CIA Waterboarded Mohammed 183X in 1 Month, Zubaydah 83X in 1 month

[bustybbwlover]

And then he does exactly that with another major shit-slinger...

what?

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Great post and link FK.While I knew waterboarding was definately considered torture I think maybe I still do not appreciate how severe of a torture it is and was unaware we had actually been that harsh on some of the Japanease who employed it with some being executed and some other getting lenghty jail sentences.

You know I have seen posts in threads here about the use of the A bombs on japan that basically said they deserved it since they had been so brutal on civilians and captured soldiers.Now while I do not criticize the use of the A bombs at that time given the circumstances I think if we are going to say that torture means you deserve to be nuked what does that say about what we deserve? But then again I forget we have a lot of double standards on such things.

What that leaves out is that the Japanese poured the water down the throats of the SOLDIERS, distending the stomach and then stamping on it. Many of them died because of this torture. Was it done to gain actionable intelligence?
Or was it done for vengeance and pleasure, like the methods used during the rape of Nanking.

BTW, I only know about the rest of that story because I pulled it from the same article as facial king. It's a really weak argument to compare what the Japanese were tried for and the American version of waterboarding.

Anyway, it appears that we're being prepped for charges against the nat'l security component of the Bush administration this summer. First the declassification of the interrogation memos, then the ruling that whitehouse lawyers can be tried, now photos to be released showing more gruesome images from abu ghraib (which are actually a seperate matter) abuses.

The White House is trying to get the American people as upset as possible. I'm sure Cheney knows about this as well, which is why he wasted NO time trying to lay out a case to defend himself and attacking the Obama administration.

I don't care if Bush and his people are put on trial (with the exception of Yoo and the other counselor) in fact I think it's the only way to get a national consensus on how we went into Iraq. What I don't like is the Obama administration prepping the U.S. public at the expense of American soldiers and civilians on the ground in foreign lands. They just don't give a damn.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

We are creating enemies faster than we can kill them.

True, but they'll continue to do what they were doing, regardless of whether or not we change. The psychology of the middle east muslim is might makes right. The U.S. apologizing and being conciliatory just validates what the anti-Western folks (whether they be arab nationalist or islamic extremists) are saying. I think it may buy us some time by making it more acceptable for some of the rulers to work with (unless their domestic terrorists are emboldened to act) us before we make our next move. I also see a possible breakthrough with Iran, but in the end, does Iran's international motivations gel with the U.S.?

I'm not sure, not without reevaluating our relationship with Israel.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

The biggest concern I have is there are some in this country willing to turn a blind eye to the most egregious example - Iraq on almost purely political lines. I'm not sure Bush even tried to cover this shill.

I mean, where were the tea baggers when GWB told them he was going to spend a half trillion to a trillion dollars of their "children's" money bringing democracy to Iraq?:dunno:

They've been protesting every year around tax time. This is just larger because of the holdovers from the Ron Paul campaign have grown into a grassroots network. Fox and MSNBC business gave it a lot of coverage, so more people found out about it. How does Obama get thrown into the Mix? He's the president now and the amount of money he's spent exceeds what Bush has spent on all of Iraq.

And is it a 500 billion spent on Iraq or a trillion? I don't think we should say give or take half a trillion when we're contemplating the cost of half a decade in Iraq versus 2 months of stimulus and job creation (we hope, although less than 10% is for infrastructure improvements).

You should google up 'Grover Norquist' one of the few bigwigs of that movement, and see his take on George W. Bush.

 

[Hot Mega]

True, but they'll continue to do what they were doing, regardless of whether or not we change. The psychology of the middle east muslim is might makes right. The U.S. apologizing and being conciliatory just validates what the anti-Western folks (whether they be arab nationalist or islamic extremists) are saying. I think it may buy us some time by making it more acceptable for some of the rulers to work with (unless their domestic terrorists are emboldened to act) us before we make our next move. I also see a possible breakthrough with Iran, but in the end, does Iran's international motivations gel with the U.S.?

I'm not sure, not without reevaluating our relationship with Israel.

The point of rationalizing with some isn't to soften radicalized elements within the Muslim world but to appeal to the non radicals to enjoin you against them.

When practical grievances are addressed, settled, resolved or removed, radical elements have a harder time selling their message and moderate elements tend to foreclose their support and help to isolate the radicals.

Conversely when you add to their grievances not only is it easier for the radical elements to recruit otherwise moderates to their cause it also emboldens the resolve of those already in their cause.

 

[skechers]

You cannot pick and choose from the constitituion.

Who was that guy on Fox, the one that said "We are the United States of America and we do NOT fucking torture!" I stood up and applauded that man. Even if torturing a person ever did bring us any kind of useful information at all, it simply wouldn't matter. We are the United States of America. We do not torture. In theory, anyway.

What happened to our sense of pride? Has it been so overshadowed by fear? Are we really so steeped in cowardice that we cannot see right from wrong anymore. Because that's what it's about. Simple right and wrong.

You have to stop living in fear.

Boothbabe said "build bridges" This is the only thing that is EVER, EVER EVER EVER going to stop fighting in the middle east. Can't you see that? Maybe if we have gained any thing useful from torturing our "enemies", we've still only been prolonging the hostility. And our brother's and sisters will be gone from us for decades, and many we might never see again.

You have to take the term Evil, and put it out of your vocabulary here. These people are fighting for an idea. They look at themselves as Revolutionaries, not so unlike how we saw ourselves in our own war for independence. We need a medium of understanding, so we can begin to heal. On both sides.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

The point of rationalizing with some isn't to soften radicalized elements within the Muslim world but to appeal to the non radicals to enjoin you against them.

When practical grievances are addressed, settled, resolved or removed, radical elements have a harder time selling their message and moderate elements tend to foreclose their support and help to isolate the radicals.

Conversely when you add to their grievances not only is it easier for the radical elements to recruit otherwise moderates to their cause it also emboldens the resolve of those already in their cause.

The non radicals aren't going to stand up, they have to live with those people. Look at the Sunnis for example, they didn't join us because they suddenly liked Americans, they joined at the height of the insurgency against the U.S. because they were getting killed from both the foreign Islamists and the U.S. military. We basically bribed them into taking our side. If it looked like the U.S. was going to leave without shelling cash, they aren't going to side with us. They'll side with whoever is stronger at the time. Basically apologizing to the muslim world isn't making us stronger, it makes them press us for more. What moderate is going to stand up when it appears that the U.S. lacks the will to finish the job?

What did Islamist propaganda say about the U.S. back in 2004? "The U.S. soldiers are transvestites (not real men) and will run if you bloody their nose a little. They have no cause and will soon beg for a way out. The U.S. hasn't been able to truly win a war Since World War II. They have ran or sued for peace from every nation they have attacked."

Those pamphlets can be found everywhere, along with AP images from the battle of Mogadishu and the movie Black Hawk Down about the incident.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

You cannot pick and choose from the constitituion.

Who was that guy on Fox, the one that said "We are the United States of America and we do NOT fucking torture!" I stood up and applauded that man. Even if torturing a person ever did bring us any kind of useful information at all, it simply wouldn't matter. We are the United States of America. We do not torture. In theory, anyway.

What happened to our sense of pride? Has it been so overshadowed by fear? Are we really so steeped in cowardice that we cannot see right from wrong anymore. Because that's what it's about. Simple right and wrong.

You have to stop living in fear.

Boothbabe said "build bridges" This is the only thing that is EVER, EVER EVER EVER going to stop fighting in the middle east. Can't you see that? Maybe if we have gained any thing useful from torturing our "enemies", we've still only been prolonging the hostility. And our brother's and sisters will be gone from us for decades, and many we might never see again.

You have to take the term Evil, and put it out of your vocabulary here. These people are fighting for an idea. They look at themselves as Revolutionaries, not so unlike how we saw ourselves in our own war for independence. We need a medium of understanding, so we can begin to heal. On both sides.

I'm going to cut to the bottom, because I would like to see some understanding as well. But how do we negotiate with people who aren't atheists like the communists? I mean these are people who demand we leave the middle east. If you set aside all the people who've worked with us who'll be slaughtered (we've screwed plenty of people in the past so it's not like we're above that) then you have to think about the other part of their mandate. It's too spread Jihad across the globe, and cover the earth in Islam. That's an order from their God to their Prophet. It's pretty difficult to negotiate with fundamentalists on tenets of their faith.

Think of how Obama's idea of negotiating with "moderate elements" of the Taliban got panned by everyone, even liberals that normally fawn over him.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

and once again READ the Geneva Convention again and highlight the part that makes these two ellegible. :dunno:

Boothbabe is honest and sincere, which is perfectly fine, OTOH The thread author appears to want nothing more than sheer mayhem, blood, burning corpses, busted glass, smoke & ash, don't you author, death to us all ?

Death to them, before it's death for us?

One of the most difficult parts of all of this has been getting Muslims to admit they've done anything wrong to us. It's like when someone wants to remind us of the Crusades without talking about the Muslims attacking Spain and France (with intentions on killing the Pope) hundreds of years before the first one kicked off. Or how muslims pouring out of Anatolia must have scared the hell out of the christians of Western Europe.

 

[skechers]

The point of rationalizing with some isn't to soften radicalized elements within the Muslim world but to appeal to the non radicals to enjoin you against them.

When practical grievances are addressed, settled, resolved or removed, radical elements have a harder time selling their message and moderate elements tend to foreclose their support and help to isolate the radicals.

Conversely when you add to their grievances not only is it easier for the radical elements to recruit otherwise moderates to their cause it also emboldens the resolve of those already in their cause.

Bio, this to me seems like the most logical thing I've heard. And I would site this, to answer your questions to me.

 

[Hot Mega]

The non radicals aren't going to stand up, they have to live with those people. Look at the Sunnis for example,

What did Islamist propaganda say about the U.S. back in 2004? "The U.S. soldiers are transvestites (not real men) and will run if you bloody their nose a little. They have no cause and will soon beg for a way out. The U.S. hasn't been able to truly win a war Since World War II. They have ran or sued for peace from every nation they have attacked."

Those pamphlets can be found everywhere, along with AP images from the battle of Mogadishu and the movie Black Hawk Down about the incident.

Sunnis are a bad example of having moderates side with us.

Propaganda is one thing facts are another....there's always a reckoning when the two meet.

There's tons of propaganda from Mogadishu, Beirut, Iraq and Afghanistan that don't favor us well in many different lights. But the first front in the war against having your troops propagandized against is to not put them in situations where it's easy to do so and they're at the tactical disadvantage.

 

[Hot Mega]

They've been protesting every year around tax time. This is just larger because of the holdovers from the Ron Paul campaign have grown into a grassroots network. Fox and MSNBC business gave it a lot of coverage, so more people found out about it. How does Obama get thrown into the Mix? He's the president now and the amount of money he's spent exceeds what Bush has spent on all of Iraq.

And is it a 500 billion spent on Iraq or a trillion? I don't think we should say give or take half a trillion when we're contemplating the cost of half a decade in Iraq versus 2 months of stimulus and job creation (we hope, although less than 10% is for infrastructure improvements).

Fair enough. So I suppose the question becomes where was Fox, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Rick Perry, Newt, Rove, etc. when the "tea baggers" were protesting spending under Bush?

That would be the partisan angle to this story and the issue with the GOPers ginning this into an anti Obama effort.

With respect to spending, forget the government for a second. It's fair to say no reasonable person wants to or thrives on spending money they don't have.

Most reasonable people spend their money on what they consider their priorities and then they borrow when they need to. The amount you borrow in most cases is not as important as what you need to borrow it for. For example, borrowing $50k can be worse than borrowing $150k depending on what you're borrowing for.

If you're borrowing the $150k for some medical procedure and subsequent treatment or a home as opposed to borrowing $50k for a car, then which is likely the superior moral position?

If someone were willing to borrow and "invest" $500 billion to try and democratize another country that is far more disconcerting to me than borrowing and "investing" $1.5trillion to try and fix our problems and stabilize our country.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Sunnis are a bad example of having moderates side with us.

Propaganda is one thing facts are another....there's always a reckoning when the two meet.

There's tons of propaganda from Mogadishu, Beirut, Iraq and Afghanistan that don't favor us well in many different lights. But the first front in the war against having your troops propagandized against is to not put them in situations where it's easy to do so and they're at the tactical disadvantage.

Sunnis are one of the few examples of moderates (or at least secular) folks siding with us. Who else is there? The Kurds? Yeah they got burned for it during the first gulf war.


Well we can't go back in time to use that hindsight and our likely future conflicts are going to involve a lot of urban conflicts as that's where most of the worlds population is living. We're going to have these ugly situations pop up over and over.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Fair enough. So I suppose the question becomes where was Fox, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Rick Perry, Newt, Rove, etc. when the "tea baggers" were protesting spending under Bush?

That would be the partisan angle to this story and the issue with the GOPers ginning this into an anti Obama effort.

With respect to spending, forget the government for a second. It's fair to say no reasonable person wants to or thrives on spending money they don't have.

Most reasonable people spend their money on what they consider their priorities and then they borrow when they need to. The amount you borrow in most cases is not as important as what you need to borrow it for. For example, borrowing $50k can be worse than borrowing $150k depending on what you're borrowing for.

If you're borrowing the $150k for some medical procedure and subsequent treatment or a home as opposed to borrowing $50k for a car, then which is likely the superior moral position?

If someone were willing to borrow and "invest" $500 billion to try and democratize another country that is far more disconcerting to me than borrowing and "investing" $1.5trillion to try and fix our problems and stabilize our country.

Rush has been criticizing Bush for a long time, especially on immigration and spending. Glenn Beck---he's had grover norquist on before. Rick Perry clashed with Bush over border problems and spending. Hannity is a party hack, not a true conservative. But we could say that about many Democrats in the media.

Newt's been criticizing bush for 3 years and has written a book or two criticizing the spending. MSNBC loves having him on talking about how Bush was leading the party astray. Rove worked for Bush for what, 15 years? He's not going to criticize him anymore than Lanny Davis would criticize Hillary Clinton.

 

[Hot Mega]

Rush has been criticizing Bush for a long time, especially on immigration and spending. Glenn Beck---he's had grover norquist on before. Rick Perry clashed with Bush over border problems and spending. Hannity is a party hack, not a true conservative. But we could say that about many Democrats in the media.

Newt's been criticizing bush for 3 years and has written a book or two criticizing the spending. MSNBC loves having him on talking about how Bush was leading the party astray. Rove worked for Bush for what, 15 years? He's not going to criticize him anymore than Lanny Davis would criticize Hillary Clinton.

All that said, why no huge, GOPer ginned up tax day bluster as with the one under Obama???

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

All that said, why no huge, GOPer ginned up tax day bluster as with the one under Obama???

It wasn't getting covered because we weren't in the middle of a monster recession (remember Rick Santelli wigging out during the bailout??) and I'm guessing because republicans are now out of power they've got even less way to express themselves and the Ron Paul folks as well as Grover Norquists camp are still going strong--and they've made inroads in the republican party.

I'd like to see some footage of tax time 2008,2007 etc. and see if anyone covered protesters from that period. I'm sure plenty of folks called them fringe too.

 

[Hot Mega]

I'm guessing because republicans are now out of power they've got even less way to express themselves and the Ron Paul folks as well as Grover Norquists camp are still going strong--and they've made inroads in the republican party.

Bingo! My point exactly. This thing was GOP ginned up and strictly political...it may have had it's own legs..but clearly (to anyone with common sense) to the extent they exploited others....this is all about the GOP reaching for traction against Obama.

After all, before this spending and these crisisis....we had record supplemental spending and a growing crisis in Iraq...where was Fox and the usual suspects then???

 

[meesterperfect]

simple question: would you waterboard someone if it meant saving your childs life?

 

[Hot Mega]

simple question: would you waterboard someone if it meant saving your childs life?

No. I would kill someone if it meant saving my child's life. I would likely kill someone if they harmed my child....that's a separate question from whether or not there should be consequences for my actions.

If someone threatened my child or harmed my child I would met out my justice on them and I would serve every second of my punishment with complete self respect.

It's easy (for me) to accept punishment and serve every second of that punishment for an action I commit knowing that the greater crime would have been inaction.

What you're trying to ascertain is at what point mitigating circumstances absolves you from illegal behavior. The answer is, never.

If a circumstance prevails on you where you have to ignore the law for what you perceive to be the greater good, you take the action necessary then rely on those mitigating circumstances to be considered later. Hopefully who's ever judging your actions will take those mitigating circumstances into account. But if they don't, you ought to be willing serve out any resulting punishment with complete self respect knowing your actions prevented a greater crime.:2 cents:

 

[meesterperfect]

i'm gonna have to go ahead and accuse you of ducking the question.

you know what i was asking.
waterboard to save.........
not kill to punish.

paragraph 4 looks like a no.
paragraph 5 looks like a yes.