The Truth About Torture

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Ric86 @ 07/16/2008 2:30:10 PM

    The left hates Bush more than they defend the innocent. We cannot win a political correct war, what the left wants for all things - sameness, at the expense of truth, freedom, not the protection of only innocent Americans.

    Now, even Bush hatred - and the left's confused priority of political correctness at any cost - is making it easier for those who wish to murder us to accomplish it.

    Liberalism (progressiveism - whatever you on the left want to call it) does not lead to the greater good, does not lead to more truth, does not lead to better values, it only lead to the opposite. Only, your hatred for our own matter more than the defense and safety and even survival of our own.

    The left hates Bush for ???torture???, and of course never mind the fact that thousands of innocent lives were saved once those plots were stopped; that does not matter, only opposition to Bush at every cost matters. And never a complaint about their own party.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664_pf.html

    To the left, you leave behind very little to be proud of. But al qaeda and radical islam certainly thanks you.

  • Posted By: DEBIWEB28 @ 07/15/2008 4:20:31 PM

    Bush wasn't the only one to believe Iraq had wmd's. He has always tried to do what is right for America. At least he has some morals unlike Clinton. I bet when the Bushes leave office there wont be un replacable antiques missing, as was with the Clintons. Iwonder how many American lives were lost because of the risoners in Cuba. Have you seen the videos that Al Quiada has released of Americans being hung and tortured, beheaded./ GET A GRIP.

    • Posted By: Granger1970 @ 07/16/2008 1:57:07 PM

      Um, no - Bush has always tried to do whatever he felt like doing for the purposes of his own ego and the pleasure of his wealthy cronies. What is right for America has never been part of his agenda, and that's the problem. Bush has no respect for his own country. He has nothing but utter contempt for our nation's laws and our ethical heritage. And you're worried about antiques? Get a grip? No, GET A CLUE.

  • Posted By: Jumpmaster82 @ 07/16/2008 1:20:06 PM

    Bull $#!+, Can all criminals come forward, discuss thier crimes and be exonerated?
    If not then no one else is above the LAW!

  • Posted By: halides1 @ 07/16/2008 10:36:41 AM

    Counterintuitive, but persuasive idea. May I offer two friendly amendments?
    1. Couple the pardon to full cooperation with the truth commission. Anyone who perjures himself or fails to offer testimony would be subject to proseculation.
    2. Let the mext president grant the pardons.
    Th information about how we have treated the detainees has dribbled out. We need to get it out completely in order to have a conversation about it.

    • Posted By: halides1 @ 07/16/2008 10:59:52 AM

      Oops, make that "prosecution," not "proseculation." The idea of linking the parton to testimony might help people sigh on to this idea who would otherwise be reluctant to do so. In my view, the more people know about what was done, the more they will be dismayed and clamor for the Geneva conventions and the older army field manual (FM 34-52?) to be our standard again.

  • Posted By: planolarry @ 07/13/2008 5:29:01 PM

    How has it happened that such immoral trash gets to put forth it's comments in Newsweek. Hey Newsweek. If your marketing people want to know why I will not subscribe to magazines or newspapers, and only get my news from the internet----------you have just discovered it. It looks like you have descended to the level of kkkarl rove-who you recently brought onboard.

    • Posted By: slaney black @ 07/16/2008 12:10:36 AM

      Ain't that the truth. Publishing inside the beltway one hand washes the other filth like this is the exact reason no one reads this damn rag anymore.

  • Posted By: tlees2 @ 07/13/2008 8:26:00 PM

    This is horse hockey. Prosecute Bush and Cheney for starters after they are impeached and convicted.

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/13/2008 9:08:55 PM

      Get real..How many times have you seen a president prosecuted or impeached...Besides Clinton, and Johnson...Well we havent seen Johnson get impeached, cause that was long ago...But you can count William Jefferson Clinton as going through the impeachment proceedings...What was it for lying in a court of law? What are we going to prosecute Bush for...? Cant prosecute a President for relying on the same info as Clinton did(see my earlier post). When Clinton says its o.k. to go drop bombs then its the word of God..Bush takes action and its evil...How silly to believe a known liar, that was caught lying again and again, and even got to the point of impeachment, compared to someone who relied on the info of a known liar and went to war on those same facts...

      • Posted By: slaney black @ 07/16/2008 12:04:57 AM

        This isn't about WMD's - it's about torture.

      • Posted By: metzlerd @ 07/14/2008 8:39:58 PM

        We've already seen repeated clips of Bush contradicting himself. He didn't just rely on information from somebody. Furthermore, he put both Cheney and Rumsfeld into office, and these guys were itching to invade Iraq so bad that they basically wrote a letter to Clinton telling him to do so back in the late 90's. The excuse for invading Iraq has just changed over the years to whatever is convenient at the time.

        • Posted By: susanmg @ 07/14/2008 10:22:00 PM

          My God, you call Clinton a liar and let Bush off the hook? I say it again, read "The Prosecution of GWB for Murder" by Vincent Bugliosi and then tell us that Bush tells the truth. Clinton was impeached by Republicans who just HAD to get something on him. How in the world did having a blow job with a consenting ADULT even get brought up? Do you not see how ludicrous that was? Bush lied us into war, lies to Congress, lies to everyone about what he's doing in secret, lies about terrorism (he has done more to create terrorists that al-queda could have done on their own, and he is NOT LOOKING for Bin Laden!

          • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/15/2008 9:55:46 AM

            Scary, isn't it? Also scary is that the administration now wants to start racial profiling. Great, so now our 50 year old Muslim IT guy is a terrorist simply b/c of his last name and Middle Eastern appearance. Nevermind that he's been in the country for 40+ years... Seriously, there are so many people that fail to see these steps toward facism. It smacks of Nazi principles.

  • Posted By: TomW21 @ 07/14/2008 4:46:15 AM

    This article expresses the most pathetic ideals I have ever read. How can you call yourself a man and not hold yourself accountable for your actions? How can we call ourselves the greatest nation and not hold our leaders accountable to the rule of law? You want to send a message? If the leaders of this country committed a crime put them on trial and if they are found guilty send them to jail like everyone else. I don???t care if it takes 10 years as long as the outcome is fair and correct.

    Blatantly telling your government that you will not hold them accountable is the most dangerous thing a nation can ever do. We demand that every nation obey laws, except our own? And you wonder why people hate us?

    The truth is the author is too weak to stand up to the very people whose paycheck he signs

    • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/14/2008 9:19:46 AM

      While I do not condone torture, It is amazing how our own citizens have this distorted view of our own country. The US is pretty much the only country that actually DOES follow the Geneva convention. Yet, one small perception of wrong doing has the extremists out in swarms. Where in the hell is such an outcry when our own citizens are captured, tortured, murdered, raped, etc.... But we get so up in arms because we "deprived someone of sleep" or "scared them with dogs", or "humliated them in this or that fashion".

      Problem is that our own citizens are pathetic and weak and willing to sell us out without having all the facts on an emotional whim. I would suggest for the bleeding hearts, to go pick up a weapon and join the brave individuals who are engaged in protecting your freedoms. Get a first hand experience at the things you so easily criticize before opening your mouths.

      Many seem to believe that we are a monster of a country engaged in torture. I would suggest that many have no stinking clue as to what real torture actually is.

      As for crimes, historically it has been a crime of treason to publically defame our country during a time of war. There have been many "heros" to the far left who have bad mouthed our administration in foreign countries while at war. Other's (such as our press) have been guilty of emboldening our enemies by their words against the government - again during a time of war. For those who have blatantly opposed their own country in the press - and have been a source of inspiration for enemy attacks, I sincerely hope you can look yourself in the mirror because you are partially responsible for the deaths of those attacked after inspiring the hearts of our enemies to attack. These kinds of actions have also historically been considered crimes ... i.e. treason... punishable by death. Yet no one bothers considering the consequences that their words have on those serving - nor do they think they should be held accountable.

      • Posted By: slaney black @ 07/16/2008 12:03:35 AM

        Sir: Thank you for your service to our country. As a fellow veteran I understand your defensiveness. But you're being conned. This isn't some scared draftees in Nam slapping around a VC prisoner for information out of mortal fear for their lives. This is a whole apparatus of lawyers, spooks and bureaucrats doing things behind closed doors. If you think those clowns are on the average enlisted man's side, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

        Oh, and I find your comment about reason puzzling. Are you sure you were serving America and not Kaiserist Germany?

      • Posted By: metzlerd @ 07/14/2008 8:22:08 PM

        You have some serious issues.
        Our country is only as great as our willingness to fight for the ideals that our forefathers established. As soon as we start making excuses for why we need to commit crimes, we become guilty of the defaming of our country that you spoke of. Our laws are there to protect freedoms that we recognize that all people deserve.

        However, since you seem so intent on sugarcoating torture, I'm sure you'll support efforts to dispense with all this talk of pardons. I expect you to get behind an effort to "force them to tell the truth", using their own tactics. We ought to be able to gain some quick confessions by subjecting all of these people to Waterboarding and the same tactics you want to sugarcoat.

        Any objections to that? At the very least there need be no talk of pardons.

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/14/2008 9:32:49 AM

        The allegations go far beyond sleep deprivation and water-boarding, both of which are classified as torture, by the way. Some of these allegations involve rape (yes, of men), severe beatings, broken bones, and other horrific accounts. This isn't defamation of our country...it's people who are trying to maintain the dignity and honor that make this country a great place to live. True, many countries don't abide by the Geneva rules. This is why they are not considered the greatest country on the planet. When you start saying, "Why should we have to do it if they don't??", you lose everything our forefathers stood for...you lose everything our men and women fought and died for. My grandfather was a WWII pilot and fought courageously against torture and terrible regimes. I am glad he is not with us today, because he would be greatly saddened to see our country condoning the things we fought against just a few generations ago.

        • Posted By: errol44 @ 07/14/2008 5:33:41 PM

          This is the same neo-con spin we have heard for the last five years. Thank God, most Americans now understand that fascism, ala Bush, is not acceptable in America and will not be tolerated. There are still countries where you might go if that is the type of government you wish to live under. Go to North Korea and bad mouth Kim Jong Il . see where that gets you. No sir, we are done with neo-cons and neo-fascism in this country and I invite you, if you don't like it, to spread your wings and fly to whatever fascist country you choose... our Constitution guarantees you that freedom. (And for your info.. I served many years in the US Army, and for that very reason, I have as much right as anybody to speak out against dangerous idealism such as yours.

  • Posted By: slaney black @ 07/15/2008 11:55:52 PM

    This article is a disgrace to America and everything it stands for. By your very words, you are a traitor to the constitution and the country, sir. You act like it's a big f'ing surprise that the Constitution exists, or the Geneva Convention, or just basic goddamn principles of Americanism and human decency. Oopsie! Sorry, didn't know I wasn't supposed to TORTURE PEOPLE! My mistake.

    On the Last Day, Mr. Taylor, how will you answer for this? May the Lord judge you harshly.

  • Posted By: slaney black @ 07/15/2008 11:55:33 PM

    This article is a disgrace to America and everything it stands for. By your very words, you are a traitor to the constitution and the country, sir. You act like it's a big f'ing surprise that the Constitution exists, or the Geneva Convention, or just basic goddamn principles of Americanism and human decency. Oopsie! Sorry, didn't know I wasn't supposed to TORTURE PEOPLE! My mistake.

    On the Last Day, Mr. Taylor, how will you answer for this? May the Lord judge you harshly.

  • Posted By: straleno @ 07/15/2008 11:22:26 PM

    One of the most disgracefully un-American things I've read in a long time. So much for that "nation of laws, not of men" stuff. Oh, well. It was fun while it lasted.

  • Posted By: straleno @ 07/15/2008 11:21:28 PM

    One of the most disgracefully un-American things I've read in a long time. So much for that quaint "nation of laws, not of men" stuff.

  • Posted By: JeffStew @ 07/15/2008 10:15:06 PM

    Shame on Stuart Taylor Jr.
    He endangers every soldier, sailor, or marine who ever is captured in the future.
    More importantly, torture is about us. We are the ones who control, and are responsible for our government's actions.
    Torture was, is, and continues to be a war crime. The fact the president was able to find some shills with law degrees to "authorize" an enhanced interrogation techniques does in NO WAY immunize him from prosecution for his crimes.

    Shame on this Stuart Taylor Jr. How does he look in the mirror? There is something missing in his moral development. He needs help; not a voice at Newsweek.
    Jeffrey T Stewart
    SFC, USA
    Retired

  • Posted By: errol44 @ 07/14/2008 5:16:24 PM

    These are crimes, Mr. Taylor, and I for one am no longer in the mood for giving neo-cons a free pass to break the law and subvert our Constitution. We need to send a forceful message to these criminals that this will not be tolerated in America. This is our country, the White House belongs to the people, not to Bush as he is so apt to assert. He and his have been criminal stewards of our executive office and it needs to be stopped.

    • Posted By: thrasher32 @ 07/14/2008 5:28:25 PM

      * APPLAUSE *

      • Posted By: susanmg @ 07/14/2008 10:10:08 PM

        standing ovation!!!

        • Posted By: jxl269 @ 07/15/2008 7:51:44 PM

          This country has been on the wrong path for too long. Our country and government has essentially became the one of superrich, for the superrich, and by the superrich

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/15/2008 5:48:32 PM

    This president had another press conference today and made faces at practically all of the questions, as if he were in the presence of undesirables. His facial expressions and his answers showed his disdain for anyone who dares to ask him a question about our government, as if it is his private domain and none of our business. All of his answers to questions asked to elicit facts are immediately argumentative instead of informative. This man doesn't even understand the basics of his duty. He is our servant by law, not our ruler, and he owes us answers to the questions which are asked of him. We will be rid of him in a few months. I am a little apprehensive about the successor candidate of his party, and hopeful that the angered responses that he gives to the press will not lead us down this same narrowing path, the end of which seems to be to ignore the press and the public's right to know. We need to be very careful who we let into this office. Too many duds and even the United States of America, in all of its grandeur, could fall from sheer incompetence in its highest office if this happens too many times in a row. Vote smart.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/15/2008 5:37:14 PM

    This president, who claims to think so much of our military people, suspends the rules of the Geneva Convention for temporary convenience. He has no vision at all of how he has also thereby suspended the rules of the Geneva Convention for our troops in future wars and condemned our military people in those wars to torture for the convenience of those who will refer to his precedent in abolishing these rules.
    The principle of reciprocity is a little too complicated for his simplistic "play cowboy" mind, what little of it that he possesses. It is doubtful that he could rope a calf, or know what to do with it if he did, being only a celluloid president anyway. How poorly we have been served by those who thrust this inadequate man into that high office, way beyond his reach. Come home, troops. Come home.

  • Posted By: tc125231 @ 07/15/2008 1:43:42 PM

    So, is this our legacy from Nurmeberg? We prosecute others for War Crimes, but not ourselves?

    That will lead to convincing diplomacy....

  • Posted By: rkhatal @ 07/15/2008 10:10:24 AM

    Saddam was hanged for ordering execution of 140 Shias who tried to kill him. Sudan's president is wanted "war criminal" for putting down a revolt brutally.

    Bush told press that Saddam was the man who tried to kill his daddy. Perhaps killing of all those Iraqis can be considered "execution" of the people who tried to kill his daddy.

    In Falujah US troops opened fire on unarmed protesters killing 17 of them. Which started an uprising which was brutally put down. Actually most of the war since then can be called quashing a rebellion.

    The difference is that we have spin doctors like this author to pardon whateve US does. Learn from mistakes.. hmm isn't that what was said after world war II about Japanese encampments ? Isn't that was said about Holocaust - yet we had Gitmo and Bosnian war !

  • Posted By: mikeinportc @ 07/13/2008 8:19:39 PM

    "But Congress has defined torture very narrowly. The OLC has advised officials since 2002 that some highly coercive methods???including waterboarding, which is assailed by most of the world as torture???do not violate the federal anti-torture law. "

    The OLC opinions weren't independent offerings of a disinterested third party. They were part and parcel of the torture policy, specifically designed to provide cover for the torture. They are also just opinions, not the law.
    Congress can "define" all they want, to cover BushCo posteriors, but that doesn't override international law, as defined by covenants to which the US is a signitary. THOSE laws have the the force of the Constitution, or what the Constitution used to have.

    We know enough . We don't need to give war criminals a free pass .(Failure to prosecute is itself a crime.) Prosecution may make the process more difficult, but it will do more to discourage future lawbreaking than pardons.

    You are also forgetting about Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions . The transport of prisoners out of an occupied territory ( to Guantanamo, etc) is a crime . That very clearly happened.

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/13/2008 8:52:02 PM

      Well there certainly isnt enough room for all the prisoners in AbuGhraib..And everyone knows prisoners of high value are sent there to Cuba..Its not a secret...And all nations practice some form of torture..Its niave to think its NOT done in one form or another....From sleep deprivation to scaring the crap out of prisoners to talk, to even waterboarding...Just because nations agree to not torture doesnt mean it isnt done by all the nations that agreed. Im sure that if there is a Dem President, that administration wouldnt use any form of torture to get info they need or want..They most certainly would..And contrary to what Libs and left wingers believe..The "enemies" of the U.S. arent going to just drop the wants and desire to hurt the U.S. any way they can. They are hoping that a Dem gets elected knowing that he would drop the ball on homeland security...And if he does and the worst happens, you can bet your ass everyone would be busy blaming Bush and praising Obama for at least trying to show we were a peaceful nation trying to placate the world...

      • Posted By: tc125231 @ 07/14/2008 2:48:52 PM

        "all nations practice some form of torture...." Is this a statement of religious faith? Or do you actually have empirical evidence? Personally, I am skeptical. Prior to 2001, the US didn't --hadn't--practiced organized torture for a very long time. If you think the current situation is more challenging than WWII, chump, you need to learn how to read, and then go to a library and read some history.

        • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/14/2008 5:10:19 PM

          Chump?...You are seriously disillusioned to think this hasnt been going on...The left wing media gets this stuff going and acts as though it has never happened before Bush 2..Boy have you been snowed...Guarantee if Obama gets elected and we are at war with say...I dont know Iran...We will not hear one thing about torture...Left wing media will paint it like the "prisoners" are just giving up info because they love Obama...Maybe you should pull your head out of the sand and look at whats BEEN going on for centuries..No matter the president or country for that matter they ALL operate on info for protecting there own...And if a terrorist is caught alive?..You can bet whatever country has them they will not just simply ask and receive what they want from him/her..Looks like YOU need to brush up on your history and realize its not like 1950's Hollywood portrayed it.

          • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/15/2008 9:57:18 AM

            Yeah, because leading naked guys around on leashes and raping them with broomsticks TOTALLY is a strategy to get truth. Um, no, it's just simple minds looking for a cruel, sadistic form of entertainment.

          • Posted By: metzlerd @ 07/14/2008 8:57:59 PM

            You sound like your under some illusion that torture begets truth. One of the reasons torture is wrong is it DOES NOT GIVE TRUTH. People just tell you what they think you want them to tell you.

            The way to get people to be truthful is to motivate the to provide the truth. The threat of torture and beatings is not a motivation to tell truth, but to do whatever it takes to get those things to stop; including naming the defensive line of the Greenbay Packers or the Steelers as co-conspirators. It's a way to get people to provide stories, but not to provide facts.

  • Posted By: Finnigan @ 07/14/2008 8:17:33 PM

    It's silly to say that the only way to get them to talk is to grant them immunity. We should simply waterboard them. They can't raise any legal objections, since it's not torture. I have a feeling that the chickenhawks would be squealing in no time.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/15/2008 9:48:07 AM

      Lol, I like your idea...

  • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/13/2008 6:19:30 PM

    Clintons era never tortured. yeah right!...He downright bombed Iraq to try and divert from HIS little scandal of the woman he "did not have sex with"....Lets take a walk down memory lane shall we?.. 12/16/98 During the Lewenski scandal...CLINTON: Good evening.
    Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
    Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
    Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
    I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
    Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
    The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
    The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
    The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."..Why would Bush be ridiculed for finishing the job that Clinton failed to do in Iraq? He never finished Somalia, or Serbia...We know torture wasnt used in these conflicts...Yeah right...Lets charge Clinton with killing "innocent Iraqis" to try and get out of his debacle.

    • Posted By: susanmg @ 07/14/2008 10:28:00 PM

      The difference is that THIS time, Iraq WAS cooperating with the UN inspectors, who asked for a little more time to complete their work (Bush wouldn't give it to them because he KNEW there was nothing to find, and he wanted to attack), Hussein had no WMDs, and he was actually a sworn enemy of the Taliban, so he was keeping them out of Iraq. We couldn't have done more to encourage terrorism if Bush had given Bin Laden a wing of the White House. "The Prosecution of GWB for Murder" by Vincent Bugliosi will answer your questions.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse