so this torture thing

[jah_yout]

why are they pretending the u.s. just started torturing; or that it's gonna stop...or that the c..i.a is a bigger version of the boy scouts

if they want to prosecute someone why bush name nah call

joke business

[Derek]

Re: so this torture thing

The Bush Administration clearly stated: 'WE don't torture people.'
It's true - they fly you to another country, such as Morocco or Poland and you get tortured there instead.

[jah_yout]

Re: so this torture thing



as fond as i am of bush, i think obama right on this one...i don't see where pursuing criminal charges can lead...since it all eventually leads back to the top

[Derek]

Re: so this torture thing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

as fond as i am of bush, i think obama right on this one...i don't see where pursuing criminal charges can lead...since it all eventually leads back to the top </div></div>

Indeed, and Obama wouldn't dare...

[RichD]

Re: so this torture thing

yuh know what i find funniest in this whole thing ..the critics of the release are making it sound like these were some innovative techniques that now everybody knows about so are no longer useful.

[ILP]

Re: so this torture thing

so is true seh Condoleeza approve di fuss set ah torture (di wata hosing) when she was head of the NSA (or whichever place she did work)?

[Dyoll_73]

Re: so this torture thing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 212_Finish_ILP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so is true seh Condoleeza approve di fuss set ah torture (di wata hosing) when she was head of the NSA (or whichever place she did work)? </div></div>

National Security Council (NSC) based at the White House, not the National Security Agency (NSA), based in Ft Meade, Maryland. Not surprised about Rice! She would always strike me as a cold person.

The more important issue is that the former Constitutional Law Professor (now president) is 'waffling' on torture, something in clear violation of the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. And there has been the attempt to make it difficult to establish jurisdiction, hence a place like Guantanamo and the out-sourcing of torture. But the Supreme Court has already ruled on whether prisoners at Guantanamo come under US jurisdiction (they do), but the out-sourcing issue (&quot;Secret Rendition&quot has not yet come before the court. It shouldn't be difficult to establish jurisdiction.

Obama is scared as hell to go after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and all those lower level personnel at the Justice Dept and the White House Counsel's Office. Does he think that if the tables were turned, Repubs would let dems get off the hook. It's not about retribution. Laws were broken and those who broke them should be punished. I wished some foreign power had the guts to arrest these people should they venture outside the US.

[RichD]

Re: so this torture thing

what do you mean waffling?


i think it would be a mistake to try to prosecute anybody from the previous administration ..regardless of the outcome it will be a loser politically for him/democrats

[jah_yout]

Re: so this torture thing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 212_Finish_ILP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so is true seh Condoleeza approve di fuss set ah torture (di wata hosing) when she was head of the NSA (or whichever place she did work)? </div></div>

i wouldn't be surprised;
they had a fool-proof plan;
use the black faces of condi rice &amp; colin powell to set off their rue world order...
the majority of the population saw it as blacks stepping up in life...
i saw it as more tricknology- use them to do their own dirty work

[jah_yout]

Re: so this torture thing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what do you mean waffling?


i think it would be a mistake to try to prosecute anybody from the previous administration ..regardless of the outcome it will be a loser politically for him/democrats </div></div>

true

[tuffstuff]

Re: so this torture thing

i was talking to a guy who used to be in army and him upset say mercan ppl upset bout the water boarding tactic, caw it dont cause no harm to the terroris dem. Di man bold face say that the tactic dont cause no physical harm and its over in 2 min so wat- dem nuh lame or lose dem arm or nutn! Mi say Den him say- wat u want them to do to get info from terroris 'say pls mr terroriss where u gonna bomb nex?'. Him say a eida this or more mercan ppl gwey dead, and iffa dat mi want. I told him i need to go di bawtchoom

[Dyoll_73]

Re: so this torture thing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what do you mean waffling?


i think it would be a mistake to try to prosecute anybody from the previous administration ..regardless of the outcome it will be a loser politically for him/democrats </div></div>

Candidate Obama said that torture was both illegal and immoral. He promised that he would end torture. And in his inaugural address, and since, he has used rhetoric to the effect that there doesn't need to be a trade-off between national security and upholding the constitution. He even signed some executive orders to the effect. Progressives were thrilled.

Now President Obama, speaking to the intelligence community recently told them how much a difficult job it is having to protect the country and upholding the ideals of the constitution. He told them their job is difficult, and so is his. What difficulty?

Obama, through his surrogates, including his Intelligence Chief, and Rahm Emanuel his Chief of Staff, seems to be agreeing with Dick Cheney that torture yielded some &quot;high level&quot; information that may have led to the prevention of terrorist attacks. If this is true, and we don't know that it is, didn't Obama say, during the campaign that torture was ineffective?

And if it is effective, as Cheney said it is, isn't he inclined to keep torture in place, while managing the potential political fall-out from the left? And why is it that certain torture techniques, including what has been known as &quot;water boarding&quot;, still in place? As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if in the heat of the 2012 campaign, it emerged that torture was carried out early in the Obama administration, with approval from the president.

I disagree with you that prosecution of the previous admin will hurt dems politically. First, it may find broad support among the American people most of whom are already opposed to the use of torture. What you could see emerge - on this issue - is a coalition between the left and libertarian republicans who are staunch opponents of torture. Obama may not get much of the libertarian votes, but he would solidify his support among liberals/progressives, who pushed him pass Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and who were his major support during the elections, and without them he doesn't have a prayer of winning re-election. He should bear that fact in mind.

Secondly, this is unlike the impeachment and trial of Bill Clinton by the do-nothing repubs a decade ago. That was a political process and instead of working for the American people, Congress was distracted by a political witch hunt, wasting time, everything else came to a stand still during the impeachment, and repubs paid some price in the mid-term elections of 1998. Not a big price, in my view - they still held on to control of both chambers of Congress, though by a smaller margin, but still one that prevented them from gaining enough votes to remove Clinton from office. But Newt Gingrich got the boot, and well as some senior members in the House. The trial of Bush era people should be a legal process - in federal courts, and away from political influences. The investigations proposed in the House and Senate are mere such. And they won't take long, maybe a week, the most, unlike impeachment.

Now, of course repubs and their operatives in the media will spin this as retribution, and here, dems have to beat the repubs at their own game. But the business of congress will go on, unlike in the days of Clinton's impeachment.

The issue is this: when crimes are committed, people are prosecuted. And while it must not be a consideration, Obama may actually reap poltical rewards for prosecuting Bush era people. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that he should go after them because he and dems may benefit politically. He should do it because it is the right thing to do. Or is his apparent reluctance an indication that he wants to continue those methods?

And what are we saying, people shouldn't be prosecuted because it may be a loser politically? How will future crimes be prevented then? And didn't Obama campaign on a platform of bring change to Washington? Anyway, for the record, I didn't put much premium in those promises.

[RichD]

Re: so this torture thing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And if it is effective, as Cheney said it is, isn't he inclined to keep torture in place, while managing the potential political fall-out from the left?</div></div>

i don't think so

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what are we saying, people shouldn't be prosecuted because it may be a loser politically? How will future crimes be prevented then?</div></div>

is that the purpose of prosecution ..how well has it worked so far?

I think that if he pursues this regardless of if its the right thing to do it will be seen as focusing on destroying his competition rather than focusing on the business of the country and will only have negative repercussions.

[ILP]

Re: so this torture thing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 212_Finish_ILP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so is true seh Condoleeza approve di fuss set ah torture (di wata hosing) when she was head of the NSA (or whichever place she did work)? </div></div>

National Security Council (NSC) based at the White House, not the National Security Agency (NSA), based in Ft Meade, Maryland. Not surprised about Rice! She would always strike me as a cold person.

The more important issue is that the former Constitutional Law Professor (now president) is 'waffling' on torture, something in clear violation of the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. And there has been the attempt to make it difficult to establish jurisdiction, hence a place like Guantanamo and the out-sourcing of torture. But the Supreme Court has already ruled on whether prisoners at Guantanamo come under US jurisdiction (they do), but the out-sourcing issue (&quot;Secret Rendition&quot has not yet come before the court. It shouldn't be difficult to establish jurisdiction.

Obama is scared as hell to go after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and all those lower level personnel at the Justice Dept and the White House Counsel's Office. Does he think that if the tables were turned, Repubs would let dems get off the hook. It's not about retribution. Laws were broken and those who broke them should be punished. I wished some foreign power had the guts to arrest these people should they venture outside the US. </div></div>

ok...so mek i ask dis.
so didnt she testify (at some kinna hearing) bout har involvement wid di &quot;planning &amp; subsequent interrogation&quot; of di terrorists. Mi talking when all di debacle ova no weapons did come bout?

this is very interesting indeed.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: so this torture thing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And if it is effective, as Cheney said it is, isn't he inclined to keep torture in place, while managing the potential political fall-out from the left?</div></div>

i don't think so</div></div>

You don't sound certain. Of course, one can't be certain how politicians will act.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what are we saying, people shouldn't be prosecuted because it may be a loser politically? How will future crimes be prevented then?</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">is that the purpose of prosecution ..how well has it worked so far?</div></div>

I already said above that they should be prosecuted because it is the right thing to do, all other considerations aside, even preventing future abuses. And yet, it is extremely important to prevent future abuses. Torture doesn't come about simply because some low level field operatives go overboard. It comes from policies high up, and the best way to prevent these violations is to go after the big shots at the top.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that if he pursues this regardless of if its the right thing to do <span style="font-weight: bold">it will be seen</span> as focusing on destroying his competition rather than focusing on the business of the country and will only have negative repercussions.</div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Seen</span> by whom? This sounds like something I would hear on Fox News.

By prosecuting people for alleged crimes, Obama is &quot;destroying his enemies&quot;? You can't be serious. I think the majority of the American people right now would find this laughable.