Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Let me make a wild guess on another subject....I bet all your liberals are against the use of renditions by the US.  Am I wrong?  Are you all just so upset at the use of such an aweful "and btw legal" tactic?  Or can you at least see the wisdom is using renditions to thwart future terror crimes?  Can you see the intelligence in rendering someone to a country with less human rights blockades in order to extract infomation that could save thousands of innocent lives (the US denies this happens but I personally think it happens)?

Of course, I'm all for it because it reeks of common sense.

Why not answer the questions everybody is asking you? Instead of running away to start another thread?

You "don't have time" to answer tough questions. But you do have time to start another thread......

Kind of like when you would not debate me because you "didn't have the time", but yet have had plenty of time since to come back and blast away your racial slurs, lies and slander as always.

Funny how that works isn't it?

Anyone care to explain what Renditions are?  I've never heard the term. 

I believe Charitys referring to the extraordinary renditions currently being carried out by the U.S. in which terror suspects are secretly transferred to countries with less stringent human rights standards so they can ostensibly be tortured more easily. 

Well how could anyone possibly be against that?

You're certainly going to win the ideological battle against the terrorists by torturing people. No more muslims will take arms against you now. A brilliant plan if ever there was one.

Hey, no need for sarcasm - its okay to torture these people, they don't look like us and therefore....for some reason never fully explained, they aren't as good ::)

Never trust a man in a moustache, thats what ma granpappy used ta tell me :P

Well, in my case at least, you guessed right. Let's not forget that the majority of suspects deported for rendition are just that, SUSPECTS, they have not yet been convicted of any crime, and in the recent case, you may have seen it in the news, a German man being arrested in the Middle East and held in custody by the CIA and alledgedly deported for rendition, only to discover it was a case of mistaken identity. Who's to say that the prisoner could not be in the middle of illegal torture when it is discovered he is not at all guilty.

And even with that possibility the whole rendition protest is immoral, how can a country who preaches to the rest of the world about being civilised and setting a democratic example partake in such a progress without stopping to think what they are doing? And all you conservatives can laugh all you want about bleeding heart liberals and what you see as their like of ideas in Iraq, at least liberals can have the pride of saying they don't condone torture.

I love the bullshit you guys put out.

On one hand you claim to be "spreading democracy".

On the other hand you do everything you can to destroy it. Torturing suspects, holding people without charging them, using propaganda to win the public over (a clear contradiction of democracy if there ever was one), and calling people traitors who don't agree with you.

Yes.  Although tortured is a politically incorrect word and we wouldn't want the liberals here to stay up at night thinking of how the poor terrorists are being tortured.  Let's just say that we render them to countries like Pakistan, Egypt and Jordan where they have people better suited to extract important information that could potentially save thousands of lives.

condie is doing a tour of europe *trying to explain* what happend.

im still puzzled. i can't undestand how a country with kid raised in polical correctness, disney morals, movies about *weaks surpassing the strongs*, about the power of *rebels* and *ethic*, how a country that raise its kids with that kind of culture... can end up having kids like Charity Case ?
didnt you mommy buy you Disney movies when you were kid ? did u recieve enough love ? were you rooting for darth vader in the star wars movies ? :)

how do yo say " the goal does not jusitify the means ? " ?

Thank god you are safe and sound in Tampa and don't have to make tough decisions regarding the livs of Americans. ?We are all thankful of that.

renditions are smart people. ?Let's say you get a high ranking Al Qaeda member who you suspect has information regarding future terroist plans. ?We know these people are working on striking us again in the US. ?Now let's say the use of sodium pentathol and other accepted methods of interrogation don't work. ?Are you going to wait around in the hope that this guy gives up the information, or are you going to be proactive in protecting innocent lives? ?Who in their right mind would be against rending a shithead like that to Egypt to get their government (who don't see human rights through rose colored glasses) to extract information?

I for the life of me don't see how anyone can be against this. ?::)

slc, you need to get over the bullshit that you spew about "what this country stands for" and "what our founders thought" and "speading democracy on one hand, but.." ?Do you have the capacity to understand this is war? ?Do you want to win or lose? ?is it better to win and torture a few or to lose and not torture? ?I think we all know that prevebting terrorism requires extracting information fom people in the know. ?As can be seen on the news every day...all is fair in war. ?If rendering a terrorist dirtbag (who for some reason you seem to care about) saves thousands of lives (people you don't seem to care about), who would be against the use of torture. ?We're not saying to use torture on every prisoner, just in rare cases when we know or are alsmost certain that the prisoner has very valuable information. ?Who gives a shit about the bullshit "what America stands for" line of crap. ?That is infinitaly less important that protecting American lives.

I heard on the radio this morning (no I don't have proof at hand) that a large majority of Americans, Britians and Japanese support the use of torture in rare occasions such as I have described. ?Again I don't have th proof whereas I just heard it on the radio, but i can see where that would be the case. ?I suspect that a large number of liberals can see the wisdom in this.

I'll say it again, thank god the republicans are in office. ?

lol, I was raised by conservatives who use common sense to outweight useless drivel such as political correctness.  By the looks of my country, there is at least 50% of us raised this way.  I also grew up on disney.  :)  I have annual passes actually for the wife and kids.  But disney is escapism, not reality.  In the real world I was taught to look at issues using common sense (i.e. if you torture 5 men to save 5,000 that makes sense).

This thread still going? Must be deserving off a lock....

Charity Case, your so profoundly naive it makes me wonder if you've ever actually left your house

If the CIA decide that maybe your parents are evil 'traitors'' and without evidence or a trial, ship them off to Bongo-Bongo land to be beaten up, u'd be all for that? A system where anyone can be dragged off in the night and held forever for any reason?

Read up on Nazi Germany, they based most of their ideas on present day America...no wait, other way round.

Maybe I can explain it to you...its called morals.  Some things are just wrong, no matter how many ideas you can come up with to justify them.  Someone may be the biggest dirtbag on earth, but that won't change the fact that torture is morally wrong.  You are religious, correct?  Does your God approve of humans torturing other humans? 

This is a good idea, maybe they could start with Charity.

He'd be a 'crybaby liberal' as soon as the first wave of electricity hit his nuts (assuming he had them.)

Torture is a very bad idea. Under duress, prisoners will say anything. Also, it's inhumane and will tarnish the image of the US even further (like that's possible).

Of course it is inhumane. We can't march around the world "spreading democracy" then go directly against it at the same time with torture and propaganda.

We either are a democracy or we are not.

Oh but we can! All we need to do is deny we do it and then accuse those people who challenge us of being ''un-patriotic'' - its so deviously clever! :confused:

Aren't we a Republic? :)

so Charity Case, let me ask you somethin', if a situation arose where you have to be tortured by people ? will you accept it peacefully ?

like if Ben Laden captures you, and goes like " listen Charity case, i like you, you know, GN'R ! Big fan ! , but you see, we have to torture you so we can save our al-quaida members .... so you understand ... "

?? :)

US 'shifts' position on torture 
 
The US secretary of state says the UN treaty on torture applies to American interrogators in the US and overseas, in an apparent shift in US policy. 

The Bush administration has previously said the convention, which bans cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, does not apply to US personnel abroad.

Correspondents say a reason for the shift might be pressure from Congress.

Condoleezza Rice's European tour has been dogged by claims the CIA used foreign bases to hold terror suspects.

The UN high commissioner for human rights has called on the US to provide information about any secret detention centres and to provide access to them.

Louise Arbour said such detention centres could create conditions where torture might be used, but she welcomed Ms Rice's statement.

Pressure

Ms Rice said the US was bound by the UN Convention against Torture (CAT).

It "extends to US personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the US or outside the US," Ms Rice said in Ukraine.

Her comments appear to contrast with the US Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, who said last year the convention did not apply to US interrogations of foreigners overseas.

US officials travelling with Ms Rice were quoted by Reuters news agency as saying it represented a marked shift in US policy.

But, according to AFP news agency, one aide to Ms Rice said her remarks were "a clarification of policy, not a shift".

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says Ms Rice's comments signal an important change in US policy on the use of harsh methods of interrogation - and an apparent softening of the White House position.

The White House has allowed the CIA to use practices such as mock drowning of prisoners, which would almost certainly be considered unacceptable under the terms of the convention, our correspondent says.

Some former detainees have alleged they were part of a US network of "ghost flights" and secret prisons run by the CIA around the world.

They claim they were subjected to beatings, electric shock treatments and solitary confinement during their detention.

Ms Rice has admitted that terror suspects are flown abroad for interrogation under a process called rendition, but denied they were tortured.

She refused to address the claims of secret CIA prisons abroad where suspects could be interrogated without reference to international law.

A number of senior Republicans have been campaigning recently for the White House to be clearer in defining and banning torture.

Claims and denials

Claims that the CIA was holding al-Qaeda suspects in eastern Europe, Thailand and Afghanistan were first reported on 2 November.

New York-based Human Rights Watch said it had evidence that suspects were taken to Poland and Romania.

Both Poland and Thailand on Wednesday reiterated their denials that any secret CIA jails were allowed to operate on their territory. Romania has also dismissed the claims.

Germany, Spain, Sweden and Iceland are all investigating claims that CIA planes landed at their airports while transporting terror suspects.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/



/jarmo

The fools! Don't they see that this leaves the Fatherland open to attacks by foriegn devils!

What ever is next? Releasing people held for years without trial?

So your arguement is we shouldn't do it because of morals?  Fuckign weak!  To answer someone else's question, no I an in no way religious.  I am a bonifide agnostic which makes me religious in the smallest way.  I do not believe in any of the definitions of god by any of the established religions and in fact think religion is a crutch for the weak.  It is also the cause of way too much of the worlds violence.  I detest organized religion.

Your arguement is actuallly "how would I like it if I was carried off and tortured" and "what is bin laden caught me".  First, I am not a terrorist and do not look like a terrorist and therefore have nothing to worry aboutin regards to being rendered.  Second, if I was caught by bin laden, do you think he's have the morals to not torture me?  Please people, get a clue.  And no matter what the US's state position is on torture, I'd be willing to bet it goes on when needed and I would go as far as to endorse it.  You guys kill me with your sensitivity.

the people have spoken....


Torture "OK" according to majority in America, France and elsewhere

Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

The United States has drawn criticism from human rights groups and many governments, especially in Europe, for its treatment of terror suspects. President Bush and other top officials have said the U.S. does not torture, but some suspects in American custody have alleged they were victims of severe mistreatment.

The polling, in the United States and eight of its closest allies, found that in Canada, Mexico and Germany people are divided on whether torture is ever justified. Most people opposed torture under any circumstances in Spain and Italy.

"I don't think we should go out and string everybody up by their thumbs until somebody talks. But if there is definitely a good reason to get an answer, we should do whatever it takes," said Billy Adams, a retiree from Tomball, Texas.

In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. Almost nine in 10 in South Korea and just over half in France and Britain felt that way.

Accusations of torture, reports of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe and claims of shadowy flights carrying terror suspects have further strained U.S. relations with some European countries.

Mariella Salvi, who works for a humanitarian organization in Rome, said: "Human beings, as well as their rights, have to be defended, no matter what individuals are suspected of, or charged for."

The disagreements make cooperation on law enforcement and counterterrorism more difficult, said Lee Feinstein of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group of scholars and other specialists in foreign policy.

During a visit to Germany on Tuesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was peppered with questions about U.S. anti-terrorism policies, including the five-month detention of Lebanese-born Khaled al-Masri and reports of secret CIA prisons and use of European airports and airspace to move terror suspects. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the United States had admitted making a mistake in the case of al-Masri, a German who contended in a lawsuit in Alexandria, Va., on Tuesday that he was wrongfully imprisoned by the CIA and tortured.

Of course Bin Laden and his type would torture people.  That's the point, we are supposed to be better than that.  More civilized.  Just because the bad guys do it, doesn't justify us doing it. 

As for the poll mentioned before, I'd like to see exactly how the question was phrased to get people to respond they approve of torture. 

We can be better than bin laden and still torture people.  One thing is not exclusive of the other.  Choosing to use torture on rare occasions to saves thousands of lives is by definition better than bin laden.  The point here is to use common sense.  If the torture of a handful saves the lives of thousands then it makes sense.  The poll is irrelevant in my opinion (as most polls are).  The point is to use your common sense.  Something that is in short supply all too often.

 :hihi:

Ridiculous.

"We do not torture." - George W. Bush (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=Akm2ccYnsRFqDzAJjg3TYq1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE3MDFpazZuBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMTAEc2VjA3NyBHZ0aWQDRjY2M184Nw--/SIG=126a8ulfa/EXP=1134103402/**http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=index%26cid=2197)

You should note.

I have forwarded your IP address to the CIA and let them know that I suspect you have ties with Al Queda.

You should have nothing to worry about.


Hey Sandman...gotta link?

I do agree that torturing isnt right but I dont think the media should be reporting where these people are being held. That could be very harmful to those countries especially if Al Qeada decides to retalliate.

That to me is a fine line between responsible journalism, [Cause I do agree that transferring prisoners to places with lesser laws isnt the way to go] but still yet these papers are putting countries at risk and in danger.


Then again this is a war and I dont think these people should be treated like American citizens and should be given the rights that an American would have either.

I m on the fence, i dont know, I see it both ways really.

On one hand being a democracy and a nation of our status, we shouldnt be doing this.

However, if doing this protects from terrorists attacks and saves innocent people's lives, I cant really disagree with it either.

I dont value the lives of terrorist scum and I dont know how valid their rights should be when it comes to something like this, u cant be MR Nice guy and win a war.

I think some of you are missing the point, while others blatantly don't care what the point is.

Keyword: suspect.

Just because somebody is picked up does not mean they are a terrorist. It just means they have been picked up to be questioned.

Charity would disagree because he is a sociopath, and he does not care if they are guilty or not. He is a racist who does not care if an innocent person gets tortured, or if children get their legs blown off. As long as they are brown it is ok with him.

Anyway, in the real world, and in a democracy it is "innocent until proven guilty". We are a country of laws, bound by laws (supposed to be anyway) and should act as such. Not disregard them as we see fit.

Again this had been repeated endlessly. The same dipshits pretend never to have read this, come back and spout off again about "taking care of the terrorists" when they know damn well they may not be. But, (not to be overly redundant), such is the behavior of a psychopathic personality.

Moronic drivel.  I said to use torture in rare cases (as in when you know they are guilty) is justifiable.  You spout off like I condon it for every prisoner of war.   ::)

the comment about "as long as they are brown", that is disgraceful.  I have never said a racist remark because of the clor of someone's skin.  To insinuate is bogus on your part.  I have stated my dislike for the muslin religion and questioned the contributions of Arabs, but I have never tied that into a skin color. 

I do care if innocent people get tortured.  I would never condone that.  that is why I have stated that it is good policy in "RARE" cases where we know someone has information. 

Get a clue.

personally, i think this is major news. it's interesting that this did not get any significant exposure my our media.

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4211662&nav=0RaP

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13347044.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation

Poll: Allies think torture is justified in some cases

An AP-Ipsos poll found that U.S. allies are divided on the question of torture for terror suspects, while a majority opposes the CIA's operation of detention camps on their soil.

By WILL LESTER

Associated Press


WASHINGTON - Most people in eight countries that are American allies don't want the United States conducting secret interrogations of terror suspects on their soil, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

Anxiety about recent reports of secret prisons run by the CIA in eastern Europe has been heightened by the ongoing debate on the use of torture.

The poll found a majority in the United States, France, Britain and South Korea refused to rule out torture in some cases.

The poll found Americans and residents of many of the allied countries divided on the question of torture, with about as many saying it's OK in some cases as those saying it never should be used.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is traveling in Europe this week, has said the United States is following all laws and treaties on the treatment of terrorism suspects and has shared intelligence with its allies that has ``helped protect European countries from attack, saving European lives.''

Like other U.S. officials, Rice has refused to answer the underlying question of whether the CIA operated secret, Soviet-era prisons in Eastern Europe and whether CIA flights carried al Qaeda prisoners through European airports.

She said the U.S. ``will use every lawful weapon to defeat these terrorists.''

About two-thirds of the people living in Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Spain said they would oppose allowing the U.S. to secretly interrogate terror suspects in their countries.

Almost that many in Britain, France, Germany and Italy said they feel the same way. Almost two-thirds in the United States support such interrogations at home by their own government.

Officials with the European Union and in at least a half-dozen European countries are investigating the reports of secret U.S. interrogations in eastern Europe.

The EU has threatened to revoke voting rights of any nation in the European Union that was host to a clandestine detention center.

After the report of secret prisons overseas, President Bush said, ``We do not torture.''

U.S. military forces have held hundreds of suspects at known installations outside the United States, including at the U.S. naval base at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba.

The U.S. has adopted aggressive interrogation techniques since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks -- techniques some fear occasionally cross the line into torture.

''I thought we were the good guys,'' said Alan Schwartz, a political independent who lives near Buffalo, N.Y. ``I thought we were the ones with the high standards.''

On the issue of torture, 61 percent of Americans refused to rule it out. About one in 10 -- 11 percent -- said it could often be justified, while 27 percent said sometimes and 23 percent said rarely. Almost four in 10 -- 36 percent -- said it could never be justified.

Majorities in Britain, France and South Korea felt similarly, while in Canada, Mexico and Germany there was a nearly even split.

Only in Italy and Spain do most people oppose torture under any circumstances.

The strongest opposition to torture came in Italy, where six in 10 said it is never justified.

The polls of about 1,000 adults in each of the nine countries were conducted between Nov. 15 and Nov28.

Each poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Same difference, don't try to twist it around at this point.

Man you are a liar. I have never seen one worse than you.

Hell you even say American lives are worth it to liberate Iraq. Who ever knew you were so fond of the people who seem to detest so much at the same time?

Almost two-thirds in the United States support such interrogations at home by their own government.

61 percent of Americans refused to rule torture out.

Majorities in Britain, France and South Korea felt similarly.


and polls have become so important to people on these threads recently.

again, the people have spoken.

There are other reasons to liberate Iraq and install a democracy in Iraq other than the improving of Iraqi lives.  In my mind, improving their lives is a by-product of the mission.  Install democracy in that back-assward place and hopefully letting it spead throughout the region is better reason to liberate Iraq.  Getting ourselves a nice democratic ally and military base in such an important geographic region is another.  Freeing the Iraqis is good PR, but I highly doubt it is a motiviating factor for the US.  Making sure oil is not controled by homicidal maniacs or terrorists is probably higher on the list.

You look like a fucking fool using the same name calling in every post btw.  "liar"  "racist"  Why not drop the name calling and have a discussion.  Don't make me go crying to jarmo like some of you have done.   :hihi:

lmfao, this is the quote you pulled out.  Priceless...absolutely priceless.  Now I'm not much on polls, but slcpunk has practically staked his life on them here on this board.  First he shoved the presidential election polls in our face leading up to the election (he looked foolish afterward of course), and now he shoves Bush's approval rating around (again he will look foolish IMO).  So slc, if polls are so damn important to you, why is this one wrong? 

If they are so blatantly guilty - how come they don't get put on trial, should be an open and shut case eh?


Just the ones we reckon could be guilty - what happens if the CIA reckons your guilty?


Indeed, u also hate blacks, chinese, asians, poor people etc...


Wheren't u banned for just that? :hihi:


Sure....


Oh my...


Nothing about skin colour here....apart from the Arab comment...oh dear



Arabs haven't contributed much and....thats not a rascist comment? :hihi: :rofl:


No u don't, u said its okay to torture them even without a conviction in a court of law



Good good!



...and yet can't get them convicted ina ?court due to lack of evidence....hmmm


Yeah - its obvious non-whites are evil! :confused:

isn't it hilarious!  :rofl:

I thought it was strange this ?non-biased? AP writer would start the story off like that. The statement seems so out of place. That?s why I posted that article instead of others.

It?s a great example of the liberal media spoon feeding left-wingers exactly what they want to hear.  :rofl:

Here's a few questions for all those who think torture is ok.

You think US military should be able to torture suspected terrorists to save (American) lives, but what if terrorists torture American soldiers to save the lives of "their" people? Is that also ok?

Or are you gonna call them uncivilized animals when they do things like that?

Don't you think that using torture will make regular people in places like Iraq hate the USA even more? I guess that might cause more suicide bombers attacking the soldiers etc. Hate can motivate people to do scary things...




/jarmo

what if terrorists torture American soldiers to save the lives of "their" people?

that is hilarious!!

i see the point you're trying to make. i don't necessarily agree with it, but i understand where you're coming from.

but still, to talk about terrorists like they're just some normal group of people.....just average human beings like anyone else in the world. that is hilarious.  :rofl:

Good question.? I'd say that what policies the enemy wants to use to manage their side of the war is up to them.? If they decide torturing American soldiers to extract information is a good idea, then it is probably in their best interest to do so.? I'd imagine they wouldn't have to debate the "liberal" terrorists to do so.

But your point is somewhat trumped jarmo.? See the enemy skips right from torture to beheadings.

If torturing suspected terrorists in rare situations (again, notice the use of the term "rare") saves lives, prevents another 9/11, or other helps the cause,? then there should be absolutely no reason to not do it.? No one is condoning torture of all captured insurgents.

See, we should not be looking at what they other side does in determining our course of action.? They won't pigeonhole themselves that way.? If they did, they would not target innocent lives.? we should adopyt policies on their merit.? Will they or have they proven to work in the past.? In this case, the answer is most certainly yes.

Who said they were normal?

They're extremist who use that kind of methods. I'm just wondering why some people think it's ok for you to use torture, but when these terrorists use them, they're animals. Wouldn't take make both groups of people uncivilized animals?





/jarmo

Is capturing a known terrorist and capturing a journalist the same thing?

I dont think so.


My attitude is, all is fair in war.

U cant fight a war and be successful if u are handcuffed with all sorts of rules.

If the enemy feels that they can win a war by torturing American's for information, I say its war, it happens. If the US capture known terrorist and torture them to gain valuable information, once again its war.

U dont think shit like this has went on since the beginning of time? 


U cant fight a war hamstrung with rules when the enemy has no rules.

It would be like playing a hockey game and the other team gets an extra skater whereas u have to keep your goalie pulled the entire game.

I think the media have too much power and too much access to the war and thats why it cant be fought as effectively as it is needed to be.

God forbid a couple innocent civilians get killed, shit would hit the fan, but this sadly is war and I dont think you can place restrictions and rules on something like war.

you said "WHAT IF"....as if they don't already!!

do you honestly think we need to give them a fuckin reason to torture??? what reason did we give al queda to blow US citizens to pieces over the last several years?

you're trying to say that torturing members of al queda is the same as torturing US citizens!

unbelievable.

No, I'm saying that the people who oppose torture might not see the US military as more civilized than the people they're fighting when both use the same methods.

When you kill civilians in a war, it's usually explained with "shit happens, it's a war". To the terrorists, they're fighting a war as well. But you don't say "shit happens" when tube trains and buses are blown up in London or when planes are used in terrorist attacks in USA.


You don't seem to realize that things like this will give the nutcases another reason to attack you again.




/jarmo

you honestly believe they need another reason? are you being serious?

that's an insane statement IMO.

and by the way, the US military does not explain civilian deaths the way you describe. they make all effort to minimize civilian deaths. they certainly don't turture/behead/murder them.

Funny, since you use that to justify you actions.

I guess by "they" you mean terrorists. I was talking about people who aren't terrorist at the moment, but might do extreme things if they get the "right" motivation.
 


I was talking about people who support the war.

Of course the military try to minimise the amount of killed civilians.



/jarmo

I am baffled when people have a hard time assessing the horror of an act if it is committed by the United States, but have no problem pointing the finger and screaming "Horrors!" when it the same act is committed by another country. It is also very puzzling when these people speak down to the rest of us with their pseudo morals and self appointed intellect.

The America I lived and learned about as a child did not do this stuff. Period. We were known for having wiped out the Nazis without having Abu Graib's all over Germany. We also rebuilt the place after we destroyed it without using the former employer of the Vice President, much less with special exemptions from normal government contracting regulations, as the prime contractor. We were the country that founded the UN back then, not the one that scorns it.

America is becoming susceptible to the same weaknesses that befell the Germans when they became the Nazis. We are on our way, unless we stop this madness. What you see on this board: Charity, GunsNRockMusic, Sandman, and others are just that: madness. If we choose that road, you will see nothing but blood and the fall of America. Lucky for America, their view is the minority and frowned upon more now.

i guess you missed the poll that says 61% of americans say torture is ok.

61% = majority.

If only common sense were NEARLY as common as the name implies.

Let me ask you this, Charity.? What is it that makes the terrorists so terrible?

The answer: Their blatant disregard for loss of innocent humanlife and their barbaric, cruel tactics.? Not their religion, not their politics, but the methods they use to achieve their objectives...in fact, that's the very DEFINITION of a terrorist.

So, when we start adopting many of the same tactics...aren't they really winning the war, anyway?? Since their whole objective is to make "us" into "them".? I mean, that's what they want....

Common sense..... ::)

i disagree. you're forgetting a key pice of your "definition" of a terrorist - "innocent humanlife".

that's the key piece. so no, we are not adopting the same tactics.

Perhaps you can offer an evidence based description of what, specifically, a terrorist looks like....

'cause last time I checked, terrorists didn't have a SPECIFIC look....at least not specific enough for me to pick one out of a crowd.

So you have proof of their guilt?  Categoric?

We are using the same tactics....

no one on this board has proof of anything going on in iraq.

but to the best of our knowledge, the US is not torturing journalists and civilians. major difference. using your definition of terrorist.

It's not "name calling" when there's documented proof of you lying and making racist statements, FYI.

Really?? So you know, for a fact, that everyone "rendered" was guilty?? 'Cause, otherwise, they WERE civilians and NOT terrorists.?

Or are you just ignoring that particular point?

And it's STILL using barbaric methods.? Then it just becomes about perspective....and precedent.

D - I agree with your post 100% especially this part!

And what you dont seem to realize is why should we reason with a nutcase that would behead a journalist?
think about what you write before you hit the send button. come on man.

Reason? WTF?

Time after time I see people saying how certain things would only happen in certain parts of the world because we're so civilized in the Western world. What happened to that? What happened to the idea that we could be more civilized than the terrorists? Do we have to use the same methods they do? I know there are idiots in every corner of the planet, but when we're proud of they way we live and the morals we have, maybe we could actually live by them.


I'm not saying you have to treat terrorists like you'd treat other prisoners, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If you're gonna be the most advanced powerful country on the planet, maybe you don't have to give the people in Iraq another reason to hate you?



/jarmo

The people in Iraq dont hate us.
Look at the polls, the real polls, the polls from soldiers serving in the field.
we are largely being embraced. A man wants nothing more for his children than for them to have a choice.
And if that kid has a choice maybe he wont grow up angry to cover his fear.
Because thats what drives hate, fear. And hate drives a man to do extroidanary things.
Peace is our only hope of defeating terror my friend. And the way things were going in the region it would only get worse.

the terrorists in iraq hate us, sure.
But who cares.
I cant imagine an American soldier snatching an innocent man woman or child out of their daily lives and torturing them
I may be wrong but I doubt it, and so do you. But the opposite supports liberal argument so what we get is out of porportion drival.

A German man sued the CIA for arresting him.

Since you say it's ok to use torture if they suspect a person of being a terrorist, wouldn't it been ok to torture him?




/jarmo

Sounds reasonable... :)

I'm sorry. Had to do that.

Who says we should adopt their tactics?  Not one person has suggested we target civilians.  Not one person has suggested we use terror as a tool.  Terror and torture are two completely different tactics.  I am not condoning beheading contractors.  I am suggesting we should use torture in rare occasions where we feel it could save many lives.  It's not that radical really. 

As for the whole slc arguement that "this isn't the America I grew up with".  Well no shit sherlock.  The America post 9/11 is a different animal from pre 9/11.  We need to make changes to our society to adapt.  If that includes using torture in rare occasion, then so the fuck what.

Sure.  A vast vast majority of them are middle eastern men between the ages of 15-47.  There are exceptions, but that pretty much nutshells it for you.

I know, but he was a suspexted terrorist.

Where do you draw the line of who should be tortured and who shouldn't? What if you torture an innocent person?



The problem is, who decides when to use what.



As far as I know, there's also the issue of having laws that say it's forbidden to torture others. I guess you're above international laws.....



/jarmo

the people being shot at and threatened with death decide that, thats who.
Why is that a difficult concept.

And whats with every liberal post on here, almost anyway, containing a 'not one shred of evidence has been given'
or 'prove it'
who the hell do we think we are that we think every move made by a man or woman in combat has to be justified to us.
Or a president in charge of protecting an entire nations security has to go public and justify every move he makes.
come on man... please, think.

Well, jeez...that really narrows it down, now don't it.

"looks like a terrorist"   :o ::)

I had decided to ignore the troll, but this bears at least a cursory response:

It's called "accountability".? You should read up on it.? Our forefathers thought so highly of the concept, they built it into our founding documentation.

You are missing the point that many (60 percent was posted here before) of those held, ended up being released because they were innocent.

You keep ignoring this point because your entire "argument" falls flat.

My arguement doesn't fall flat.  Most people agree with my stance here.  I really don't see how anyone with a shred (I mean a samall morsel) of common sense, could be against the use of torture under the circumstances I have stated here.

The question that really matters is how many of them have been tortured?  Do we torture 1 in 100 or 1 in 500 prisoners?  I have no idea and really really don't care.  It is most likely a very small percentage whereas grunt field terrorists would likely have no knowledge of large planning efforts by the al qaeda leaders.  Your point about us releasing the innocent only further makes my point.  Here it is in short:

1.  We arrest suspected terrorist

2.  After interrogation and investigation we release the ones that are innocent

3.  After interrogation we imprison the ones we think are guity for further investigation.

4.  After further investigation, we take a rare few to be tortured to learn of plans for other terrorist acts that in learning of them we may save thousands of inncoent lives (including probably more than any other group, innocent iraqi lives).

slc, if we capture AL Zaquawi, would you be against torturing that bag of useless shit in hopes of learning something important about future al quadea planned attacks or even the whereabouts of bin laden?  Would you be for protecting his rights?  Please, for your own sake, answer that you'd be in favor using torture (in this rare instance), because otherwise it will be impossible for people to take you seriously if you don't.

You seem to "know" the process? I find this very unlikely.

"We think are guilty"...... ??? What defines this?

What defines innocent? How long are you held until you are released? Charged or not charged with a crime?

what about that guy who was shot recently in a plane cause he was crazy.
i mean. shoot first ask questions later. is that the Reno 911 method ? :)

america's just young and stupid. she's just doing the mistake europe has been doing for centuries. it's fine. we went thru that. we tortured. we hated. we thought we were better than everybody. we've grown up. america is just a 16 years old brat :)

OK, hold the phone on that one.

The guy was shot...true.

He was also carrying a duffel bag and yelling something to the effect that he had a bomb (at least by the reports I heard directly after the incident).  The Sky Marshalls repeatedly asked the guy to stop.  He kept running and screaming.  They shot him.  Any law enforcement officer in the country would do the same.

The guys wife, reportedly, said he was bi-polar and OFF HIS MEDS. 

It's sad that an innocent man had to die because of his own stupidity.  But the Marshals gave him every opportunity to come out of the situation alive.

While I don't agree with you, I know that view of America is widely held in Europe, particularly France.  And its only going to get worse if we decide to start condoning torture.  Unfortunately, right now we seem to be going backwards in development, not growing at all. 

alot of people here seem to think that just because the majority agrees with something that its suddenly ok. Which is one of the most basic fallacies you'll ever encounter. Just because the majority condone torture doesnt make it true based on that.

In a civilized society torture is wrong in any situation. By torturing others you lose the arguement with the terrorists.

That guy was shot and it was completely justifiable. ?

As for America being young, its true. ?But it took us a relatively short amount of time to shoot past Europe in terms of economy, military might,r pop culture, medical advancement and technological breakthoughs. ?We lead the way in space and under the sea. ?We have also saved Europe's ass on a couple of occasions. ?So when you speak of America in term of infancy, try to show a bit of respect for the position we hold in this world relative to our age. ?We may make mistakes, but comparing us to Europe and placing us behind it is just wrong.

So who is it that is stupid enough to believe we shouldn't torture al kazawi if we find him to try to learn as much as we can about the terrorist network? ?I'll tell you what. ?If we find him, some moronic left wing fanatic will be against torturing him. ?Crazy isn't it.

Great point.  And just because the majority doesn't like the job Bush is doing doesn't mean he isn't doing a good job.

As for torture being wrong in any situation....well you're wrong.  If it could save thousands of lives, it is the right thing to do.  As a matter of fact, it is the civilized thing to do.

And  it could cost thousands of lives (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/torture-fears-led-to-lies-about-iraq-links/2005/12/09/1134086807283.html)...

I'm against it, no matter who it is. ?And I'm not a left wing fanatic. ?And I'm not afraid of you calling me stupid. What's crazy is behaving like an animal, or worse than an animal, and blaming it on the behavior of others.

No. Its an objective moral truth that torture is wrong. The situation doesnt enter in to it.

And reversely on the first point, just because the majority dont like the job bush is doing doesnt mean he is doing a good job. My point, which obviously you missed, is that the view of the masses has no basis on the objective morality of the question.

Being from Europe I take offence to that statement. What is it America has done so right, and Europe has done so wrong to warrant such a statement?


I would be "stupid" enough to believe that. And you know why? The nations that are in Iraq are fighting to end what they deem a barbaric and brutal regeime of terror, correct? All torture is doing is bringing the nations in Iraq down to the level of the terrorists, does it make sense to you to invade a country to end a regeime based on terror and torture, and use the exact same tactics as they do? Terrorism to fight terrorism? Makes no sense. And despite that, it is actually surprising what someone might say under torture, even if those things aren't true. It was a tactic (secretly) introduced by the English during the troubles in Ireland and lead to the conviction of a large number of innocent people for acts of terrorism that they did not commit. Who's to say the same will not happen in Iraq?

I wrote that in response to an equally offensive statement by someone else.  Read the thread.  And if you want me to list all the things that America has done right it would take years to do so.

No offnse, but you are wrong.  Using some idealistic rhetoric as an excuse to not torture al zakawi is a joke.  The whole "don't bring us down to the level of the terrorists" talk is short sighted.  If torturing one man can save thousands, you do it.  No questions asked.  And in the case of al zakawi, you do it on principle alone.  He is responsible to attacking and killing innocent civilians during wartime.  Get off your high horse and join reality.

As for wrongful convictions, that's up to the investigations that follow up the torture to shake out.  If after we investiage we find someone innocent, then fine.

I have read the thread and am aware of the statement that was directed at the US to which you responded. And I agree it was out of line, but I'm not American so it's not my duty to dispute it, you disputed it and I respect you for defending your own country. What I took offence to is that you replied with an equally offensive statement, that I as a member of the European community felt it was my duty to dispute as you did previously. But note, I did not dispute an offensive statement with another offensive statement. And I am also aware that America has done a lot of great things on a world wide scale, but they have also contributed negatively, as have Europe.


I disagree, using a tactic to counter an enemy that you are fighting for using that very tactic (amongst others) is hypocritical, and on top of that, when considering that that tactic is torture is also immoral. That would be like FORCING a slave to fight for freedom. It just doesn't make sense.


It is not an issue of short-sightedness, it is an issue of morals and pride, fighting terrorism and torture with terrorism and torture is nothing short of hypocrisy. And how can the west claim some sort of moral superiority over everyone else, as it does, when they use the exact same tactics as the terrorists that they claim are ruining their lifestyle? And how do you think the Iraqi people will react to that, if they see their "liberators" partake in, let's say, methods of persuasion, that they have suffered under for so long, and that the Americans are telling them they are there to end?


What about the question of "is he guilty?" or "has he been convicted?" or "what evidence is there to show that this man is a terrorist?" or the question of "are this man's human rights being violated?" I mean what's the use of having human rights if they can simply be disregarded in certain cases? And what if you torture one man extensively and then discover that he is 100% innocent, will it be a case of "oh sorry wrong guy have a nice day!"? I don't think so.


So you torture a man that is responsible for the torture of others? How about you try a man fairly who is quite obviously responsible for this torture and punish him accordingly in the court of law? it's constitutional and leaves a lot less guilt and consequence on the shoulders of America who are already under a lot of pressure and are being met with international suspicion over a war that many feel should never have happened and give the US a chance to redeem itself in the eyes of the international public. If Al Zakawi is so blatantly guilty of these horrific crimes there is not a judge and jury in the world that would not convict him, so why the insecurity and the overwhelming urge to torture?



If investigations follow that will lead to conviction, why torture in the first place? You torture someone, they admit to guilt, which may not necessarily be the truth, and then you go and try them anyway? What's the point?

Good points, Jamie.

Charity Case - you don't think morals matter in this case, ok.? You think there is no problem in torturing someone if it means it will save American lives.? But why on earth would you expect to get valuable or even remotely correct information from someone in that situation?? Someone being tortured will say anything to get it to stop, they don't care if its true, they just tell you what you want to hear.? You think there is no reason not to torture someone, I say there is no reason to torture someone.? I think you watch too many movies.?

From the article I posted (in case Charity missed it):

THE Bush Administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment.

Current and former government officials say the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts of ties that included training in explosives and chemical weapons only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the US in January 2002.

The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the Administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of al-Qaeda members and others seized as part of US counter-terrorism efforts

No, sir, you are wrong.? Wrong headed, wrong acting, and just flat out wrong.

You want to say that "bringing us down to the terrorists level" talk is shortsighted? It's anything but.? But you have no counter for the argument, so would rather ignore it.? I'm not surprised.

And Shortsighted?? How's this for shortsighted.

If we do torture people, everyone gets to do it.? EVERYONE.? You're saying it's OK for OTHER nations, if they think torturing one of our citizens, soldiers, etc will "save their citizens lives".

Remember, what we do has GLOBAL implications and ramifications.? Are YOU willing to live with them?

I rather doubt you are.

nobody is condoning torture.
If these thugs were in a uniform, identifiable as 'the enemy'.
It would be an entirely different ballgame.
But their not, how can you not see the difference.
The thugs look and act like, in an instant, the innocent majority just trying to stay out of the way.

Would you not think that would call for mistakenly detaining a few people until their identity and intentions are verified.
Dont act stupid.
A liberal just doesnt think before he speaks, thats really your biggest fault.

If you were in harms way, which you obviously would never put yourself into, (its called having a yellow belly if your interested in labeling your attitude)
you would understand that erring on the side of caution is necessary in a war against an enemy that blends into the innocent population.

International law, including the U.N. Convention against Torture, bans torture in all cases.

For those that are somehow confused.....

The UN is a spineless politicaly motivated waste of time.
In case you havnt been paying attention over the last few years.

And i would call for an immediate withdrawal and not look back.
If they meant what they say, or said what the meant they would serve a purpose.
Otherwise

You are a spineless coward behind a computer...........

Here is how your group of thugs operate:


*************

An Ethiopian claims that his confession to al-Qaeda bomb plot was signed after beatings, reports David Rose in New York

Sunday December 11, 2005
The Observer

An Ethiopian student who lived in London claims that he was brutally tortured with the involvement of British and US intelligence agencies.

Binyam Mohammed, 27, says he spent nearly three years in the CIA's network of 'black sites'. In Morocco he claims he underwent the strappado torture of being hung for hours from his wrists, and scalpel cuts to his chest and penis and that a CIA officer was a regular interrogator.

After his capture in Pakistan, Mohammed says British officials warned him that he would be sent to a country where torture was used. Moroccans also asked him detailed questions about his seven years in London, which his lawyers believe came from British sources.

Western agencies believed that he was part of a plot to buy uranium in Asia, bring it to the US and build a 'dirty bomb' in league with Jose Padilla, a US citizen. Mohammed signed a confession but told his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, he had never met Padilla, or anyone in al-Qaeda. Padilla spent almost four years in American custody, accused of the plot. Last month, after allegations of the torture used against Mohammed emerged, the claims against Padilla were dropped. He now faces a civil charge of supporting al-Qaeda financially.

A senior US intelligence official told The Observer that the CIA is now in 'deep crisis' following last week's international political storm over the agency's practice of 'extraordinary rendition' - transporting suspects to countries where they face torture. 'The smarter people in the Directorate of Operations [the CIA's clandestine operational arm] know that one day, if they do this stuff, they are going to face indictment,' he said. 'They are simply refusing to participate in these operations, and if they don't have big mortgage or tuition fees to pay they're thinking about trying to resign altogether.'

Already 22 CIA officers have been charged in absentia in Italy for alleged roles in the rendition of a radical cleric, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, seized - without the knowledge of the Italian government - on a Milan street in February 2003.

The intense pressure on US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week, coupled with Friday's condemnation of the use of evidence extracted under torture by the House of Lords, has intensified concerns within the CIA. The official said: 'Renditions and torture aren't just wrong, they also expose CIA personnel and diplomats abroad to enormous future risk.'

Mohammed arrived in Britain in 1994. He lived in Wornington Road, North Kensington, and studied at Paddington Green College. For most of this time, said his brother, he rarely went to a mosque. However, in early 2001 he became more religious.

The Observer has obtained fresh details of his case which was first publicised last summer. He went to Pakistan in June 2001 because, he says, he had a drug problem and wanted to kick the habit. He was arrested on 10 April at the airport on his way back to England because of an alleged passport irregularity. Initially interrogated by Pakistani and British officials, he told Stafford Smith: 'The British checked out my story and said they knew I was a nobody. They said they would tell the Americans.'

He was questioned by the FBI and began to hear accusations of terror involvement. He says he also met two MI6 officers. One told him he would be tortured in an Arab country.

The interrogations intensified and he says he was taken to Islamabad; then, in July 2002, on a CIA flight to Morocco. His description of the process matches independent reports. Masked officers wore black. They stripped him, subjected him to a full body search and shackled him to his seat wearing a nappy.

In Morocco he was told he had plotted with Padilla and had dinner in Pakistan with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the planner of 9/11, and other al-Qaeda chiefs. 'I've never met anyone like these people,' Mohammed told Stafford Smith. 'How could I? I speak no Arabic... I never heard Padilla's name until they told me.'

During almost 18 months of regular beatings in Morocco, Mohammed says he frequently met a blonde woman in her thirties who told him she was Canadian. The US intelligence officer told The Observer this was an 'amateurish' CIA cover. 'The only Americans who historically pretended to be Canadian were backpackers travelling in Europe during the Vietnam war. Apart from the moral issues, what disturbs me is that, as an attempt to create plausible deniability, this is so damn transparent.'

According to Mohammed, he was threatened with electrocution and rape. On one occasion, he was handcuffed when three men entered his cell wearing black masks. 'That day I ceased really knowing I was alive. One stood on each of my shoulders and a third punched me in the stomach. It seemed to go on for hours. I was meant to stand, but I was in so much pain I'd fall to my knees. They'd pull me back up and hit me again. They'd kick me in the thighs as I got up. I could see the hands that were hitting me... like the hands of someone who'd worked as a mechanic or chopped with an axe.'

Later he was confronted with details of his London life - such as the name of his kickboxing teacher - and met a Moroccan calling himself Marwan, who ordered him to be hung by his wrists. 'They hit me in the chest, the stomach, and they knocked my feet from under me. I have a shoulder pain to this day from the wrenching as my arms were almost pulled out of their sockets.'

Another time, he told Stafford Smith: 'They took a scalpel to my right chest. It was only a small cut. Then they cut my left chest. One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute watching. I was in agony, crying, trying desperately to suppress myself, but I was screaming... They must have done this 20 to 30 times in maybe two hours. There was blood all over.'

In September he was taken to Guantanamo Bay where he has been charged with involvement in al-Qaeda plots and faces trial there by military commission. Stafford Smith said: 'I am unaware of any evidence against him other than that extracted under torture.'

The Foreign Office, the Moroccan Embassy and the CIA refused to comment yesterday.

Give it a rest, you and your views are one big joke.
Put some clown makeup on and go earn some money.

What sort of response is that? An article is presented with overwhelming accounts of brutality that completely defies the argument you have gone with for this whole thread and that's all you come up with, just swallow your pride and say you are wrong.

Oh stop already,
"they took a scalpel to his penis"

"frequently met  a blonde woman in her thirties, told him she was Canadian"

'The British checked out my story and said they knew I was a nobody. They said they would tell the Americans"

Did you guys read Stephen Kings latest novel?
You shopuld pick it up, its so much better than this one.

Im going to have to stop any sort of meaningful debate with the liberals on here if you keep this up.
Its embarrasing.
Come on, you're joking right?

When did you start a meaningful debate?  All you do is agitate and dodge the real questions.  Most of your statements make your own side look hopelessly clueless.  If your goal is to persuade then you are way off, if your goal is to annoy and make yourself look like an ass then "Mission Accomplished", moron.

Oh yeah, that's the way to do it, just completely disregard anything that looks damaging to your argument and say it's a falsehood. How do you know there wasn't a scalpel taken to his penis? Considering the pictures released (and you know the ones I'm refering to) a couple of years ago now I wouldn't be surprised.


Yeah, is a blonde Canadian woman such a rarity that this man would immediately say, "hold on a minute, she must be working for the CIA", and don't try to say the CIA has or would never employ someone to go undercover, they're an intelligence agency for Christ's sake!


May or may not have been said, but that's not the real issue here is it?


Oh really?! I'll have to get that one so.


Oh yeah, say's he who posted this:


Very meaningful, intelligent thought must have gone into that one. Archimedes has nothing on you.

You can stop trying at least...youre not very good at it.


That seems to be your line everytime...


But you never responded when it was proven that the U.S. was paying journalists to spin the war. ?Just like you never responded to my posts asking you to explain your own conspiracy theory against Harriet Miers.

You liberals are hilarious..
Ok oK, Ill keep going, but its only for entertainment.

Okso the blonde woman was really a cia operative.
Did she get him to talk through sex, Im sorry I missed the article when it was in the mainstream media. fill me in. ;D

they shaved his penis with a scalpel.
Thats wrong, so I suppose he will be bringing pictures to the trial, when is the trial, etc. details please. :confused:

James Bond could have gotten it out of him 'without' torture.
So I dont see what all the fuss was about sending in the CIA.

And the cone of silence, of course there are no recordings of these converstaions

(http://ogeechee.litphil.georgiasouthern.edu/images/cone-of-silence.jpg)

Why can't you just get past the fact that this alleged CIA officer was blonde, and adress the real content of the article? Wow, she's blonde, big fuckin deal! That whole blondes are stupid thing isn't necesseraly true.


Perhaps he will, or perhaps he was not allowed to photograph the injuries in case they could be used against the CIA in a trial, or perhaps he wasn't too keen on taking photographs of his own penis after such brutal injuries. Or perhaps he isn't going to press charges because he knows that the court system would never convict the CIA.


This makes no sense and has no relevance. Please elaborate.


Which conversations, the conversation between Binyam Mohammed and the interviewer? If so perhaps there is, and they have just not been published, obviously in such an interview there will be recordings. Or the conversations between Binyam Mohammed and the CIA? If so, naturally, recordings of such a conversation would be highly classified, and would not be available to the general public.

I see,
thereby making the whole thing hard to substantiate one way or the other?
hmmm, I think you're on to something

Kind of like your Harriet Miers theory, right?


 : ok:

No, actually 'my' Harriet Myers theory doesnt get soldiers killed, or feed the terrorist pool hatred bin.
Or disrespect our military.
Do you see the difference?
Its rather glaring

No, you dont get it. 

Your Harriet Miers conspiracy theory is not substantiated by any evidence.

  Hers MY eveidence,
I dont have to go to a blogger site to get backup for my opinions,
but you feel free to continue to let some else give you ideas.
I would however keep more of them to myself
 
The conservatives that spoke out against HArriet Miers only spoke that she was underqualified, a lightweight.
And the dems had NO opinion publically after their spin machine said shhh. let the conservatives run her off.
had they had any balls or felt as strongly as they should have being it was a SCJ appointment, they would have brought up her many 'shortcomings' in their opinion, on her recorded stances on the issues near and dear to us all.

Which speaks volumes that they so obviously played the spin machine and didnt stand their ground and speak out , because it suited their agenda more to let it take care of itself.

What Bush did, in retrospect was let her bow out, replace her with a stronger candidate, one that stood heads above Miers in experience and strentgh of character. But amazingly parrallel on the issues.
By speaking against him they do nothing more that make people wonder why they didnt point out the same things about Mier, if it was so important.
Are you following this? The swayable base of both parties are studying these details and forming a trust. A man is judged by what he doesnt say sometime more than what he does say. or should we say in this case a combination of the two.
JMO

Its actually brillaint and its working.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10442233/

President Bush expressed a no-tolerance stance on the use of torture by the United States in the war on terrorism in an exclusive wide-ranging interview with NBC News anchor Brian Williams, broadcast Monday.

Responding to a question from Williams on whether the United States can "be definitively against torture," Bush was adamant in his opposition to the practice.

?We are, and we will be at home and abroad," Bush said.

?And we're working with both Senator [John] McCain and Congressman Duncan Hunter,? he said. McCain, a prisoner of war who was tortured in Vietnam, said on the Dec. 4 broadcast of NBC's ?Meet the Press? that he will not drop demands that the White House agree with his proposed ban on the use of torture to extract information from suspected terrorists.

The White House said previously it could not accept restrictions that might prevent interrogators from gaining information vital to the nation?s security, and it threatened a presidential veto of any bill that contained the McCain language.

?Interrogate without torture?
But in his interview with Williams, Bush appeared to moderate that posture.

?We want to make sure that we're in a position to be able to interrogate without torture,? Bush said. ?The American people expect us to do that which we can do within international law, and our own declaration of supporting the premises of international law is what I really meant to say ? to protect us. I mean, if they know something, we need to know it. And we think we can find it without torturing people.?

...

Right.  You have no evidence.  : ok:

wow! bush is taking a stand on this issue and it's in line with the lefties. he's going against the opinion polls. i'm sure all you guys that were arguing against torture will have nice things to say about the prez on this.

Looks like Bush is paying attention to what the leaders in the EU are saying. That's a good thing.





/jarmo

How can you guys look at yourselves in the mirror?
defending scum. The insurgents are not soldiers, their not even human beings.
they are heartless, sub human scum. debate that?
DEBATE THAT.
you want to argue who knows what they are talking about and you bash a military trying to bring peace and democracy to a people because they mistreat scum.
The terrorists have no goal of good, they are not protecting their homeland, they are fighting to have the right to terrorize their own people at will.
they are fighting the very principals that you are defending they deserve.
 Ringling brothers is missing some clowns and I think weve found them. How many of you guys can fit into a volkswagon.

Do you know how close you are to being sent away to "Camp no post"?





/jarmo

i think Bush is making the right move now - due to the PR/image aspect of the situation.

also, it's a good symbolic move in light of the elections this week. we're helping a nation set standards, so those standards should be high. ?

camp no post?

Driving a double standard car these days I see King Jarmo

Seized, held, tortured: six tell same tale

Ian Cobain
Tuesday December 6, 2005
The Guardian

Mamdouh Habib, 49, an Australian citizen, was caught up in the rendition system after being arrested near the Pakistani-Afghan border shortly after the 9/11 attacks. His lawyers say he was bundled aboard a small jet by men speaking English with American accents and flown to Egypt, the country where he was born. For the next six months, they say, he was held in a Cairo jail, where he was hung from hooks, beaten, given shocks from an electric cattle prod, and told he was to be raped by dogs.

Article continues
Habib also says that he was shackled and forced into three torture chambers: one filled with water up to his chin, requiring him to stand on tiptoe for hours, a second with a low ceiling and two feet of water, forcing him into a painful stoop, and a third with a few inches of water, and within sight of an electric generator which his captors said would be used to electrocute him. He made statements - which he has since withdrawn - declaring that he had helped train the 9/11 attackers in martial arts. Habib was moved to Afghanistan and then to Guant?namo. Last January he was released without charge and allowed to return to his wife and three children in Sydney.

Maher Arar, 34, a Canadian citizen, was seized in September 2002 while travelling through JFK airport in New York, on his way home after a holiday in Tunisia. After being questioned for 13 days about a terrorism suspect - the brother of a work colleague - he was handcuffed, placed in leg irons, and put aboard an executive jet. Hearing the crew describe themselves as members of the "special removals unit", and discovering he was bound for Syria, the country where he was born, he begged them to return to the US. The crew, he says, ignored his pleas and suggested he watch a spy film that was being shown on board. After landing in Jordan, Arar says he was driven to Syria, where he was held in a small underground cell which he likened to a grave. His hands were repeatedly whipped with cables, he says. He added that he would eventually confess to anything put to him. Arar was released a year later after the Canadian government took up his case. The Syrian ambassador in Washington announced that no terrorist links had been found. Arar is suing the US government.

Amnesty International has highlighted the plight of two Yemeni friends, Salah Nasser Salim 'Ali, 27, and Muhammad Faraj Ahmed Bashmilah, 37, arrested separately in August 2003. Salah was detained in Indonesia, then flown to Jordan, where Muhammad was already under arrest. They say they were hung upside down and beaten for several days, before being flown to an unknown country about four hours' flying distance.

Neither man knew that the other was under arrest, but both described being detained in solitary confinement in an old underground prison, staffed by masked American guards, where western music was played in their cells 24 hours a day. Both men say they were moved after eight months, spending around three hours in a small aircraft, and then a helicopter, before being taken to another underground prison, this time modern, with air conditioning and surveillance cameras in the cells. This too was run by Americans, they say. The two men were returned to Yemen last May, but remain in custody. Amnesty says Yemeni officials have said they are being held at the request of US authorities. "What we have heard from these two men is just one small part of the much broader picture of US secret detentions around the world," said Sharon Critoph, the Amnesty researcher who interviewed them in Yemen.

Ahmed Agiza, 43, a doctor, and Muhammad Zery, 36, were abducted in Stockholm in December 2001, with the connivance of the Swedish government. Both were seeking asylum in Sweden, and had been convicted in absentia of membership of a banned Islamist group in their native Egypt. Agiza admits knowing Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command, but says he severed all links many years ago and insists he has renounced violence.

According to evidence to a Swedish parliamentary inquiry last year, they were taken to Bromma airport, Stockholm, by uniformed Swedish police and Americans wearing suits. They were stripped, searched, sedated and dressed in boiler suits and hoods. They were shackled and bundled on to a Gulfstream 5 executive jet, before being flown to Cairo. This aircraft has flown in and out of the UK at least 60 times since December 2001, most recently with a new tail number. Senior Swedish police officers told the parliamentary inquiry the aircraft was operated by the CIA.

Both men later told relatives and Swedish diplomats that they were subjected to electric shock torture in Egypt. Zery was released from prison almost two years later. Agiza was jailed for 25 years, reduced to 15 on appeal.

interesting article.

i wonder what music they played?

Poor bastards were in the wrong place at the wrong time - they deserve significant compensation for that - but of course the CIA aren't going to leave any evidence for a trial.

yeah i laughed my ass off !!! :)

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=24304.0

Locked at least until the end of the year.



/jarmo