></i>...</blockquote>

Your demonstrated inability, whether through ignorance or willfulness, to grasp this concept shows just how profound your moral and intellectual bankruptcy are. That you, and your fellow travelers, continue to accept the deliberate flouting of US law and treaty obligation shows just how successful the Bush administration has been at exploiting the fears of those vulnerable to such exploitation. You know, like you and your fellow travelers.

As for the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions, you can find a list of them from 1968 to 2002 <a href=http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=2417&sectionID=1>HERE</a>. The nations named therein include Israel, Turkey, Russia, Morocco and others. Isn't it odd that the Bush administration isn't invading any of those countries to enforce UN Security Council resolutions? Their focus seems rather selective and had more to do with working off Chmpy McPresident's chubby for Saddam than with enforcing Security Council resolutions.

[Kathianne]

You so funny...You make me laugh! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

The US is signatory to the UN Conventions Against Torture. Thus, this treaty obligation is given the full force and weight of law by THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES under Article Six which states,

<blockquote>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and <i><b>all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land</b></i>...</blockquote>

Your demonstrated inability, whether through ignorance or willfulness, to grasp this concept shows just how profound your moral and intellectual bankruptcy are. That you, and your fellow travelers, continue to accept the deliberate flouting of US law and treaty obligation shows just how successful the Bush administration has been at exploiting the fears of those vulnerable to such exploitation. You know, like you and your fellow travelers.

As for the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions, you can find a list of them from 1968 to 2002 <a href=http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=2417&sectionID=1>HERE</a>. The nations named therein include Israel, Turkey, Russia, Morocco and others. Isn't it odd that the Bush administration isn't invading any of those countries to enforce UN Security Council resolutions? Their focus seems rather selective and had more to do with working off Chmpy McPresident's chubby for Saddam than with enforcing Security Council resolutions.

Be that as it may, according to the UN resolutions, waterboarding is not necessarily torture. But you knew that.

[jimnyc]

The US is signatory to the UN Conventions Against Torture. Thus, this treaty obligation is given the full force and weight of law by THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES under Article Six which states,


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...

Was there possibly any additional declarations added by the United States about self executing or legislation needed to take full effect? What specific legislation has been passed declaring waterboarding as torture? I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly don't know.

[bullypulpit]

I know but one can alawys hope!!! You know some times I agree with Bully (not often mind you), but when he gets on his moral high horse and refuses to see that there are some very evil people in this world that "just need killing" it drives me crazy.

I fully understand what he is saying and I repect that but there are times when you have to do that which you wouldn't at any other time so some times the end does justify the means. SOME TIMES

I know full well that there are "evil people" in the world that need killing. But if the government abandons the nations founding principles in order to do so, it is undone.

And, again, your little scenario is a fallacious one, no different from the "ticking time bomb" scenario. Fallacious for the following reasons:

<blockquote>Number one: In the real world, the probability that a terrorist might be captured after concealing a ticking nuclear bomb in Times Square and that his captors would somehow recognize his significance is phenomenally slender.

Number two: This scenario still rests on the critical, utterly unexamined assumption that torture can get useful intelligence quickly from this or any hardened terrorist.

Number three: Once we agree to torture the one terrorist with his hypothetical ticking bomb, then we admit a possibility, even an imperative, for torturing hundreds who might have ticking bombs or thousands who just might have some knowledge about those bombs. "You can't know whether a person knows where the bomb is," explains Georgetown University Law Professor David Cole, "or even if they're telling the truth. Because of this, you end up going down a slippery slope and sanctioning torture in general."

Number four: Useful intelligence perhaps, but at what cost? The price of torture is unacceptably high because it disgraces and then undermines the country that countenances it. For the French in Algeria, for the Americans in Vietnam, and now for the Americans in Iraq, the costs have been astronomical and have outweighed any gains gathered by torture. - <a href=http://www.alternet.org/rights/41648/?page=1>The Myth of the Ticking Time Bomb</a></blockquote>

You can find a fuller examination of this fallacy at the link above.

[red states rule]

I know full well that there are "evil people" in the world that need killing. But if the government abandons the nations founding principles in order to do so, it is undone.

And, again, your little scenario is a fallacious one, no different from the "ticking time bomb" scenario. Fallacious for the following reasons:

<blockquote>Number one: In the real world, the probability that a terrorist might be captured after concealing a ticking nuclear bomb in Times Square and that his captors would somehow recognize his significance is phenomenally slender.

Number two: This scenario still rests on the critical, utterly unexamined assumption that torture can get useful intelligence quickly from this or any hardened terrorist.

Number three: Once we agree to torture the one terrorist with his hypothetical ticking bomb, then we admit a possibility, even an imperative, for torturing hundreds who might have ticking bombs or thousands who just might have some knowledge about those bombs. "You can't know whether a person knows where the bomb is," explains Georgetown University Law Professor David Cole, "or even if they're telling the truth. Because of this, you end up going down a slippery slope and sanctioning torture in general."

Number four: Useful intelligence perhaps, but at what cost? The price of torture is unacceptably high because it disgraces and then undermines the country that countenances it. For the French in Algeria, for the Americans in Vietnam, and now for the Americans in Iraq, the costs have been astronomical and have outweighed any gains gathered by torture. - <a href=http://www.alternet.org/rights/41648/?page=1>The Myth of the Ticking Time Bomb</a></blockquote>

You can find a fuller examination of this fallacy at the link above.

BP, the point is the US does not torture

I shot your ass down along time ago when I proved waterboarding has not been used in years, was used only 3 times, each time it was used the terrorists cracked in under one minute, gave up info that saved lives (and we were able to pick up other terrorists) and your beloved Dems saw the tapes and offered no objections at the time

Maybe you would rather out a higher level of importance on the comfort of terrorists then stopping their attacks - I don't

Keep pushing the lie the US tortures while ignoring the facts, it is what you do best

[Psychoblues]

rsr shooting anything down? Excuse me, bullypulpit, while I swat this little mosquito. You use the "shoot down" thing very liberally, rsr. Just how have you ever shot anything down?

[red states rule]

rsr shooting anything down? Excuse me, bullypulpit, while I swat this little mosquito. You use the "shoot down" thing very liberally, rsr. Just how have you ever shot anything down?

The facts do speak loud and clear

BP even ran away from his own thread for about a week after I posted links proving those facts

Would you care to try and prove those facts are wrong - or will you continue to bellow baseless claims?

[Psychoblues]

I can prove you nothing more than a bellowing little mosquito that I alluded earlier.



The facts do speak loud and clear

BP even ran away from his own thread for about a week after I posted links proving those facts

Would you care to try and prove those facts are wrong - or will you continue to bellow baseless claims?

Your links to obscure and opinionated sites does not interest me or dissuade me or anyone else, rsr. Your links to reputable sites always refute your own argument. Your opinion as you state it defies all I was taught as a young child of the 50's and even throughout my military experience over many years. America just doesn't think like you do, rsr, and I am very glad for that fact. In spite of jerks like you I remain confident of the ideals and aspirations of the country that I so dearly love and have given the greatest portion of my life to represent in whatever capacity I could and can.

[red states rule]

I can prove you nothing more than a bellowing little mosquito that I alluded earlier.




Your links to obscure and opinionated sites does not interest me or dissuade me or anyone else, rsr. Your links to reputable sites always refute your own argument. Your opinion as you state it defies all I was taught as a young child of the 50's and even throughout my military experience over many years. America just doesn't think like you do, rsr, and I am very glad for that fact. In spite of jerks like you I remain confident of the ideals and aspirations of the country that I so dearly love and have given the greatest portion of my life to represent in whatever capacity I could and can.



This is the link that made BP run like hell. It shows both of you are full of shit

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

[Psychoblues]

So, you believe that shit?



This is the link that made BP run like hell. It shows both of you are full of shit

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

What's that blotter thing all about?

[red states rule]

So, you believe that shit?




What's that blotter thing all about?



I understand how desperate you are PB - your buddy BP had the same reaction when he could not DISPROVE the article

[NATO AIR]

According to dozens of FBI, NCIS, CID agents and numerous military officers and NCO's, actually, the US has tortured terrorist suspects in the past six years.

This debate is always amusing to me because you have rank amateurs who get their news from a few biased sources and don't even begin to apply common sense to the question. Then you have people who believe willy-nilly in the UN and the power of human rights. Both are wrong.

After 9/11, it was amateur hour in Washington D.C. Desperation all too often overtook professionalism. Experience was discounted in favor of expediency.

For a few months, that would be an acceptable state of affairs given the mindset of the times caused by 9/11.

Yet this mindset lasted for years.

Someone rightfully pointed out the sheer number of detainees released from Gitmo (and elsewhere) with no charges and a claim by the US that they were "clear" of suspicion. Many of them, especially if they were captured in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq, faced torture and abuse from local forces as well as overzealous US forces. To make matter even more interesting, the US offered cash money to anyone willing to turn in a terrorist. Talk to military folks who were on the ground when that fiasco happened; all of a sudden thousands of innocent bastards were turned in by jealous neighbors and corrupt police trying to get paid. It wasted an ungodly amount of resources and time that could have been better spent, but since it was Rumsfeld's idea, no one opposed it and the already overwhelmingly innocent pool of detainees in US custody became even more so.

Why were some of these people tortured? Part of it was the lack of accountability within the CIA, which apparently thought that an order from VP Cheney or their director overrode an order from President Bush and standing US law. Part of it was Rumsfeld's deliberately unclear instructions on how to handle detainees. A lot of it was sheer stupidity, guys who had no business being in the intel or military police world there because of lax standards and poor training.

Regardless of "who" was to blame, torture happened quite a bit. And the complaints, sworn statements and outright condemnation from other people in the military, the FBI, the military investigative units (CID & NCIS) and elsewhere proliferated. Some were punished, most were not. Most abuse was swept under the rug.

Now when I say quite a bit I don't mean at Saddam levels. I mean that for a professional organization that has prosecuted its delinquents for two centuries and more for abuse and torture of detainees/prisoners of war/enemy combatants, far too much abuse took place. That was a direct reflection of the crappy leadership from your 4 stars and from Rumsfeld.

Is the torture/abuse still happening? Not in the military. With Gen. Petreus and SECDEF Gates, such nonsense is not tolerated. In the CIA? Definitely. These folks think they're above the law and can do what they please, whether that's undermining Pres. Bush or lying to Congress.

[red states rule]

According to dozens of FBI, NCIS, CID agents and numerous military officers and NCO's, actually, the US has tortured terrorist suspects in the past six years.

This debate is always amusing to me because you have rank amateurs who get their news from a few biased sources and don't even begin to apply common sense to the question. Then you have people who believe willy-nilly in the UN and the power of human rights. Both are wrong.

After 9/11, it was amateur hour in Washington D.C. Desperation all too often overtook professionalism. Experience was discounted in favor of expediency.

For a few months, that would be an acceptable state of affairs given the mindset of the times caused by 9/11.

Yet this mindset lasted for years.

Someone rightfully pointed out the sheer number of detainees released from Gitmo (and elsewhere) with no charges and a claim by the US that they were "clear" of suspicion. Many of them, especially if they were captured in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq, faced torture and abuse from local forces as well as overzealous US forces. To make matter even more interesting, the US offered cash money to anyone willing to turn in a terrorist. Talk to military folks who were on the ground when that fiasco happened; all of a sudden thousands of innocent bastards were turned in by jealous neighbors and corrupt police trying to get paid. It wasted an ungodly amount of resources and time that could have been better spent, but since it was Rumsfeld's idea, no one opposed it and the already overwhelmingly innocent pool of detainees in US custody became even more so.

Why were some of these people tortured? Part of it was the lack of accountability within the CIA, which apparently thought that an order from VP Cheney or their director overrode an order from President Bush and standing US law. Part of it was Rumsfeld's deliberately unclear instructions on how to handle detainees. A lot of it was sheer stupidity, guys who had no business being in the intel or military police world there because of lax standards and poor training.

Regardless of "who" was to blame, torture happened quite a bit. And the complaints, sworn statements and outright condemnation from other people in the military, the FBI, the military investigative units (CID & NCIS) and elsewhere proliferated. Some were punished, most were not. Most abuse was swept under the rug.

Now when I say quite a bit I don't mean at Saddam levels. I mean that for a professional organization that has prosecuted its delinquents for two centuries and more for abuse and torture of detainees/prisoners of war/enemy combatants, far too much abuse took place. That was a direct reflection of the crappy leadership from your 4 stars and from Rumsfeld.

Is the torture/abuse still happening? Not in the military. With Gen. Petreus and SECDEF Gates, such nonsense is not tolerated. In the CIA? Definitely. These folks think they're above the law and can do what they please, whether that's undermining Pres. Bush or lying to Congress.



What "torture" methods were used? Is sleep deveration torture? How about lowering or raising the temp in their cells? Or loud music in the cells?

What is torture?

At GITMO, the terrorists are gaining weight, have custom made food, and play games in the rec area

There have many several cases where terrorists that have ben released, have been picked up again on the battlefield firing at our troops

[bullypulpit]

BP, the point is the US does not torture

I shot your ass down along time ago when I proved waterboarding has not been used in years, was used only 3 times, each time it was used the terrorists cracked in under one minute, gave up info that saved lives (and we were able to pick up other terrorists) and your beloved Dems saw the tapes and offered no objections at the time

Maybe you would rather out a higher level of importance on the comfort of terrorists then stopping their attacks - I don't

Keep pushing the lie the US tortures while ignoring the facts, it is what you do best

You didn't prove anything numbnuts. You have conveniently forgotten that Bush said that warrants were required for wiretaps on US citizens. The revelation of the warrantless wiretapping program he authorized gave the lie to that. The reassurances of the Administration regarding the torture and waterboarding of detainees rings just as hollow.

[bullypulpit]

What "torture" methods were used? Is sleep deveration torture? How about lowering or raising the temp in their cells? Or loud music in the cells?

What is torture?

At GITMO, the terrorists are gaining weight, have custom made food, and play games in the rec area

There have many several cases where terrorists that have ben released, have been picked up again on the battlefield firing at our troops

:link:

[red states rule]

You didn't prove anything numbnuts. You have conveniently forgotten that Bush said that warrants were required for wiretaps on US citizens. The revelation of the warrantless wiretapping program he authorized gave the lie to that. The reassurances of the Administration regarding the torture and waterboarding of detainees rings just as hollow.

I as referring to the non issue of waterboarding. I have proven how it has been not used in years, used only 3 times, the terrorists all broke in less then 1 minute, and gave up info that saved lives

As far as your quest on FISA, I also showed how many lawyers it takes to catch a terrorist. While libs are debating the rights of terrrorists, a couple of our troops were murdered

[red states rule]

:link:

Not that facts matter to you BP

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217770,00.html

[Kathianne]

Not that facts matter to you BP

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217770,00.html

and jftr that is an AP story, not FOX.

[gabosaurus]

And they are right. The current U.S. administration is no better than Middle Eastern countries in that respect. We torture our prisoners, then whine when others do it to us.

[red states rule]

and jftr that is an AP story, not FOX.


Here is more on how abused the poor terrorists are treated at GITMO


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1N_dqGzLGY

[Kathianne]

And they are right. The current U.S. administration is no better than Middle Eastern countries in that respect. We torture our prisoners, then whine when others do it to us.

Right Gabby. Just when you start to sound nearly normal, you regress.

[NATO AIR]

I as referring to the non issue of waterboarding. I have proven how it has been not used in years, used only 3 times, the terrorists all broke in less then 1 minute, and gave up info that saved lives

As far as your quest on FISA, I also showed how many lawyers it takes to catch a terrorist. While libs are debating the rights of terrrorists, a couple of our troops were murdered

If waterboarding was so grand, then why have so many retired and active duty generals and law enforcement figures come out forcefully against it?

Its torture. Its been torture since the Spanish used it in the Inquisition. The US military prosecuted its own soldiers as well as the Japanese (as war criminals) for using it in WW2, not to mention Teddy Roosevelt getting personally involved when he found out troops were using it in the Philippines during our occupation there in the early 20th Century. It was used on our POW's in Vietnam, and we rightfully called it torture. That's not just McCain, that's Admiral Stockdale and a whole lot of other vets who have had next to nothing to do with politics (unlike McCain) except to advocate a strong national defense and honor in the military.

We've prosecuted law enforcement figures like a sheriff in Texas in the early 90's for using it. Its torture! Just because a couple of amateurs and hacks decided they could ignore the law after 9/11 doesn't mean its not torture.

[NATO AIR]

Most of the more serious matters happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, not Gitmo. There are numerous reports, books and news stories written about the actions of certain interrogators at Gitmo in the first three years after 9/11 that provoked formal complaints and a professional withholding of cooperation from the FBI, CID & NCIS.

In Afghanistan though, soldiers from the 82nd Airborne, including an officer, Captain Ian Fishback, spent nearly two years trying to find out from their chain of command what the actual rules were for handling and interrogating detainees. Rumsfeld had given deliberately vague and misleading guidance on this, causing consternation in the ranks and issues with discipline in military interrogation units. After nearly 2 years of stonewalling, Captain Fishback and others came forward to the only politician they trusted with the issue, Sen. John McCain, a former POW who had been pinging Rumsfeld for the vague guidance. He held hearings on the issue with Fishback testifying. Afterwards, they provided testimony and evidence to Human Rights Watch, an act which had to be condoned by higher-ups in the US military because they faced no formal or informal sanction for their action. The higher-ups were just as frustrated with Rumsfeld and the other instant experts at the Pentagon.....

Here's that report:
http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/


Here's part of the investigation into abuses in Afghanistan... nearly 30 soldiers were court-martialed, with nearly 10 being convicted and sentenced in this round alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

Beyond Abu Gharib in Iraq, there were extensive investigations into abuses at other prisons to include Camp Whitehorse, Qaim and Sammarra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_prison_abuse_scandals

Keep in mind Task Force 6-26, which abused and killed countless Iraqis in an environment marred by incompetence and lies, so bad the CIA BANNED ITS PEOPLE from working there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45373-2004Dec7.html

After they were shut down, a lot of CYA went on (such as claiming to have lost 70-80% of their computer records) and was encouraged because at the time interrogators were allowed to assume false identities... a tactic used more to prevent CIA & FBI personnel from being able to testify against them than anything else.

So has torture happened? Yes. Does it continue to happen? We don't know, as the same piss-poor tactics are being used in Afghanistan (Pay cash money to people to inform on others... it never works in the grand scheme of things because so many innocents get caught up in the net that it wastes both an interrogator's time and patience) where the US has countless secret prisons (often staffed by poorly trained Afghan police, soldiers and paramilitaries) as well as the overcrowded Bagram, which is certainly nothing nice like Gitmo.

Let's hope its not. The fact that the honorable Secretary Gates and Admiral Fallon are in charge of the overall picture would make it doubtful it is. But there are still far too many elements of the CIA and spec ops world that seem to think they're above and beyond the law. Until that is dealt with harshly and forcefully, we'll still be dealing with stupid scandals like this for years to come.

[NATO AIR]

A good snippet from that last bit about 6-26... where a vice-admiral was among those complaining about detainee abuse.

[
I]The Washington Post reported last week that a fact-finding mission for Army generals in December 2003 had warned that the same unit -- then called Task Force 121, and more recently renamed Task Force 6-26 -- was beating detainees and using a secret facility to hide its interrogations. The task force, which is still active in Iraq, is commanded by a two-star flag officer. It is made up primarily of soldiers from two Army "special mission units," whose existence is not officially acknowledged by the Pentagon. Several of its members, all of them Navy SEALS, are under criminal investigation for the deaths of two prisoners in their custody.

Other documents describe heated battles in which the FBI and some DIA intelligence officers objected to harsh interrogation methods in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. One FBI agent, reporting on May 10 to superiors about an earlier conversation with Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller and Maj. Gen. Michael B. Dunleavey at Guantanamo Bay, said the two men cited Rumsfeld as the source of their authority to use techniques that the FBI regarded as potentially illegal and "not effective or producing intel that was reliable." The author of that report, whose name is redacted, said "both agreed the Bureau has their way of dong[sic] business and DoD has their marching orders from the Sec Def."

Miller was commandant at Guantanamo until last spring and, at least four government officials have reported, brought the harsh methods in use there to Iraq last spring. The Associated Press reported that Miller left Iraq yesterday for a new assignment in Washington, with responsibility for Army housing and support operations.

Jacoby told Cambone that a supervisor in a secret military unit seized photographic evidence after a civilian DIA intelligence officer watched uniformed task force members "punch [the] prisoner in the face to the point the individual needed medical attention." That DIA officer, and another who worked with him, reported that prisoners taken in the field arrived at the unit's headquarters with "burn marks on their backs," "bruises" and other signs of violence. Jacoby wrote that officers of the elite military unit "threatened" the DIA civilians -- Jacoby did not elaborate -- and warned them not to discuss what they saw. The military officers "informed them that their emails were being screened" and "instructed them not to leave the compound . . . even to get a haircut."[/I]

[manu1959]

anyone read today that canada took us off the list today......seems the just the threat to waterboard them worked.....:laugh2:

[NATO AIR]

anyone read today that canada took us off the list today......seems the just the threat to waterboard them worked.....:laugh2:

Indeed. PM Harper has good sense in this regard, but the problem remains.. especially exactly where it shouldn't, with the Western Canadians who are our likely new brothers and sisters when Quebec finally secedes and Canada falls apart.

[manu1959]

Indeed. PM Harper has good sense in this regard, but the problem remains.. especially exactly where it shouldn't, with the Western Canadians who are our likely new brothers and sisters when Quebec finally secedes and Canada falls apart.

how many years now has quebec been trying to break away.....plus if you speak to the non french canadians they kinda wish they would....

[NATO AIR]

how many years now has quebec been trying to break away.....plus if you speak to the non french canadians they kinda wish they would....


I wish they would too... we could use the economic dynamism of the Western Canadian provinces in this country, not to mention a few more red states.

The problem for Canada is how big the Quebec province is economically. It could be a killer if they were to secede.

[jimnyc]

I've still yet to see anyone provide any legislation that has been but forth declaring waterboarding as torture. My issue with it is that some are being told they are pissing on the constitution if they condone it, but it cannot be unconstitutional without the legislation.

[Said1]

I wish they would too... we could use the economic dynamism of the Western Canadian provinces in this country, not to mention a few more red states.

The problem for Canada is how big the Quebec province is economically. It could be a killer if they were to secede.

Actually, that's not true. To make a long story short, Quebec wishes for independence under the protection of sovereignty association. That is, they want to to seperate, become their own nation-state and still retain all economic ties to Canada as they stand right now. Without out these conditions, Quebec would no longer be able to practice their anti-everyone accept Quebec business practices - and forget NAFTA, they have to get in line behind every other Banana Repbulic waiting for entry into the WTO etc before they can negotiate entry into NAFTA. I'd love to see them seperate just on that alone. Imagine, Quebec, all alone in the international community, dangling in the wind. Good bye cultural protections because that just ain't fair! :laugh2:

Imagine if they had their own dollar? Le National banque du Quebec. What a joke. Being the only developed nation without ANY trade agreements, they might as well fix their Jean-Guy to the peso. :laugh2:

Quebec will never seperate. EVER.

[Said1]

anyone read today that canada took us off the list today......seems the just the threat to waterboard them worked.....:laugh2:

The government didn't have you on a list.

[NATO AIR]

Actually, that's not true. To make a long story short, Quebec wishes for independence under the protection of sovereignty association. That is, they want to to seperate, become their own nation-state and still retain all economic ties to Canada as they stand right now. Without out these conditions, Quebec would no longer be able to practice their anti-everyone accept Quebec business practices - and forget NAFTA, they have to get in line behind every other Banana Repbulic waiting for entry into the WTO etc before they can negotiate entry into NAFTA. I'd love to see them seperate just on that alone. Imagine, Quebec, all alone in the international community, dangling in the wind. Good bye cultural protections because that just ain't fair! :laugh2:

Imagine if they had their own dollar? Le National banque du Quebec. What a joke. Being the only developed nation without ANY trade agreements, they might as well fix their Jean-Guy to the peso. :laugh2:

Quebec will never seperate. EVER.

I'd like to think that but I disagree with an eye to the long view. I see a "melted map" in the future not just for Canada but for much of the world.

I did have a fun time when I visited there a few years ago... some of those folks are nuts!

That is an excellent point about their business practices and problems with the international trade regime..... awesome point actually. I will be remembering that for some time to come...

[Said1]

I'd like to think that but I disagree with an eye to the long view. I see a "melted map" in the future not just for Canada but for much of the world.

You're not alone in your views, but I have a much closer daily relationship with Quebecers and their so called 'cutlure' than the majority of Western Canadians. AI've also been a Western Canadian, so I know their views on the Ontario/Quebec Golden Horseshoe as well. I also think the globalist idea of ignoring nations as an unit, with homogonized tastes and identiy with no alligence to place or community, is a myth. The end of geography has not arrived.


I did have a fun time when I visited there a few years ago... some of those folks are nuts!

That is an excellent point about their business practices and problems with the international trade regime..... awesome point actually. I will be remembering that for some time to come...

They can prattle on and on about culture and protecting their language and culture, but money makes the final decision. Living under the blanket of protection Canada provides ensures all their cushy little protections, subsidies and biased business practices live on. They have bill 101, the language police & acknowledge cultural differences, what more could they want? :laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

My bottom line: their is nothing wrong with being for or against torture.

Both sides have a valid argument, and neither side should be deamonized

[Immanuel]

My bottom line: their is nothing wrong with being for or against torture.

Both sides have a valid argument, and neither side should be deamonized

Just curious here, Martin, but do you ever pick a side or do you always try to take the middle ground so that you don't get into trouble? :D Not that there is anything wrong with taking the easy (as in less controversial) way out or anything. :)

Immie

[bullypulpit]

My bottom line: their is nothing wrong with being for or against torture.

Both sides have a valid argument, and neither side should be deamonized

There is no valid argument for torture, except amongst sadists. There is a middle ground in many things, but not this.

[actsnoblemartin]

hahaha :), well Its not that i dont want to pick a side, its just i am having trouble picking a side, because i do hear a lot of good arguments for many issues, from many sides and I dont want to commit too easily and flip flop.

Id rather be confused and not sure and not take a position, then sure I dont know, simply to be safe and take a position

:cheers2:


Just curious here, Martin, but do you ever pick a side or do you always try to take the middle ground so that you don't get into trouble? :D Not that there is anything wrong with taking the easy (as in less controversial) way out or anything. :)

Immie

[red states rule]

There is no valid argument for torture, except amongst sadists. There is a middle ground in many things, but not this.

What middle ground? You either want to stop terrorist attacks, or you want to ensure the comfort of terrorists

[SpidermanTUba]

Like we really care that Canada puts us on a torture list!!! Please what have they done for us anyway!!!!!!


They sell us oil.

[Nukeman]

They sell us oil.We protect them!!!!

[Said1]

We protect them!!!!
Kind of reactionary when considering the context of the original article. I thought your first comment was a joke. Very TM like. :laugh2:

[SpidermanTUba]

We protect them!!!!


from what?

[Said1]

from what?

Not Spanish fisherman. :laugh2: