Horrifying and Unnecessary

In the next few days President Bush is expected to again claim the right to order mistreatment of prisoners that any civilized person would regard as torture.

Mr. Bush is planning to veto a law that would require the C.I.A. and all the intelligence services to abide by the restrictions on holding and interrogating prisoners contained in the United States Army Field Manual. Mr. Bush says the Army rules are too restrictive.

What are these burdens? In addition to a blanket prohibition of torture, the manual specifically bans:

¶ Forcing a prisoner to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner.

¶ Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a prisoner, and using duct tape over the eyes.

¶ Applying beatings, electric shocks, burns or other forms of physical pain.

¶ Waterboarding.

¶ Using military working dogs.

¶ Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.

¶ Conducting mock executions.

¶ Depriving a prisoner of necessary food, water or medical care.


No votes yet

But if we don't torture and sexually abuse prisoners won't the scary terrorists come and eat our children?

Why are we better then our enemy?

I would assume we used "harsh" treatementt against German and Japanese POWs during WW II. And I know we did during the Vietnam conflict. But the result is that we won. That is the final arbiter of any decision we make. Otherwise, we can accept that Islam will triumph, and we will pay an exorbitant tax to live under a caliph.

Old South End Broadway

You need to adjust you meds...

I hate to break it to you, but we didn't "win" the Vietnam war.

Hmmm... let's weigh this:
Hypothermia/heat injury vs. being decapitated and having your head rolled down a city street bowling-ball fashion while the crowd cheers.

The latter is what happened to at least one of our servicemen and was captured on video.

You are right that we didn't "win" but we didn't "lose" either. This is one where we might.

Old South End Broadway

Defeat Pete, let the President's men and women do their job. The CIA and Intel people are in a different role than the Army Field Manual. Again, the Geneva convention applies to uniformed soldiers. The intel people and the war on terror unfortunately are not dealing with unifomed soldiers.

When the enemy refuses to wear a uniform, then they refuse their Geneva rights.

If the current tactics to gain intel save your sorry ass from getting blown up while at a downtown Toledo restaurant, mall, sporting event, or nearby airport then they did good. Remember there's a difference between a criminial investigation vs. a war vs. intel on foreign soil. You might be a fiscal conversative, but you sure the hell are liberal on everything else.

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.”
--George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’ he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.
More from the real GW

On the other hand--
"[whimper]...Let our beloved leader have what he wants. [sniffle]...I have neither the strength nor conviction to stand up for American values.

Everytime an American condones torture, we put our troops in danger by saying to the rest of the world it's ok to do it to us.

Once again, there's a difference amongst soldiers and the CIA, a difference between a uniformed enemy and a covert enemy, a difference between an enemy with a state and an enemy without a state, a difference between an enemy who seeks military targets or civilian targets, a difference between a criminal and a terrorist, and lastly a difference in winning and losing.

What I don't condone is a media of half truths. Unfortunately you don't know how many American lives were saved after 9-11. I'd say President George W. Bush and all that support America did a fine job so far protecting everyone against the daily threats to our country. It's time to support them and the next Comander in Chief. All this B.S. needs to stop at the water's edge. We need to continue to give our current and future leader's intel the tools they need to protect our future, our childern's future, and so forth.

Remember, it's about CONNECTING THE DOTS!!

Hey Chris, Priss, or Piss....name calling is something we both need to work on. I understand the passion on both sides and am guilty of getting just as excited. No worries!

...never got the German prisoners they took back to the rear. Finally my dad confronted him and told him that it looked that they would probably survive this thing. He thought it a good idea that he (the sargeant) not kill their guys because if we got captured and they had heard what we were doing they would probably show no mercy. But we are now confronting an enemy that shows no mercy. They share few of our values. We are "unbelievers", and subject to death because we haven't submitted to Allah. Remember, we aren't confronting German inductees who aren't sure of their politics. We are confronting men who volunteer because they are "true believers".

Old South End Broadway

our treatment of prisoners is but a small, albeit tragic, snapshot of the Iraq conflict. The wider, more comprehensive, issue is the criminality of war profiteering and the actions of government officials that allowed that criminality to take place and flourish.

The reality is there is a difference on who has intel and who does not. The soldier has to follow the Army Field Manual. Period. The debate is to make the CIA to do the same. Frankly, all the CIA has to do is transport the high value target to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq Security, or Isreal. Probably more effective than Water Boarding.

The media is confusing Joe Public on the differences between our Soldiers and our Foreign Intel Resources for their own agendas. Shameless.

This discussion about torture has NOTHING to do with one's political leanings whether right or left. It has to do with the LAW and the CONSTITUTION. It has to do with our heritage of treating people according to the principles of law and of a civilized society. Go back and look at Chris' posting about a real patriot, George Washington. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-horton/a-tale-of-two-georges_b_41091...

For the record, brass, I am not only a "fiscal conservative", I am a true conservative who believes in and supports the constitution and the rule of law and who thinks our current intrusive government should be radically reduced in size and scope. George Bush and his cronies are some of the most radical, non-conservative bandits who have been in the White House in a long time. They are subverting constitutional government in this country to the point where we are in the midst of a coup d'etat and nobody seems to notice. If you don't support the constitution and the rule of law for EVERYONE, then you are a menace to our free state and, far from being a conservative, you are a wild-eyed radical who would destroy our form of government.

In fact, blow and brass, you would be no better than the guys who are decapitating people.

BANG BANG CHOP CHOP ......BTW, They're no conservatives in the ACLU.

What I hear you saying is that you do not support the Constitution of the United States, its amendments, or federal laws. You are, therefore, a dangerous radical and unAmerican. You are in the same basket as anarchists, communists, IWW members, radical Muslims, Fascists, and others who would destroy our freedoms.


So far you called me an ass monkey, red ass monkey, someone who decapitates muslims, a facisit, anarchists, communist, an IWW member, a radical muslims, dangerous, un american, wild eye, some one who doesn't support the constitution, menance to a free state, etc...

Let me know how you really feel. If you can't make your points, go straight to name calling. I can see how that makes you feel better.

My point is very clear: do you support the laws of the United States that forbid torture? If not, you are all I have said.

1) The laws of America, written by Americans, for Americans to protect Americans.
Do you really expect ANY terrorist or foreign country to abide by American Laws written in America, written by Americans, for Americans to protect Americans in America?

If so, then why did North Vietnam torture many American POWS? Why did Nick Berg get his head sawn off? What was it that Daniel Perlman did that warranted his brutal torture and murder?

2) And I am sure that you got your lunch money stolen when you were in school. Do you know why that bully in kindergarten took your lunch money?

Moral of the story, don't bring a knife to a gunfight if you expect to live.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

No one ever took my lunch money and I never had to take anyone's either to prove my toughness either.

Why doesn't anyone taking my lunch money? Because I've earned the respect of those around me. I've never head to use fear to earn respect.

What specific US law applies to our CIA guys on foreign soil to wear wife-beater T-Shirts and Bitch Slap some Terrorists? Some how I missed that in our Constitution. Our courts don't have jurisdiction in Ghetto Terror World for our Intel Team.

Better yet, how about we just deliver the high value targets to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, or Israel. They know how to ask the tough questions.

Drop the PC and let our Intel do their jobs.

What specific US law applies to our CIA guys on foreign soil to wear wife-beater T-Shirts and Bitch Slap some Terrorists? Some how I missed that in our Constitution.

Oh, that's brilliant. Running a run light is not covered in the Constitution either, so have at it. Or try The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Use some common sense. If someone's being tortured, they're likely to tell you anything you want to hear. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed not only to 9/11 after being tortured, but he also confessed to killing Daniel Pearl, attempting to kill President Carter, President Clinton, and the Pope. Or consider Binyam Mohammed, who falsely confessed to involvement in the "dirty bomb" plot after have his genitals sliced. The CIA has explicitly said torture is counterproductive.

Torture (as it's used by the Bush administration) is not designed to extract intelligence in the so-called "ticking timebomb scenario"----it's used to get false confessions out of people in order to justify the administration's nefarious acts.

Andrew Sullivan has a good article on this.

Toruture should be denounced and illegal not only because it's morally wrong, but because it's ultimately counter-productive to Americans' interests.

Don't try talking morals to a conservative Chris, to them morals are not lying about blow jobs and hating gays.

1. Geneva Conventions of 1949 of which the US is a signatory.
2. Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions
3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (arts. 7 & 10)
4.Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) We signed both 3. and 4.
5. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, arts. 77-134)
6. The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441)
7. federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A)
8. Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-778)

International and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of any person in custody in all circumstances. The prohibition applies to the United States during times of peace, armed conflict, or a state of emergency. Any person, whether a U.S. national or a non-citizen, is protected. It is irrelevant whether the detainee is determined to be a prisoner-of-war, a protected person, or a so-called “security detainee” or “unlawful combatant.” And the prohibition is in effect within the territory of the United States or any place anywhere U.S. authorities have control over a person. In short, the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment is absolute.

What part of any of this do you not understand? You must believe you are living in the Middle Ages and we can still burn witches at the stake.

[later] As an addendum to this, I want to add that the reason Bush thinks he can get away with this is because he is claiming his constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief supersede any and all laws under any circumstances. It comes down to this: do we live under a nation of laws that apply to everybody or just to some? If you choose the latter, then WELCOME TO THE COUP D'ETAT. And look out! You may be the next rounded up for the camps.

"A coup d’état is the sudden, illegal overthrowing of a government by a part of the state establishment ... to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.

"Politically, the coup d’état is a type of political engineering, generally violent (hence "strike", "blow"; French "coup"), but not always, yet differing from a revolution (by a larger, armed group to effect violent, radical change to the political system) in that the change is to the government, not the form of government."

For this, look to the President's signing statements and his disregarding of laws, passed by Congress and signed by him, in an addendum that says, basically, he will not follow the law.

"In the context of the United States government, a signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law.

"There is an ongoing controversy concerning the extensive use of signing statements by President George W. Bush to modify the meaning of laws. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers"

Liberals don't like to Win Wars. It goes with their great track record of Soft on Defense.

Here's a GREAT liberal Idea from the Past - lets put up this WALL between our Foreign and Domestic Inteligence our CIA and our FBI.....it's not our fault we didn't connect the Dots!

Let's not allow our CIA to use bad people for informants.

Let's play politics with Wire-tapping. No wonder Terrorists support the Liberal Democrat Party!

Let's ask them politely why they want to kill us.

You guys are in Academic La La World!!

Brass, you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. Read John Locke, read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, read ANYTHING for crying out loud. You sound like a brain-washed goofball who watches the Military Channel all day. Your ideas about what a conservative is are so mixed up that you sound mentally challenged.

ha ha...he's a lost cause

It's a pretty simple process - put the books down. Listen to what the intel and soldiers need. Give it to them. Win!

Libs like yourself would rather inject politics and books into a fluid environment. Let the leaders closest to the operations lead and make their decisions. It's not that complicated.

You don't manage a war - you win a war!

Somehow you both remind me as the male version of Diane from Cheers! Pete keep telling yourself a Conservative. At least Chris knows he's a Liberal.

Keep on goose-stepping

Uhhh... I think that's what Adolf Hitler told his henchmen when they built the concentration camps.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.