Gender: female Member Since: March 14, 2006 Last Signed In: December 11, 2007 Profile Views: 21268 Blog Views: 74586 Bond's record-setting baseball will go into the HOF with an asterisk. "distract, delude, amuse and insulate us." People trust the Democrats more than they trust Republicans. Are you smarter than the average American? Test your knowledge of the news.. Neo-Nazi's go after the Jena 6 Feds investigating Blackwater USA for weapons smuggling The death of the History of Civilization… The good General couldn't accomplish his first job in Iraq, why should we expect anything better out of his second stint there? Support Debra Bowen's decision regarding Diebold voting machines Coast Guard's Deepwater project price skyrockets June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 Its My Right to be Left of the Center Bring it On! Sirens Chronicles 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Cheney: Waterboarding is ok. its a no-brainer
Did our Vice President actually say that? According to this write up, he did:
"The radio interview Tuesday was the first time that a senior Bush administration official has confirmed that U.S. interrogators used water-boarding against important al-Qaida suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged chief architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Mohammad was captured in Pakistan on March 1, 2003, and turned over to the CIA." I just don't see how people who torture others can sleep at night thinking this kinda crap is ok. WTF is wrong with them? Edit: Well, the sumbitch actually said it. The White House website has it online here, the whole interview transcript. Guess it's not really torture then, if the WhiteHouse says its not...We can all sleep better at night, right? And the new MCA allows this type of information to be used against someone in a trial. A trial which could mean a conviction with a death sentence attached to it. Ain't that just grand? Doesn't it just make you feel safe as a baby in it's mothers arms? The bible must say torture is ok, right? 104 comments from 12 users
posted by
marsh
on Oct 26, 2006 at 11:37 AM
Well, the Bible does say torture is okay, or at least that's what the Spanish Inquisition concluded--just as long as no blood is ever spilled . . . Oh, and to make sure there are no misunderstandings (from the lesser 50%), I'm being sarcastic . . . ;) Marsh posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 11:39 AM
You had me going there for a minute Marsh. I was getting ready to call my pastor and ask him about it. Interpretation is everything isn't it?
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 26, 2006 at 11:47 AM
Here's a description of waterboarding, you know just in case none of you can google it yourself. Note how the word torture is used in the first sentance. I'm still trying to figure out how torture could not be torture. I guess 2+2 could make 5 if you try to believe it hard enoughhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wik... posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 11:56 AM
And remember Pete, its no big deal..it doesn't hurt..thats what someone posted as a comment on this subject before..why, its almost like a walk in the park isn it? NOT!I have never read anything that says information gleaned by using torture was useful. If someone has something different..I would love to read it. posted by
mattloch
on Oct 26, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Weren't people prosecuted at the end of WWII for this, specifically under international laws forbidding torture?
posted by
mattloch
on Oct 26, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Tony said it didn't hurt when it was done to him during his military training.
posted by
robbwillis
on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:01 PM
It would work on me. I vividly remember each of the three times I was going to drown and panic set in. I'd rather go some other way.
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:02 PM
All I know is, Dead-eye Dick sees nothing wrong with it, and agreed with the interviewer that it is a "no-brainer"..They say they don't torture because in their world..this isn't torture..damn thats sick.
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:06 PM
I almost drowned once in a riptide..your right Robb, the panic and fear where overwhelming.But..what if you werent a terrorist..would you tell them anything they wanted to hear to make it stop?
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Maybe some of the weather reporters, I mean newscasters could get waterboarded on live TV like they stand on a balcony with hurricaines. People's opinion would probably change really quickly when they heard the screams.
posted by
petenews
on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:11 PM
mattloch, actually many of those "bad" people were rewarded for their "bad behavior during the war and were repatriated to the US, some even to Bakersfield and even praised later in the California.
You see even though they killed and maimed fo the Fuher, they looked like nice white legal immigrants, you know the good guys who can afford excellent forged documents. Who after all would question these fine people, and you cannot fence off the whole Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.. posted by
robbwillis
on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:26 PM
One of my experiences was in a riptide also. Of course I have no way of knowing how effective waterborading would be on me, but I would guess it would be more effective than pain. Pain makes me swear and there's not much info to glean from that. But hey, I won't even watch movies that have torture scenes.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:46 PM
What is it with the homo-erotic sadism of this crowd in charge? Couple that with the books some of them have written and you get a really disturbing picture.
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:52 PM
Disturbing? Why, to talk to them, they are normal..its the rest of us that gag over the thought of torture that have a screw loose. Perception is reality you know...
posted by
marsh
on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:55 PM
I guess 2+2 could make 5 if you try to believe it hard enough.PETE, "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." -- Lewis Caroll, Alice in Wonderland posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:58 PM
Marsh, That is an EXCELLENT quote..and from a fairy tale no less..Kudos :)
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 01:07 PM
And for anyone interested, here is what the Geneva Convention says about the Treatment of Prisoners of War, in article 3 Section 1a:In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: 1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 26, 2006 at 01:16 PM
I was actually referring to Orwell's 1984, but apparently Orwell wrote about the concept well before the book.From the über accurate wikipedia" In his essay Looking Back on the Spanish War, published 4 years before 1984, Orwell wrote:
Not that I'm calling anyone a nazi here. posted by
mattloch
on Oct 26, 2006 at 01:34 PM
Good thing the MCA2k6 specifically excludes the Geneva Convention, isn't it Dusty?. Pete, thank goodness for "the Google", or else the president wouldn't be able to count how may times he actually said "stay the course". Let's all hope he tells Mr. Snow that he underestimated how many times he said it, so that they can issue a correction. Or use their PATRIOT ACT powers and simply shut down those websites in the name of "national security". Either way, we win, right? . I think that anybody in the Administration that believes waterboarding is acceptable should be subjected to it, and anything else they consider "not torture". Film it and put it on the 5:00 news. The veep, the attorney general, every last one of the rats should be drowned on every channel on your tv to show you that it isn't torture. Whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander.... posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 01:40 PM
Mattloch, you find a signing statement on the MCA yet? I keep looking but nothing yet.
posted by
mattloch
on Oct 26, 2006 at 01:53 PM
Nothing yet. How long does it typically take to publish those? Shouldn't they have had a copy available that day? Not that I'm the paranoid type, but what could be causing the delay?
posted by
TomW
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:00 PM
Doubt there was one. What would be the point? They will pass a law after the election in the lame duck congress that strips citizenship from anyone accused of terrorism. No point in making it that obvious.
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:02 PM
I have a feeling Tom is right. The Shrub basically got everything he wanted in the Act itself..so a signing statement wasn't needed.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:06 PM
Dusty, the only thing he didn't get was the right to use it on everyone. You bet that if he changed that with a signing statement, that would be the election. After the election, they can attach it to a budget bill or some other procedural vote and enough time will have passed that they can write it off as a conspiracy theory.
posted by
mattloch
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:13 PM
Shhh! Damnit Tom, now you've gone and given away their secret plans! That's all part of PATRIOT III. Assuming it isn't already a signing statement, or in the zillion or so pages of PATRIOT I or II. Or as a rider in a budget omnibus bill. Or at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused bathroom with a sign on the door reading "Beware of the Leopard".<Edit> Damn Tom. Beat me to the punch while I was having posting problems. Now it'll look like a conspiracy theory. We've played right into their hands! posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:15 PM
Hotdamn Mattloch..you covered all the bases there m'dear.
posted by
mattloch
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:20 PM
What can I say, Dusty. 8+ years of competitive debate have opened my eyes to the abusive potential of our governmental system. Of course, back in my day the "1% doctrine" cases were skinheads with nukes, or an ice age "pole shift". They almost seem quaint and naive these days. But "playing government" had it's advantages. You learn of all the ways to sneak your policy plan(s) into law without the public knowing and suffering a "public backlash" disadvantage. Just think what could have been, had I chosen to use my powers for good instead of bad..... ;)
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:28 PM
Too bad the checks and balances in put in place over 200 years ago have failed us Mattloch.
posted by
mattloch
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:30 PM
That would insinuate that you don't trust our government. You know who else doesn't trust our government? Terrorists. Are you a terrorist?
posted by
TomW
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:34 PM
Mattloch, so you know, Patriot II never passed. It does contain the exact language needed though to make the MCA applicable to anyone. http://www.alternet.org/sto...From the link: Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed "material support" to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be "terrorist." As Hentoff wrote in the Feb. 28 Village Voice: "Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But -- and read this carefully from the new bill -- 'the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.'" (Italics Hentoff's.) posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:35 PM
According to the current administration..I could be. I write articles against our current resident of the Oval Office, so I guess that could very well be construed as giving terrorists aid..Its a stretch but I think they could make it work..what do you think? posted by
mattloch
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:38 PM
Tom, they're saving it on a dark bookshelf until the next terrorist attack. Then you can guarantee they'll trot it out at 2:00am and say "we have just the answer", exactly like they did last time. They're getting tiny slivers of it passed here and there, but need a good jolt to run the whole thing up the flagpole for everyone to salute.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:40 PM
By extension though, that would make Bush a terrorist."Either you trust the government, or you trust the people. We trust the people." George Bush http://www.whitehouse.gov/n... posted by
TomW
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:42 PM
Have to be a hell of a jolt. I don't even want to think what that would look like
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:48 PM
Tom..wtf is it in that speech I am looking for? Its making my stomach turn just reading that crap.
posted by
marsh
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:48 PM
The good news is, while we come from both conservative and progressive backgrounds, we all seem to agree on this fundamental issue. Hopefully, most Americans will agree too. If so, then the government, in its present form, will not remain long and continue to ignore the General Will . . .The task ahead, is to make the American people aware of their rights, the subsequent erosion of those rights, and to activate them to do something about it. That's the hard part! Marsh posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 02:50 PM
Your right Marsh..its the hardest part of all. People are too willing to give up their rights in exchange for feeling secure. Notice I said "feeling"..giving up our rights doesn't guarantee national security.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 26, 2006 at 03:09 PM
Sorry Dusty, I posted the quote that I was pulling. I didn't mean to send you over there. Just wanted proof that he said it.
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 03:21 PM
Well Tony, Senator John McCain who was tortured says it doesn't work. He was a POW and I have a tendancy to take his word over yours simply because he was a POW. Going through the training you did, does nothing to change my mind about what is torture and what isn't. You cite extreme measures, whereas Sen. McCain said the only thing he gave up was the names of football players. So, on that level, how can you say it works,even if it is allowed and practiced?
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 26, 2006 at 03:31 PM
Tony, when you were waterboarded, did you fear for your life or did you know it was just an excercize? I imagine it's a bit worse if you think your life is actually in danger. Not to downplay your training or anything.
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 03:33 PM
If our government doesn't torture, why does the new Military Comm. Act give a free pass to anyone accused of torturing based on the Geneva Conventions? From an article over at Human Rights Watch: "In any case, if future prosecutors want to go after abusive interrogators, there are plenty of clear crimes to focus on without going into arguably "borderline" cases. Between 2004 and 2006, the military and CIA referred to the Department of Justice at least 20 cases from Iraq and Afghanistan involving homicide and outright physical abuses, including torture and assault. Yet to date, only one person has been indicted in federal court (a hapless CIA contractor named David Passaro, currently on trial in North Carolina for beating an Afghan detainee to death in June 2003). It doesn't seem likely that prosecutors—now, or in the future—would need to go after borderline cases of "humiliation" when there are still so many cases of outright torture and murder that haven't been investigated or prosecuted." Just thought I would toss that out there. posted by
mattloch
on Oct 26, 2006 at 03:34 PM
Dusty, not to say you're wrong, but Tony never said that it "works". He said "productive" and "effective", but not that it provides the correct information. Just that it provides information, period. You know, like dropping a car off of a cliff makes it move. It doesn't make it move in a particularly useful manner, but it does move effectively. Beating a dog to death is a productive way to cause it to stop barking, but that doesn't mean it won't have an eventual downside.. Oh well, this is all purely hypothetical, since there's no chance of any of us being picked up. Not even by mistake, because this government has never made a mistake. Ever. posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 03:43 PM
Somehow I don't consider waterboarding to be simply a "discomfort" Tony, unless you think the feeling of drowning is merely an "uncomfortable" feeling. I also do not understand how you can say "productive" and "effective" are not the same as it "works" Mattloch. For something to work, it has to be effective.
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 03:47 PM
Also, this small tidbit of info about the US and its views on torture, prior to the Shrub taking office:Waterboarding dates at least to the Spanish Inquisition, when it was known as the tormenta de toca. It has been used by some of the most cruel dictatorships in modern times, including the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. In some versions of the technique, prisoners are strapped to a board, their faces covered with cloth or cellophane, and water is poured over their mouths to stimulate drowning; in others, they are dunked head-first into water. The United States has long considered waterboarding to be torture and a war crime. As early as 1901, a U.S. court martial sentenced Major Edwin Glenn to 10 years of hard labor for subjecting a suspected insurgent in the Philippines to the “water cure.” After World War II, U.S. military commissions successfully prosecuted as war criminals several Japanese soldiers who subjected American prisoners to waterboarding. A U.S. army officer was court-martialed in February 1968 for helping to waterboard a prisoner in Vietnam. posted by
mattloch
on Oct 26, 2006 at 04:03 PM
True Dusty, but something does not have to work for it to be effective. I've used the analogy of the 8th Air Force firebombing Germany civilian populations in WWII several times. The firebombing was effective (in killing hundreds of thousands of people), but did not work accomplishing the goal of decreasing industrial output. Just as a car dropping off of a cliff is an effective way of making it move, even if the engine doesn't work. Sorry to have to devolve into semantics, but since we've got an Administration that thrives on it, it seemed the way to go.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 26, 2006 at 04:09 PM
They also did a similar form of waterboarding during the Salem witch trials. I believe they called it dunking, but it was supposed to be a test on whether you were a witch or not. As far as the whole "works" "effective" or "productive" debate goes, it depends on whether you take the meanings literally or not. Semantics basically. I actually agree with mattloch, but I usually take the literal meaning. posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 04:14 PM
To insinuate to the general public that waterboarding is effective and productive..how to you think THEY view it in the context it is being used in? All I know is..less than 40 years ago the US considered waterboarding torture..now it's not..what changed and more importantly..who changed the definition?
posted by
TomW
on Oct 26, 2006 at 04:22 PM
I think it's the guy who used to brand people in college.
posted by
dusty1215
on Oct 26, 2006 at 04:24 PM
I think your right Tom.
posted by
blognroll
on Oct 26, 2006 at 09:16 PM
I've never been one for water sports. Waterboarding? I prefer skateboarding myself. As they say, "Different strokes for different folks." Our readers recommend: |
