‘Holy Hell’ Over Torture Memos

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 04/03/2009 5:17:19 PM

    Blueoval, if your life of the life of someone you care about is risked in order for our country to be above the "dogs" you speak of, and there is a possibility of eliminating that risk by using interrogation techniques that are deemed to be wrong by you, how would you feel then?

    • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/03/2009 5:20:10 PM

      That is the talk of a coward.

  • Posted By: waterlilys @ 04/03/2009 6:29:38 PM

    To Attt Gen Holder: To heck with releasing memos PROSECUTE those who admitted torturing!

    • Posted By: Hannah B @ 04/03/2009 6:41:03 PM

      Not only those who ADMITTED torturing, but also anyone associated with torture during a comprehensive investigation in to the whole sorry situation...ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO AUTHORIZED IT!!! Ship 'em off to the Hague!!!

  • Posted By: Blueoval @ 04/03/2009 6:00:39 PM

    Brian, I just don't believe in the concept that torture will you get the truth. It will certainly get you what you want to hear a lot of times. And for you "because it's stupid", the grown ups are talking here.

  • Posted By: deancc @ 04/03/2009 5:07:26 PM

    Who is the Obama administration really working for? We are bad and the enemy is good? We may have made mistakes but don't prostitute your party,Obama! The way I feel right now, If your party members where whith me in battle and I was asked to charge the enemy. I would shoot your party members first before I would shoot the enemy as I would have a better chanch of living!

    • Posted By: joe_mama @ 04/03/2009 6:00:17 PM

      "I would shoot your party members first before I would shoot the enemy as I would have a better chanch of living!"

      Spoken like a TRUE American

      Love,

      JM

      PS--in case you didn't know....the terrorists hate Obama too

    • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/03/2009 5:20:48 PM

      No you wouldn't.

  • Posted By: bobcomment @ 04/03/2009 5:41:09 PM

    of course it is better for a thousand americans to die rather than a terrorist suffer non-life threatening torture. because if we are nicer to terrorists than we have been, then europe will like us more, and then the terrorists will also like us and they will stop trying to kill us. and then we can all sing kumbaya.

    • Posted By: LaughingVergil @ 04/03/2009 5:54:06 PM

      It amazes me how many people seem to believe that two wrongs *can* make a right, the ends justify the means, or sin in God's name is no sin.

      Torture: Wrong. Terrorism: Wrong. What's so hard to understand about the concept that both of these things are wrong? Is it for some reason impossible to believe that there is no answer but torture? It was Jesus, during the sermon on the mount, who said:

      "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

  • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 04/03/2009 5:41:39 PM

    Posted By: dgongor2 @ 04/03/2009 5:30:53 PM Even the discussion of using Torture is so-UnAmerican, so depraved, and so barbaric that I can't believe any American would even consider it's use. It is like saying it is okay to use rape if your wife refuses you.

    ^^^^ Is that serious?? That must be a joke. Let's break that down. In that analogy, I am guessing the wife that gets raped is supposed to be the person being tortured, and the husband that rapes the wife is the CIA. So you are saying the CIA is married to the terrorists they harshly interrogated? And the CIA is mad at it's wife because it's not getting the answers it craves? Riiiiiight.

  • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 04/03/2009 5:36:04 PM

    No one wishes to live by the standards of barbarians. If they had not attacked us in a barbaric way, they would have never been detained. We didn't go seek them out just on a hunch and torture them. My point is, if you do not get the information out of a terrorist that could save even 1 American life simply to make sure your nobility is maintained, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. What is a better principle to live by: 1) Be as humane and respectful as you can to all detained terrorists even if it could mean innocent lives lost. 2) Use harsh interrogation techniques, maybe break the arm of a terrorist, and save innocent lives?

    By your logic, a broken bone in a terrorists body is worth more than the information we could get from him to save innocent lives. And my way is barbaric?

  • Posted By: dgongor2 @ 04/03/2009 5:30:53 PM

    How can anyone hold rational discussion about the Pro and Cons of Torture? Even the discussion of using Torture is so-UnAmerican, so depraved, and so barbaric that I can't believe any American would even consider it's use. It is like saying it is okay to use rape if your wife refuses you. It is the stuff nightmares and the Black Hole of Calcutta. Have we become BEASTS?

  • Posted By: Blueoval @ 04/03/2009 4:50:16 PM

    Every kid that ever enlisted in the Armed Forces of the United States is taught about the Geneva Conventions. There is a reason we don't torture, it is suppose to protect us.

    • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/03/2009 5:22:29 PM

      "There is a reason we don't torture, it is suppose to protect us. "

      A better reason: Because we have principles.

  • Posted By: spiritsof1776 @ 04/03/2009 5:18:31 PM

    Either you believe these harsh interogation techniques are justified for getting information from terrorists or you do not. If you do not and you hate Bush then you call it torture. If you believe the tactics are justified then you may deny harsh techniques are torture. But the law is ambiguous. The solution is to define what is legal and what is not going forward. Attempts to use the laws and courts to expand law to criminalize activity you disagree with is wrong. This is a question for the congress, which is the law making body representing the citizens, to answer. No law they pass may apply retroactively. This is to prevent the political mischief some are advocating.

    • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/03/2009 5:19:49 PM

      If you have to hide it, it's probably torture. Just saying.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 04/03/2009 2:54:34 PM

    Yeah, I noticed where the ACLU was worked up over the release of these memos. Then I e-mailed the ACLU asking this:

    There are over 21,000 pages of still-classified documents bearing upon the Waco Branch Davidian siege that are over 14 years old. Why has your offices never pressed for the release of even one page of these documents?

    I am awaiting their response......... I will get to Holder later and ask for an explanation from his JD as well.

    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/03/2009 3:16:03 PM

      You wouldn't mind if those of us who are interested found out about the Bush administration's policy on institutionalized torture, would you?

      (Btw, let me know what you find out about 8 years of Bush stonewalling us on Waco when you find out. Ok?)

      • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 04/03/2009 5:13:05 PM

        Not at all.


        But I want those Waco documents as all Americans should,as they would also shed light on government malfeasance and possible criminality. You will be reminded that over twenty books inlcluding major bestsellers detailing the Bush administrations ''war on terror'' have been penned in less than six years.

        Yet to date,not one single definitive history of the Branch Davidian siege has been written due precisely to the foiled efforts of historians and civil liberties groups to get the Waco documents unlocked. If you can come up with an effective ''national security''argument as to why documents held for four times as long as the Bush memos should not yet be released,then by all means,regale us with your legal acumen.

    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/03/2009 3:12:16 PM

    • Posted By: Bethany724 @ 04/03/2009 3:00:45 PM

      friendofamerica--Will you please stop with the "he kept us safe since 9/11" garbage? What about 9/11? What didnt he keep us safe then?? Why didnt he listen to the prior administrations warnings/advice regarding Al Quida?? I guess you still are blaming CLINTON for it all, huh? Is there anything that the Bush Administration will take responsiblity for??
      As for torture --- it is ILLEGAL no matter what you rename it!!!
      IT DOESNT WORK!! There has been no information garnered through "rendition" or "torture" or new "interrogation techniques" that have provided any USEFUL information. NONE!!!
      Now the people who have participated in and authorized any of the above will have to answer for it.
      The prior administration was into many many things ILLEGAL and it is now time to pay the ferryman!!!

  • Posted By: Blueoval @ 04/03/2009 5:09:10 PM

    Bryan, I realize that Al Qaeda and other terrorist orgainzations do not care about the Geneve Conventions, it's not a "liberal" thing. The Japanese and Germans, as well as the Vietcong didn't abide by them either, thus my point about holding ourselves out as being better people. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

  • Posted By: AmyinCA @ 04/03/2009 5:06:40 PM

    Torture is a war crime!! If we do not do a proper investigation and prosecution (if warranted) we are just as complicit as if we all authorized torture.

  • Posted By: AmyinCA @ 04/03/2009 5:06:15 PM

    Torture is a war crime!! If we do not do a proper investigation and prosecution (if warranted) we are just as complicit as if we all authorized torture.

  • Posted By: usa999 @ 04/03/2009 3:38:25 PM

    If terrorists want POW status and the protections that go with it then put on a uniform. It use to be with the rule of war to do whatever needed when an enemy combatant was in civilian clothes. Lets not fight this war, and it is a war, with one hand behind our back. No torture for POW's but anything goes for terrorists in civilian clothes. They have been warned it's their choice.

    • Posted By: skrekk @ 04/03/2009 5:00:42 PM

      Please read the Convention Against Torture sometime - a treaty the US wrote. POW status has nothing to do with the universal prohibition of torture. Article 2.2: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

    • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/03/2009 4:40:59 PM

      "If terrorists want POW status and the protections that go with it then put on a uniform."

      Their status does not justify torture on our part.

  • Posted By: Blueoval @ 04/03/2009 4:54:17 PM

    Every kid that ever enlisted or was drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States was taught about the Geneva Conventions. We were always proud of the fact that we held ourselves out to be better than those that would resort to torture. It was in our best interest to abide by the rules of the Geneva Conventions. Then along comes the Bush-Cheney Crime Family, who certainly never distinguished themselves in uniform, and throw out all the rulebooks. "No one is above the law" sounds very noble, but we're only kidding ourselves if we belive that. No one wants a drawn-out political fight over war crimes, but it could happen.

  • Posted By: smitty113 @ 04/03/2009 3:09:17 PM

    I love naiveness at it's best. Let's just go ahead and let it all out - let's go after a past president for a sanctioned war - let s go after his advisers too... then let's see how our govt will no longer be able to function. I am curious as we move forward into Afghanistan (which is a War folks) or if we are attacked again (which is probably very likely with all that is hsppening) and Obama has to make tough decisions to protect this country will you be soooo willing to prosecute him? Please... I don;t think so. People need to think with their brains not their political ignorance and realize being president is not easy - hind sight is very easy - and no one should be sitting at th ehelm of this nation if they are not ready to risk all to protect it.

    • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/03/2009 4:42:03 PM

      " Let's just go ahead and let it all out - let's go after a past president for a sanctioned war "

      It isn't the war that is being pursued, but alleged illegal acts on prisoners.

    • Posted By: HuntTheWumpus @ 04/03/2009 3:35:36 PM

      Based on your argument, let's put the "shoe on the other foot": If the Iraqis were to capture US forces and apply the same techniques to protect THEIR country, would you think it was OK? I think the point being made is no one should believe they are above the law. If you decide to change the rules while the game is in play, then you must be ready to face grave consequences, if warranted.

    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/03/2009 3:20:44 PM

      I am so impressed when opposition to torture is dismissed as "political ignorance".

  • Posted By: jackbauer24 @ 04/03/2009 3:39:42 PM

    I think that we need more jack bauers in this world....

    • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/03/2009 4:40:27 PM

      Because TV = real life. Way to go, little guy!

  • Posted By: rlfstred @ 04/03/2009 2:29:21 PM

    The past is the past. What good would it do to release these papers now. Obama said no torture,so be it.
    Let us concentrate on this adminastration not on Bush's.

    • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/03/2009 4:39:48 PM

      "'What good would it do to release these papers now. "

      And crimes are crimes. Time to expose this bullshit to the light of day.

    • Posted By: Californiac @ 04/03/2009 4:12:20 PM

      So if I break into your house and rob you, it will be OK with you if the police don't investigate, the DA doesn't prosecute, so long as I promise I won't do it again? After all, the past is past, right?

    • Posted By: YankeeLady @ 04/03/2009 3:40:53 PM

      If wrongdoing was committed it needs to be addressed. If there was criminal activity then there needs to be accountability. Changing of the guard does not wipe the slate clean.

    • Posted By: YankeeLady @ 04/03/2009 3:40:40 PM

      If wrongdoing was committed it needs to be addressed. If there was criminal activity then there needs to be accountability. Changing of the guard does not wipe the slate clean.

  • Posted By: snodv @ 04/03/2009 4:31:55 PM

    It doesn't matter who is embarrassed. If you're going to be embarrassed when the light shines in your corner, clean up your corner. It's not the light's fault. Our President promises disclosure and transparency, we want disclosure and transparency. And let's not flinch from prosecuting those who have ignored or set themselves above the law. Nixon said ,"When the president does it , it's not against the law." One of the Louies said, "L'etat, c'est moi"- I AM the state. The US needs to show this cannot apply here any longer. Disclose. Reveal. Prosecute.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse