The Moral Burden

Obama's ethical certitude has wavered with the torture issue.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: jstepp590 @ 07/15/2009 11:07:29 AM

    Horsepucky, bad article. Don't confuse President Obama's lack of enthusiasm with dragging this into a vicious partison battle distraction with his desire (shared by me) to ban all torture practices in use by our government. He did close the CIA black sites and banned any interrogation techniques that were not authorized by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). That was what we voted for him to do and that is what he did.

    I have no problem killing someone if they are dangerous, I'll kick the chair out from under them or pull the trigger myself. That being said, I wouldn't torture a dog. I do not want our government given that power because it will eventually be used against our citizens and that will be the end of our republic when it leads us into conflict with our own government. Besides, torture is a very ineffective means of extracting information but a wonderful means of getting people to confess to whatever you want them to say, which is the traditional use of torture. I do not trust our government with this and never will.

  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/04/2009 12:45:51 PM

    Still fomenting paranoia and hate on here, Paul EJB? Don't you have anything better to do with your life?

  • Posted By: dicere @ 04/30/2009 5:10:11 PM

    Mr. Fineman needs something to write about soon. Soon they will be no one on which to blame except those who are in power. The Dems need something to distract, like a magician, in order to further the agenda at the rate Mr Fineman would like. Seveal months ago I commented on Mr Fineman's article on ramming through the stim package without reading it. Thing were so bad the article went that speed was more prudent than reading the bill which approved the AIG and many other blunders found and not found.

    To continue the dem agenda speed, distraction, diminishment, and emblelishment will be the key to success. These are the hallmarks of the progressive campaign and Mr. Fineman is one of their finest advocates.

    Robin Hood



  • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 04/25/2009 10:50:06 AM

    paproudmom-I saw your post, thank you. Not to worry.

    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/27/2009 3:22:42 PM

      Glad you saw it - I felt really bad about the way I sounded. Take care.

  • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/27/2009 12:34:11 PM

    Izzageek: Can't post under reply so here is my answer - No No No No No & No it is not right to call someone that. Try to turn this answer around if you can. I say what I believe I don't worry if someone won't like it.

  • Posted By: Aditya Mookerjee @ 04/26/2009 3:26:22 AM

    If torture is not the right way, which it is not, then an adequate prison sentence advocating an existence, for the prisoner, that the Spartans would deem as Spartan, is strongly advocated. In India, the police use torture, because the serious criminal, escapes the clutches of the law, and is undeterred by the punitive action which is the result. If the prisoner can live a Spartan life, and change his/her outlook towards life, similar to that of the U S Marines, then, a great service is done to society, particularly United States society.

  • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 04/25/2009 3:35:29 PM

    paproudmom-Thanks. I saw your post to me. No worries.

  • Posted By: Quark01 @ 04/25/2009 2:17:05 PM

    There will be no probe now that both parties have something to lose. What I find most disgusting is that we have troops in prison for these acts. But we now know that Congress ??? both parties ??? knew about it and by action or inaction, sanctioned it. They let those kids go to trial and now sit back and do nothing while they are imprisoned. Where???s the outrage over that? These kids deserve pardons. Where is the petition for them.

    There is no morality in politics. These people all do only what it takes to get reelected - and enrich themselves in the meantime.

  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/25/2009 2:15:43 PM

    JohnGaltlaketahoe-

    Please stop plugging up this board.

  • Posted By: Quark01 @ 04/25/2009 2:14:32 PM

    There will be no probe now that both parties have something to lose. What I find most disgusting is that we have troops in prison for these acts. But we now know that Congress ??? both parties ??? knew about it and by action or inaction, sanctioned it. They let those kids go to trial and now sit back and do nothing while they are imprisoned. Where???s the outrage over that? These kids deserve pardons.

  • Posted By: Discernment @ 04/22/2009 9:33:17 PM

    VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION, , , If Dick Cheney truly believed torture works, then why did he not come to the defense of (pregnant) Corporal Lynndie England who was carrying out his torture policies at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison?

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 04/23/2009 10:17:41 AM

      What a disgrac e Cheney was regarding that girl. He sat there and let a pregnant girl take the blame. A young girl who was only following his orders. What a loser.

      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 11:01:46 AM

        What orders did Cheney give to this pregnant woman Pia?

        • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 04/23/2009 11:10:03 AM

          Well , well, it's Signor Bojack! Come vai? Bene?

          Come now B, let's not play a little naive game, okay? You know Cheney gave orders to torture and humiliate the prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

          • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 11:22:15 AM

            Hello Pia,

            Where is the evidence Pia? It is easy to accuse someone without evidence. so what about all the democrats who signed off approving this torture as well? Or are you going to excuse them for claiming ignorance of the issue? Just like they claim ignorance on the issue of AIG Bonuses!

            • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 04/23/2009 11:30:49 AM

              Bojack-I don't have the "evidence" right in front of me. We all know that there are "evidence" memos on who gave what orders starting from the top. And of course the Dems approved of it too, no one involved with this is innocent. Also, there is evidence in the Abu Ghraib memos that Cheney and Rumsfeld were top officials giving out these orders!

              • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 11:49:02 AM

                Everyone seems to forget the purpose of torture! Yes I said purpose! If one is torturing someone else for the own private entertainment, then I doubt you have high officials giving these orders to untrained soldiers in a prison. What information could a private extract from the enemy?

                What I trying to make you see is that those whose job is to professionally extract evidence from enemy combatants would have been given the order instead of those who guarded prisoners of war. Especially when those who were guarding these prisoners weren't even Military Police. Just think about what you are saying when you say that Cheney gave them permission to do this highly publicized hazing/torture of prisoners.

                • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 04/23/2009 11:57:07 AM

                  Bojack-I apologize for not addressing the entire subject here. I'm busy right now. I will say though that whatever the reason for it, torture is cruel and brutal! The victims suffer no matter what the purpose of torture is. That's what torture is meant to do, to physically hurt and mentally and emotionally terrorize a human being.

                  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 12:15:18 PM

                    That is why I said there is a purpose for torture. If it means to torture one human being to save the lives of hundreds or even thousands of human beings then so be it. What is cruel is to do absolutely nothing in the face of such evil and try the approach of coddling your enemy like he is your long lost friend.

                    This administration is just making it easier for extremist to manipulate their way into the system and tie the hands of their lifelong enemy AMERICA.

                    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 12:42:44 PM

                      "That is why I said there is a purpose for torture."

                      We prosecuted the Japanese for torture for waterboarding. There was outrage over waterboarding after the Korean War. John McCain was tortured in Vietnam and is vocally against it.

                      We, as a country, have always been against torture.

                      Then Bush, Cheney, Rummy and the neocons came along and decided torture is a good thing. Hmmmmmm.

                      • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/24/2009 8:18:24 AM

                        We also bombed Japan when we weighed the death toll of an invasion versus the bombing. I am also struck by the fact that we face a different enemy. Terrorist are not really a "country" and as such their tactics are different. Are we to just protect ourselves using strategy from years ago when the threat is different. If as a nation we become so morally smug that we miss the need to protect ourselves evidently could we have no nation left to protect. These are not easy decisions to be dismissed with rhetoric from the left or not thought out fully by the right. Just some of the thoughts that come to mind.

                        • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/24/2009 7:21:17 PM

                          How does this relate to the subject of this article or the torture program devised at the highest levels of the White House and condemned by prominent republicans and senior military?

                          What rhetoric from the left?

                      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 1:24:34 PM

                        We will have to wait for the verdict on this on 40

                        Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 12:28:39 PMThe ends doesn't justify the means. Hmmm do you hear that? the sound of silence of no terrorist attacks since 911 on American soil.

                        If this administration manages to do the same then you can have tangible evidence to make such statements. Only time will tell and we will see if the end result will justfy the means.

                        • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 1:35:50 PM

                          No. The end does not justify the means.

                          That's why we were primary advocates for the Geneva Conventions. It's why there was all the furor following WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam. It is why we prosecuted Japanese for doing the same things that the Bush administration institutionalized.

                          Even if you had some proof that torture was effective...

                          • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 3:40:24 PM

                            40 this is the problem with this administration. They think that we are living in a fantasy world and that our enemy which has violated every rule under heaven is going to abide by the same policies that we govern ourselves by.

                            So tell me when they blow up children and civilians are they abiding by the Geneva Convention? One must know their enemy and use every means to destroy them before they destroy you. War is the destruction of your enemy and if you think that muslim countries will not destroy millions of people to justify the destruction of Israel or the United States. Then you my friend are living in a dream world.

                            It is obvious that the majority of the American people have elected a Muslim to the highest office in the country. It would seem that we have offended Obama's muslim brothers and sisters. Maybe that is why he bowed to the King of Saudi to show his submission and get into the grace of his fellow muslims.

                            • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 7:16:05 PM

                              The end does not justify the means, bojack. We didn't didn't advocate incorporating our ideals and standards into the Geneva Conventions for only those who follow them. It's intent is to make torture a crime no matter who commits it.

                              • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/24/2009 3:59:57 PM

                                40 I understand this and this is not the point that I'm debating with you. Your broad brushing of Institutionalize torture during the Bush Administration is overreaching and it smears those who do not or would not condone such behavior.

                                That is the United States Army, so when you tell me that it was Institutionalize all the way down to the soldiers this is a slander to all soldiers. Just as this Homeland Defense policy of grouping returning Veterans with the like of Terrorists, you are painting with the same broad brush....IMO

                                • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/24/2009 7:18:16 PM

                                  I'm not broad brushing anything. I am focused on the facts about an organized torture program identified to have been devised at the highest levels of the White House as described and condemned by republican senators and senior military in that Senate commitee report. That's what I'm debating with you.

                • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/23/2009 12:03:16 PM

                  "Everyone seems to forget the purpose of torture! "

                  There is no excuse. The ends do not justify the means.

                  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 12:28:39 PM

                    The ends doesn't justify the means. Hmmm do you hear that? the sound of silence of no terrorist attacks since 911 on American soil.

                    If this administration manages to do the same then you can have tangible evidence to make such statements. Only time will tell and we will see if the end result will justfy the means!

                    • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/23/2009 3:06:23 PM

                      "The ends doesn't justify the means. "

                      Correct.

    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 11:05:36 AM

      I believe the two situations are not equal. She was subjecting prisoners too mistreatment for kicks as opposed to trying to extract information that could protect this country.

      • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/23/2009 11:49:55 AM

        Actually, she was doing exactly as she was told.

        Her immediate supervisors were punished alongside her. General Karpinski was disgraced. Rumsfeld and Cheney got away with it.

        • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 12:23:41 PM

          Where is the proof? I have research this and seen none.

          • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 12:37:23 PM

            She was on The News Hour With Jim Lehrer last night. She says that the practices were imported on her from Gitmo.

            Neither she nor the low level people imported hoods and dog collars.

            The torture memos demonstrate that there was an organized torture policy institutionalized from the top.

            • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 12:57:23 PM

              I am not so sure she is credible. This issue is a hard one for me. As far as torture I wonder what we would all think if someone who had knowledge of 911 had been waterboarded and gave up information that led to 911 being stopped. Would we be on our moral high-horse and saythat the lives that were lost were expendable. Sometimes we may have to push things up to the line but when we cross it we become in danger of becoming like those we fight. Yet if we do not stand up for ourselves what will be left to protect?

              • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 1:09:48 PM

                Wait. Wasn't this about Abu Grhaib?

                First you said she had never said what she did say. Now you aren't sure she's credible. So she imported the dog collars and hoods?

                And when doubting her, let's just ignore that the Bush administration had a rationalized, organized torture campaign. But, of course, this did not reach above her. Not in this case. Uh, uh.

                • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 1:19:59 PM

                  My first post was distinquishing between two situations while later I was responding to another post. You could take your argument the other way. As in you seem to have a vested interested in believing her. Sure she got her orders from above but how far above is the issue. You want to believe it went to Cheney. There is no evidence of that. Believe what you will and I will do the same.

                  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 1:42:52 PM

                    I'm 'invested' in believing her?

                    I never believed that the guards imported the hoods and dog collars. I don't think she did either. And my, what a coincidence, the torture memos demonstrated a rationalized, institutionalized torture policy.

                    But we should doubt that this was imported from Gitmo.

                    Why, because you don't want to believe it?

                    What are you 'invested' in?

                    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 1:51:07 PM

                      The difference in me is that before I would make such an allegation I would want to be sure. You don't seem to need the same degree of proof that I would expect someone to have before making such an allegation. Now if it were Obama I wonder what degree of prood you would require? I would ask the same degree no matter who we were talking about. I don't want to recklessly throw around allegations.

                      • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/23/2009 2:57:47 PM

                        "The difference in me is that before I would make such an allegation I would want to be sure. "

                        That's what investigations are for.

                        • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 3:52:52 PM

                          Yes but to already pronounce someone guilty prior to an investigation is jumping the gun.

                          • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/23/2009 4:12:53 PM

                            That's absolutely true. So let's investigate the hell out of it, and punish the guilty parties, whomever they might be.

                      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 2:06:15 PM

                        The torture memos speak for themselves. Abu Ghraib was not isolated or devised by just a couple guards. The general in charge said the practices were imported from Gitmo.

                        I'm not making wild or unsupported allegations here.

                        You're just making this cheeky implication about me because you've run out of ways to rationalize and defend abdication from our nation's values, by an administration that you support no matter what they did.

                        It is just as cynical, and just as untrue, for you to suggest that my views would be any different depending who is President. That suggestion says far more about you than it does about me.

                        • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 2:24:18 PM

                          Actually I'll take cheeky over what Harley called me the other day "proudmoron". Really I don't mean to offend you. I enjoy our discussion. We just disagree on a number of issues. You always are civil to me thought. So again I did not mean to offend. Take care.

                          • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 2:45:21 PM

                            You take care too paproudmom.

                            I enjoy our conversations too, until you say I just toss around unsupported assertions, that I'm nonobjective (when you never point out any statement by me that supports that and you do not show what facts I get wrong), and when you suggest that my views about anything would be any different if they applied to Obama. I think these things are untrue, inappropriate and ought to be out of bounds between us.

                        • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 2:18:11 PM

                          You always try to read more into statements than are there. Whatever. Now I'm cheeky. So be it. I stand by what Ibelieve. They way you characterized my feelings or beliefs are not accurate. So we will have to just disagree. As I said earlier I had better get to work. You would not want to see me get in trouble would you?

                          • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 2:31:14 PM

                            "You don't seem to need the same degree of proof that I would expect someone to have before making such an allegation. Now if it were Obama I wonder what degree of prood you would require?"

                            I call that cheeky and cynical.

                            And I'll appreciate not having to respond to such and allegations that I'm completely nonobjective. On the latter, I posted to you a list of statements Ive made today, which you characterized as wild allegations that I tossed around. Since you made that allegation, please do me the courtesy of responding to that post, identify which of those statements is untrue or wild, and please identify any other allegations I've made that fit your allegation about me. I'll also accept your apology.

                            No, I wouldn't want you to get in trouble at work, paproudmom. Have a good one. Just get back to my reply to your assertion that I just toss around untrue allegations, ok?

                    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 2:07:41 PM

                      Sorry I have to get to work or my husband might resort to water boarding me!

                • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 4:36:57 PM

                  So where is the policy that went out to the Army to carry out this rationalized, organized torture campaign 40?

                  Still spitting out rhethoric without providing evidence to back up you outlandish accusations!

                  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 6:45:00 PM

                    You're repeating yourself now bojack, and I answered this. Because every single person in the Army wasn't included negates nothing. We had trained torturers for that, mainly. Abu Ghraib and the same activities at Gitmo show it was extensive. The existence of those torture memos speaks for itself.

                    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/24/2009 4:12:08 PM

                      Because every single person in the Army wasn't included negates nothing.

                      Then quit painting every soldier with the same brush! It does negate your Institutionalize statement in painting every soldier as a torturer. I say again there is no such policy for conducting these activities in the Army but there are several Army Regulations that cover behavior of its servicemembers.

                      We had trained torturers for that, mainly. Abu Ghraib and the same activities at Gitmo show it was extensive. The existence of those torture memos speaks for itself.

                      I see that you have never been in the Army and know nothing about training of soldiers or their MOS's. Or even the type of training being conducted at MOB sites for Detainee Operations. Until you get a clue of this then post what you know and not speculate.

                      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/24/2009 7:11:14 PM

                        How does this post negate the findings about torture in that Senate commitee report that found an organize torture program and was condemned by prominent republicans and senior military?

              • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/23/2009 2:57:03 PM

                "I am not so sure she is credible. "

                So, what, she just pooped out the dog collars and hoods?

                • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 3:52:07 PM

                  What does this statement have to do with anything. I'm glad it is so amusing to some. It is amazing how little it takes to impress on these boards.

                  • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/23/2009 4:12:01 PM

                    It has to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged that part of 40's argument.

                    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 4:32:35 PM

                      Ok I will try to answer so you understand. She most likely did not bring collors or hoods with her. What I am saying is that who gave it to her or authorized it is in question. Having work as a civilian for the military I know how many levels of command there are. You don't automatically jump many levels and assume that it came from the highest level. I will keep an open mind until I see proof otherwise. That is what I am saying.

                      • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/23/2009 6:23:30 PM

                        The fatality at Abu Graib involved the CIA, at least one SEAL, and MPs.

                        Are you suggesting all 3 organizations went rogue at once?

                    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 4:34:19 PM

                      Part of 40 argument is based on speculation! so why should she answer something that he cannot confirm as being truthful?

                    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 4:42:25 PM

                      Yup.

                • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 3:03:28 PM

                  LMAO!!!

            • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 1:22:12 PM

              You are stretching the truth there 40.

              So the memos say that every soldier is to carry out this procedure of torture or does it say that certain individuals trained to perform these tactcs can?

              • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 1:38:56 PM

                What kind of word play do you think you're engaging in here. The memos were part of an institutionalized torture campaign. It's ok if only some do it? Is that your point?

                • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 3:09:59 PM

                  So you are saying that the Army policies on Detainees was to torture them? Hmmm I guess I missed that policy while I was serving. Could you tell me when this was instituted in the Army? Or better yet give me the policy number that the commander receive to go ahead and let his soldiers conduct these type of torture tactics. Then I will show you the Article that tells you he/she is not obligated to carry out these orders if issued. So please spare me the institutionalized rhethoric when it comes down to Army soldiers.

                  Obama Backs Bush Policy on Bagram Detainees
                  The Obama administration has embraced another key argument of former President Bush"s counterterrorism policy. In a court filing on Friday, the Justice Department told a federal judge that prisoners held at the U.S. Air Force base at Bagram in Afghanistan have no legal rights to challenge their imprisonment. Human rights groups say they are becoming increasingly concerned that the use of extra-judicial methods in Afghanistan could be extended under the new U.S. administration. Bagram air base is about to undergo a $60 million expansion to provide enough space to house five times as many prisoners as remain at Guantanamo.

                  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 4:00:24 PM

                    This is just a prolix obfuscation.

                    The memos were a group activity by top lawyers, one on Cheney's staff. That was 'legal cover' for something; it wasn't a thought exercise. Cheney and others have repeatedly referred to and sought to justify the practices.

                    Yes. It was institutionalized torture, handed down as operating policy from the top.

                    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 4:28:26 PM

                      I will try this once again 40.

                      Show me the policy that tells soldiers to carry out such acts! We are talking about the soldiers torturing prisoners right? Show me the facts and quit making broad accusations that you cannot back up. Trying to tie everything to Cheney is ridiculous! Remember the Nurnburg Trials? Following orders is still no excuse!

                      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 6:48:17 PM

                        The existence of the torture memos and the torture you and Cheney so vociferously seek to justify, speak for themselves.

                  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 7:10:14 PM

                    How many times are you going to sell this red herring, bojack? The torture memos and your attempts to justify and defend torture speak for themselves.

                    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/24/2009 4:02:08 PM

                      See other comment 40

        • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 11:54:05 AM

          Everyone seems to forget the purpose of torture! Yes I said purpose! If one is torturing someone else for the own private entertainment, then I doubt you have high officials giving these orders to untrained soldiers in a prison. What information could a private extract from the enemy?

          What I trying to make you see is that those whose job is to professionally extract evidence from enemy combatants would have been given the order instead of those who guarded prisoners of war. Especially when those who were guarding these prisoners weren't even Military Police. Just think about what you are saying when you say that Cheney gave them permission to do this highly publicized hazing/torture of prisoners.

          • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/23/2009 11:57:39 AM

            "Everyone seems to forget the purpose of torture! "

            The ends never justify the means. The "purpose" of torture is not a mitigating factor.

            • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 12:10:43 PM

              You take one statement out of context and miss the whole point! What I was clearly saying is why would Cheney or any high ranking official give authority to those who untrained to carry out torture?

              It doesn't make sense when you think about what you and others are accusing Cheny of doing. One should look at the PURPOSE yes the purpose of these torture memos and see if it applied to a prison where untrained soldiers were guarding enemy combatants. People are trying to make a illogical connection between the two incidents.

              The real perpetrators were those who were guarding the prisoners and those commanders who didn't check the overall operations of what they were in charged over.

              • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/23/2009 3:03:23 PM

                "You take one statement out of context and miss the whole point! What I was clearly saying is why would Cheney or any high ranking official give authority to those who untrained to carry out torture?"

                Because they could. And because we didn't have anyone trained in torture. We had to re-invent it.

                • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 4:08:38 PM

                  Speculation is not evidence! So where is the order stating that this is Army Policy and every soldier should engage in such activity?

                  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 7:07:04 PM

                    Give up on that red herring, bojack. The torture memos and attempted defense of it by Cheney and you, speak for themselves.

                    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/24/2009 4:01:13 PM

                      See other comment 40

                • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 3:55:18 PM

                  Yup.

              • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 12:49:04 PM

                Sure. Everyone got to bring 'one special favorite thing' when deployed to Iraq. Some took hoods and dog collars.

                Just in case...

                • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 1:44:31 PM

                  Now that is a silly comment.

                  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 1:57:46 PM

                    I'm glad you finally got it. It wasn't just a few guards going on a lark.

                    We had an institutionalized torture policy.

                    The general in charge says what happened at Abu Ghraib was imported from Gitmo.

                    First you said she didn't say it. Now you say you doubt her.

                    Have to jump through an awful lot of hoops there...

                    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 2:20:12 PM

                      I did not say she did not say it. She did not link it as you mdke it out. I also doubt her word. But as always a twisted analysis.

                      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 2:38:32 PM

                        Here's what you said paproudmom: "Where is the proof? I have research this and seen none."

                        I'm having trouble finding that what I said is 'twisted analysis'.

                        This is in contrast to you immediately saying you doubted the general is credible, in spite of us having memos that demonstrate that there was an organized torture policy from the top.

                        I see twisting, but it's not in the mirror.

                        • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 3:20:37 PM

                          I never referred to the general I was addressing the corporal.

                          • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 4:16:19 PM

                            paproudmom. I have looked for the thread and cannot find it. I looked because my recollection was that when I got to that thread in seemed like the subject was about Abu Grhaib. Perhaps it is chopped up now. In any event I take your word for it. I apologize too.

                            I never, ever intentionally put words into people's mouths or intentionally distort what they are saying; there are several here who do that habitually; I think it is dishonest and chicken. I only want to 'win' if I'm 'right', not because of BS. Again, I take your word for it and I apologize.

                            Having said that, IT WAS ALL YOUR FAULT. YOU CONVERSED WITH ME AS IF YOU HAD MADE THAT STATEMENT. SO, YOU'RE JUST AS MUCH TO BLAME AS ME. (See, I'm learning how to play this game. lol)

                            • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 4:27:53 PM

                              Cute - I accept your apology. have a great rest of your day.

                • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 3:22:04 PM

                  Could be, better than suggesting that they left common sense at home!

                  So in a post below you say tha the general in charge of Abu Ghraib imported it from Gitmo! So by her own statement it wasn't policy, it was her personal decision to implement something she knew was wrong.

                  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 3:40:17 PM

                    No. I said and she said that the abuse/torture policy and practices at Abu Grhaib were imported by others from Gitmo. It was not her decision. She also said that the practice ran in a straight line to Rummy.

                  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 3:29:25 PM

            • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 12:58:45 PM

              So saving many lives perhaps would not justify hurting one? It is not so easy morally to decide. It is not simple.

              • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 1:03:11 PM

                This country decided that question hundreds of years ago. That moral standard was reinforced by experiences in WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam.

                Then the Bush administration institutionalized it all.

                And we now defend them because it's a hard decision?

                • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 1:11:37 PM

                  I don't think our country ever decided never to use interrogation methods. That was what I was referring to. Hopefully your family will never have to be in the position where their safety depends on having the most effective intelligence.

                  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 1:26:05 PM

                    "I don't think our country ever decided never to use interrogation methods."

                    Now you're being silly. And you left out "torture".

                    What are the Geneva Conventions about? We were the leading advocate for them. What was all the furor about after WWII, the Korean War?

                    Why did the Bush administration have to have some lawyers contrive 'legal cover' for the campaign they wanted to implement?

                    And, every, every one of the interrogation experts I've ever heard or read on the subject say it is not effective. Nor does 'the end justify the means' in the Bush adminitration's institutionalized torture policy.

                    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 1:35:30 PM

                      I don't consider myself a "silly" person. I take this issue and my country's safety very seriously. I guess what I am referring to is an area that people can disagree over as to whether it is torture or interrogation. I think we go up to the line. But some will disagree where the line is. I do not want this country to compromise what makes it great anymore than you do. I have heard many experts say they do not know for sure whether some of these methods are effective. I do not want us to torture but less than that I have no problem with. Saying please tell us usually is not effective either.

                      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 1:51:31 PM

                        "I do not want this country to compromise what makes it great anymore than you do."

                        Then why do you seek to justify torture, and excuse and defend an administration that departed from our traditions, the Geneva Conventions we fought for?

                        Because this departure from our values and traditions was devised and implemented by the Bush administration?

                        • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 2:00:17 PM

                          I don't think I ever stated that I wanted our country to depart from it's standards of what is morally acceptable. I would never approve something that was done by the Bush administration if I felt they were wrong. I am not a partisan. I stand up for my own beliefs. Are you not doing the same you accuse me of with the Obama administration. You are one of the most non objective people I have seen comment on Obama. My standard is definitive proof no matter what the administration. It is so easy to throw charges around. One more point when did protecting our country stop being a value or tradition?

                          • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 2:20:20 PM

                            First you said that the Abu Ghraib general never said that the abuse of the prisoners was an imposed policy. Then when you find out that she said it was imported from Gitmo, you're not sure she's a reliable source.

                            And you call me nonobjective?

                            Here are the 'charges' I've 'thrown around' today:

                            -We prosecuted Japanese for waterboarding. We pushed for the Geneval Conventions. We made a furor over torture after WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam.

                            -We've had a national tradition of being against torture.

                            -The torture memos demonstrate that the Bush administration abdicated our traditions and implemented, from the top, a policy and practice of torture.

                            -The Abu Ghraib abuses stained our country and is a massive recruiting poster for the jihadists.

                            -People are still in prison over Abu Ghraib.

                            -The Abu Ghraib guards did not import the hoods or dog collars.

                            -The Abu Ghraib general says that the abuses there were imported from Gitmo.

                            What 'wild' or 'parisan' allegations are you accusing me of, precisely?

                            • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 2:58:50 PM

                              Here are some of the things I was referring to. First you state I was supposed to be talking only about Abu Ghraid when I was actually comparing two situations. Then you said I gave conflicting statements on the General's statements. I never referred to the General I was referring to Cop. Lynndie England. You accused me of rationalizing the abdication of our nations values. I was not doing so. Then you called me silly. Could be but was not trying to be. Then you stated that every expert says torture does not work. When I have heard conflicting statements. I agreed with you about the practices of Abu Ghraib but you seemed to imply I was justifying them. As far as partisan tones from everything I have seen you post it is my impression and humble opinion that you exhibit partisan behavior Which is your right. The other parts of your list that I have not addressed I never took issue with. I was speaking more on our total conversation today not one post. I find that you tend to read more into what I am saying then is my intent. Therefore I end up responding to something I did not mean or say which gets complicated. Then misunderstanding can happen. Now I must work like a mad women to get all my stuff done. Gotta run!

                              • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 6:50:47 PM

                                See my apology for confusing your comment on that corporal with the general else where.

                  • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/23/2009 3:01:33 PM

                    "I don't think our country ever decided never to use interrogation methods. "

                    If by "interrogation methods" you mean "torture", then yes it did. Amendment VIII specifically forbids the government or agents of the government from doing so.

                    If by "interrogation methods" you mean schedule shifting (effective as hell, and doesn't involve torture of any kind), good cop/bad cop, or marathon questioning sessions, then no, the United States has never forbidden them.

                    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 3:43:40 PM

                      I talking about right up to but not torture.

              • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/23/2009 2:59:09 PM

                "So saving many lives perhaps would not justify hurting one? "

                No, it would not. There are certain things that are never justifiable. Rape, child molestation, torture, etc.

                • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 4:16:01 PM

                  How about the senseless deaths of many?

          • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 04/23/2009 1:23:32 PM

            It seems that at Abu Graib they were doing what they were told. That they got kcks out of it was just a perk.

        • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 04/23/2009 11:59:52 AM

          She was.

  • Posted By: No apathy here @ 04/24/2009 6:00:25 PM

    Obama should step completely away from the torture debate and allow Congress and DOJ to do their work. If he tries to influence any decision DOJ makes about ANY issue then he is no better than his predecessor. Inserting himself into this debate, beyond what he has already done in forbidding torture and closing Gitmo, is absolutely certain to turn it into political chaos when it should be a sober, objective, investigation and, if warranted, prosecution of those who rationalized, formulated and instituted the policies.

    The GOP is champing at the bit to turn this into a political carousel as they search for something, anything that will catch even the smallest bit of attention from moderate/independent Americans. I am one of those moderate independents and I want accountability. I want to know that I can depend on my government to do the correct thing, regardless of politics or party. I want to know that my DOJ will investigate, impartially and without regard to race, creed, color, gender or political persuasion and hold accountable anyone who has violated the law. Haven't we had enough of a DOJ ruled by politics and/or ideology?

    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/24/2009 6:23:06 PM

      Very, very sage, thoughtful, insightful. Thank you.

  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/24/2009 5:35:40 PM

    In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

    Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

    "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

    Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/24/2009 5:37:36 PM

      Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

      With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

      Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/24/2009 5:39:40 PM

        Read the rest of the story here.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

  • Posted By: No apathy here @ 04/24/2009 5:33:22 PM

    The thing that bothers me most in the torture debate is the flexible morality, mostly from the Right. Pat Buchanan speaks of a "higher moral law" to rationalize his argument in favor of torture while on other issues he speaks of "the rule of law".
    Treaties and the United States Code, according to his sophistries are seconded to whatever his "higher moral law' is. What if my "higher moral law" tells me it is OK to embezzle or rob? We are on dangerous turf if we allow our givernment to apply anything other than the existing rule of law.

    Morals are morals. They aren't flexible or vague. If you are going to hold only certain people accountable to the rule of law and allow someone's "higher moral law" to influence whether or not someone else is held accountable then the entire system of laws loses its authority and credibility.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 04/24/2009 4:08:58 PM

    GOP Please STOP blaming Obama about everything.Americans ain't stupid what's happening in the Country.I'm fed-up with people "Politicking".You think Its Obama fault for releasing those Torture Memos? Obama has NO choice,People might forgotten this is AMERICA that made up people from the Left,Center and,Right.etc...this Apply to every Government's Staff mixtures and frictions ,including the Army and also CIA itself .Where else do you think The Story and Pictures of tortures come from? Civilian? You're wrong...now you're able to figure it out where it source from, .Do you think this Story of Tortures can be COVER-UP by Obama ?When every Americans knew it even during Bush's administration and that includes the whole World, the Answer is NO the hole is too BIG to be plug by anyone's head no even from the president itself..It an Offense for Obama to hide and conspiracy with those law breakers by failing to open-up,and bring to justice on these criminal activities.

  • Posted By: Mayabue @ 04/23/2009 12:50:35 PM

    Let's not forget that the masses supported Bush after 9/11 and that he was elected twice, and that a great number of Americans were supportive of his cowboy attitude against the world. This sector of the country has not disappeared, and it's a powerful sector and very divisive. Those of us who have always had the moral conviction that torture is wrong are very aware of the power of what we are up against. Obama is wise in treading carefully on this subject so as to keep America united in this new era of moral correction and avoiding severe backlashes that could send us backwards again.

    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/23/2009 1:42:43 PM

      There is none more devisive then the current group in power.

      • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 04/23/2009 2:03:30 PM

        Agreed. If his goal was to tread lightly on this subject, none of the memos would have been released. Instead, he has continued what he did in the campaign (which is all he is good at), and keeps diverting attention back to Bush/Cheney. Now he can continue his failures in office without too much attention on himself, and maybe even fast track little things through congress like social healthcare.

        • Posted By: 40YearR @ 04/23/2009 6:11:30 PM

          Yeah. We should all just ignore all the problems the last administration created. We should blame the fireman for how hard it is to put oug the fire.

          • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/24/2009 2:59:52 PM

            No Obama should man up and claim this administration and problems as his own and handle them accordingly!

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/23/2009 1:37:46 PM

      Obama is keeping us on the path of moral correction. LOL!

      Obama the baby killer is keeping us on the path of moral correction. LOL!

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 04/24/2009 2:48:26 PM

    Seems that Pelosi can't make up her mind.


    After first denying that she had anything to do with the Sept.2002 meeting with CIA officials regarding the techniques used on detainees,a livid Porter Goss[fmr CIA Director who was present with Pelosi and the other Democrats] fired back this morning in the Washington Times forcing Pelosi to issue a denial/non-denial. Meanwhile closing rank Republicans including John McCain who originally supported the release of the memos to begin with,has gotton from Goss all of Pelosis comments and minutes at the 2002 meeting and it makes Pelosi look even more guilty than Cheney,as this man,according to todays New York Times, is ''unapologetic''.Thus the hangings proposed by the wingnuts would have had the opportunity to become a bi-partisan extravaganza if Obama had not put a stop to it. [liberals now in the uncomfortable position of defending Pelosis position on torture [''are these techinques effective enough''?] while daminng Cheneys, making them out to be ,again, with the regularity of the clock marking time, rank hypocrites. Obama now has new worries anyway,as we discussed earlier.

    1. The Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Offices brand -new reports criticizing Obama for having ''no oversight whatever'' of how TARP monies are disbursed,how these are spent,and on what. Geithner will take the fall for this blunder.

    2. The nightmare feared by nearly all nations that ever gave a damn about the subject, allowing several books on it to be published in the West during the Bush presidency, is now unfolding in Pakistan, another Obaman/NATO/UN blunder which is now moving on its own accord.
    Taliban forces are now closing to within thirty miles of the capital. Its last major natural barrier is the Margala Hills,where Pak artillary is being brought up for defense as well as the deployment of PAK RANGERS in the capital centre which are being used to defend government structures and other key buildings in the downtown area. It has been determined by the Times of India [Apr.23,2009] that a separate Taliban column [which may be the ''lost'' Behnar forces that were assumed to have withdrawn from that northwestern province], has branched off from the main group and has moved into Haripur,near the state of Punjab and may invest this area before the end of the week.

    Haripur contains two identified nuclear storage facilities and at least one suspected ICBM launch platform.

    Feel better now...? or worse.....?

    www.billroggio.blogspot.com LONG WAR JOURNAL Apr.24,2009

    www.counterterrorismblog.com Apr.24,2009

    www.politico.com Apr.24,2009:''Pelosi Briefed On Waterboarding In 2002''

  • Posted By: lovejusticepeace @ 04/24/2009 1:46:35 PM

    ANOTHER MORAL RESPONSIBILTY FOR THE WORLD IN THE NEAR HORIZON.
    EELAM GOVERNMENT IN EXILE ?
    LIKE SOUTH AFRICAN 'ANC' HAD A GOVERNMENT IN EXILE DURING THE DIABOLICAL APARTHEID REGIME.
    LIKE TIBETAN GOVERNMENT IN EXILE IN INDIA .

  • Posted By: Midgeelou @ 04/24/2009 11:58:07 AM

    "A nation that ignores its past has no history -- and no future." (Robert Heinlein)

    We cannot move forward unless and until the torture issue had been investigated and the rule of law followed to its conclusion. That is the exclusive province of the Justice Department -- not the White House and not Capitol Hill. Interference from those bodies WILL politicize the issue, not clarify it.

    Ya'll step aside and let Mr. Holder do his work. Stop joggling his elbow.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 04/24/2009 9:35:50 AM

    General Tomoyuki Yamashita was hanged in Manila on February 23, 1946. The fate of this officer, a first-class fighting man,affirmed something new in the annals of war. For Yamashita did not die for murder, or for directing other men to do murder in his name. Yamashita lost his life not because he was a bad or evil commander, but simply because he was a commander, and the men he commanded had done unspeakably evil things.

    Yamashita was tried by military commission, a panel of five general officers, all American, sitting in the great ballroom of the bullet-pocked U.S. high commissioner???s residence in Manila. General Douglas MacArthur, as overall Pacific commander, had the power not only to convene such commissions but also to establish their powers and procedural rules. A military commission had sentenced to death certain German saboteurs landed in the United States in the summer of 1942. Such a commission was not bound by the procedural rules and safeguards inherent in both the civil and the court-martial systems.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse