NY times calls for criminal prosecution of Cheney and others.

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Your getting very annoying real fast with your offhand bullshit.

Annoying is having your very straight-forward question diverted numerous times over a two-hour period.

 

[Jhhnn]

What's the most important thing here, I think, is that the perps suffer the judgment of history so that the rest of America learns a lesson in the process, a lesson about the shame of having cheered it on at the time.

Go ahead, tell me that didn't happen. Tell me that we weren't vicitimized by one of the most monstrous propaganda campaigns ever mounted. Tell me that every guy susceptible to right wing idiocy didn't get a little chubby & puff up their chest at the prospect of breaking terrarist balls at Gitmo. Tell me that public reaction at the time didn't pave the way for the Iraq war resolution & victory in the elections. Tell me that such sentiments don't linger strongly.

I'll tell you that you're an idiot in return.

So how do we face ourselves to achieve any semblance of healing the wounds to this country & others that their malfeasance has caused?

I like the Jerry Ford answer. Go ahead- lay it out, condemn it, issue a blanket pardon. The shame of receiving it will stain their legacy forever. A presidential pardon isn't something that can be hand-waved away, ever. It'll accomplish what no prosecution ever could because it can't be represented as partisan.

It's the only kind of Justice we'll ever get because there are still too many Americans unwilling to face the truth of what happened & how they played a part in it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Once again, another jackass that can't answer a simple question. Color me surprised

I did answer. Being obtuse won't change that.

Moonbeam is free to speak for himself, of course. I doubt he'll take offense at my remarks.

 

[MongGrel]

What's the most important thing here, I think, is that the perps suffer the judgment of history so that the rest of America learns a lesson in the process, a lesson about the shame of having cheered it on at the time.

Go ahead, tell me that didn't happen. Tell me that we weren't vicitimized by one of the most monstrous propaganda campaigns ever mounted. Tell me that every guy susceptible to right wing idiocy didn't get a little chubby & puff up their chest at the prospect of breaking terrarist balls at Gitmo. Tell me that public reaction at the time didn't pave the way for the Iraq war resolution & victory in the elections. Tell me that such sentiments don't linger strongly.

I'll tell you that you're an idiot in return.

So how do we face ourselves to achieve any semblance of healing the wounds to this country & others that their malfeasance has caused?

I like the Jerry Ford answer. Go ahead- lay it out, condemn it, issue a blanket pardon. The shame of receiving it will stain their legacy forever. A presidential pardon isn't something that can be hand-waved away, ever. It'll accomplish what no prosecution ever could because it can't be represented as partisan.

It's the only kind of Justice we'll ever get because there are still too many Americans unwilling to face the truth of what happened & how they played a part in it.

I'd have to say your right on all counts there.

The fact that is happened to the extent it did in the name of Haliburton etc will still piss me off till I die.

Still going on to a degree.

 

[Bowfinger]

Once again, another jackass that can't answer a simple question. Color me surprised

He gave you a quite effective answer, certainly better than your blatant duhversion deserved. If you aren't happy with it, you are free to get off your lazy butt and read more structured definitions elsewhere in this thread. Of course your real goal is disrupting discussion, not promoting it. Typical of a long line of interchangeable, belligerent noobs who pop up, trash the place for a while, and ultimately crawl back under their bridges.

Torture is wrong. It's a simple concept. It is now quite well documented that the United States performed torture, according to both our own definitions and the world's. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. It is clear to any moral person that there should be accountability for such crimes, that those involved should be prosecuted. Sadly, the Obama administration has shown little interest in pursuing accountability for much of anything, one of the real scandals of his tenure. It destroys any pretense we might have of assuming the moral high ground, and reinforces Americans' view that Washington is hopelessly corrupt, regardless of which political party is at the helm.

 

[Bowfinger]

What's the most important thing here, I think, is that the perps suffer the judgment of history so that the rest of America learns a lesson in the process, a lesson about the shame of having cheered it on at the time.

Go ahead, tell me that didn't happen. Tell me that we weren't vicitimized by one of the most monstrous propaganda campaigns ever mounted. Tell me that every guy susceptible to right wing idiocy didn't get a little chubby & puff up their chest at the prospect of breaking terrarist balls at Gitmo. Tell me that public reaction at the time didn't pave the way for the Iraq war resolution & victory in the elections. Tell me that such sentiments don't linger strongly.

I'll tell you that you're an idiot in return.

So how do we face ourselves to achieve any semblance of healing the wounds to this country & others that their malfeasance has caused?

I like the Jerry Ford answer. Go ahead- lay it out, condemn it, issue a blanket pardon. The shame of receiving it will stain their legacy forever. A presidential pardon isn't something that can be hand-waved away, ever. It'll accomplish what no prosecution ever could because it can't be represented as partisan.

It's the only kind of Justice we'll ever get because there are still too many Americans unwilling to face the truth of what happened & how they played a part in it.

Interesting idea. While I'd rather see those involved put away for a good long time, I can see that the convict and pardon approach would be somewhat effective. I don't think it would give us the moral high ground, but it would at least formally acknowledge we did evil, illegal things.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

I did answer.

Where?

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

He gave you a quite effective answer

Where?

 

[ivwshane]

Which are, specifically? I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth.

There are no specifics because humans can be pretty inventive and defining each potential torture act would be missing the point. So according to the Geneva conventions, of which the US signed, we have common article 3:

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/0/e160550475c4b133c12563cd0051aa66?OpenDocument

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;<---------------------

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;<---------------

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

You'll note that the US violated all but two on that list.

 

[Bowfinger]

Where?

Post #95, try to follow along.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Post #95, try to follow along.

Nope. Please re-read the original question.

 

[Bowfinger]

Nope. Please re-read the original question.

Please go Cheney yourself. I'm not interested in indulging your duhversions, and you're not interested in useful discussion.

 

[MongGrel]

Nope. Please re-read the original question.

 

[Jhhnn]

Interesting idea. While I'd rather see those involved put away for a good long time, I can see that the convict and pardon approach would be somewhat effective. I don't think it would give us the moral high ground, but it would at least formally acknowledge we did evil, illegal things.

Nixon was never convicted of anything.

We don't deserve the moral high ground. Putting the perps' heads on pikes on the White House lawn wouldn't change that.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You will have to forgive me, I came late into this conversation.
Exactly what methods are we calling torture? Just so I have the story straight.

Try reading the report maybe?

 

[Bowfinger]

Nixon was never convicted of anything.

Oh, I see what you're saying now: issue pardons without filing charges against anyone. I see less value in that. I think those who participated need to be identified and charged, at a very minimum.

We don't deserve the moral high ground. Putting the perps' heads on pikes on the White House lawn wouldn't change that.

Sadly, I agree. We lost the moral high ground a long time ago. I wonder if we really ever had it, or whether it's wishful thinking from the fog of history.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Ah, now your talking. Actions authorized by FDR and Harry Truman. Both Democratic Presidents.

And don't forget the firebombing of Tokyo. Or enhanced interrogations performed on Germans.

How about we look at look at something like the Phoenix Program, which was authorized under Johnson. Another Democratic president.

And the Extraordinary Rendition program that Bush and Cheney used? Authorized and used first by William Jefferson Clinton. Another Democratic president. A President that also approved of and endorsed the Afghanistan war and invasion of Iraq,a s well as the torture methods you are all talking about.

In fact, most of these Democratic presidents make Bush and Cheney look like Boy scouts by comparison, considering the circumstances.

I will argue the ramifications of your torture methods (which you refuse to specify, but never mind. I shouldn't expect a straight answer from most of the crowd here.
But my point will stand at this. When you are ready to condemn most of the Democratic presidents since FDR himself, then maybe I can take your arguments somewhat seriously. Until then, this is nothing but partisan hackery.

I'm no fan of Cheney, never was. But the hypocrisy by liberals/Democrats is nothing short of sickening.

 

[ivwshane]

Ah, now your talking. Actions authorized by FDR and Harry Truman. Both Democratic Presidents.

And don't forget the firebombing of Tokyo. Or enhanced interrogations performed on Germans.

How about we look at look at something like the Phoenix Program, which was authorized under Johnson. Another Democratic president.

And the Extraordinary Rendition program that Bush and Cheney used? Authorized and used first by William Jefferson Clinton. Another Democratic president. A President that also approved of and endorsed the Afghanistan war and invasion of Iraq,a s well as the torture methods you are all talking about.

In fact, most of these Democratic presidents make Bush and Cheney look like Boy scouts by comparison, considering the circumstances.

I will argue the ramifications of your torture methods (which you refuse to specify, but never mind. I shouldn't expect a straight answer from most of the crowd here.
But my point will stand at this. When you are ready to condemn most of the Democratic presidents since FDR himself, then maybe I can take your arguments somewhat seriously. Until then, this is nothing but partisan hackery.

I'm no fan of Cheney, never was. But the hypocrisy by liberals/Democrats is nothing short of sickening.

Sure condemn them all!

Now what?

Did you have a position on this or did you come into this thread to 'bbbb but but other presidents did it too!' As if that changes anything.

 

[MongGrel]

I'd like to believe the US is always striving for a moral high ground.

What happened then at the time really screwed things up.

Dubya wanted to be a war president to begin with like daddy, who was smart enough to keep a leash on Cheney at the time.

Jr. let Lee Atwaters apprentice (Cheney) have free rein.

I'm not real sure there has been much of a moral high ground since Eisenhower left office.

 

[MongGrel]

Ah, now your talking. Actions authorized by FDR and Harry Truman. Both Democratic Presidents.

And don't forget the firebombing of Tokyo. Or enhanced interrogations performed on Germans.

How about we look at look at something like the Phoenix Program, which was authorized under Johnson. Another Democratic president.

And the Extraordinary Rendition program that Bush and Cheney used? Authorized and used first by William Jefferson Clinton. Another Democratic president. A President that also approved of and endorsed the Afghanistan war and invasion of Iraq,a s well as the torture methods you are all talking about.

In fact, most of these Democratic presidents make Bush and Cheney look like Boy scouts by comparison, considering the circumstances.

I will argue the ramifications of your torture methods (which you refuse to specify, but never mind. I shouldn't expect a straight answer from most of the crowd here.
But my point will stand at this. When you are ready to condemn most of the Democratic presidents since FDR himself, then maybe I can take your arguments somewhat seriously. Until then, this is nothing but partisan hackery.

I'm no fan of Cheney, never was. But the hypocrisy by liberals/Democrats is nothing short of sickening.

That was a Russian bomb, and meant for you.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

That was a Russian bomb, and meant for you.

And yet, you inadvertently provided more information than most of your liberal compatriots bothered to. Accidentally or not doesn't really matter.

 

[shady28]

There is little actual disagreement on what the definition of torture is as related to this program. It easily falls into the legal definition previously used. Generally I am EXTREMELY reluctant to go after previous leadership over differences in policy as it sets a horrible precedent, but the abuses here were so blindingly obvious and so egregious in nature a line has to be drawn somewhere. If we can literally torture people to death without accountability, then what can't we do?

So should we prosecute them? Absolutely. Will we? Absolutely not. By the way, I approve of using this standard against Obama and litigating his decision to unilaterally execute an American citizen by drone strike.

Defending Cheney and other torturers on this is an abrogation of morality. By the way, want to see some 'morality' in action?

I imagine this has a lot more to do with partisan ID than religion, but that should put to rest the idea of religion as being a necessary basis for morality.

I was about to respond that this poll is very depressing, mostly referring to the overall poll..

But... Something I learned in a sociology class long ago, polls are all about what question was asked. Truth is, any poll is meaningless without that context.

So the actual question that was asked in this poll from which the 59% number comes from was :

""All in all, do you think the CIA treatment of suspected terrorists was justified or unjustified?"

59% answered with some level of 'justified'. That could be very justified, or somewhat justified.

In another question :

Do you personally think the CIA treatment of suspected terrorists amounted to torture, or not?"

Here, only 49% of responses acknowledged it was torture at all.

An interesting analogy, 70% of people polled by CBS/NYT said waterboarding was torture.


Here's the clincher -

Of the people who believed it was torture, only 20% of those (10% of the total) said it was justified.

So of those that believe / acknowledge torture occurred, very few support it.

So here is my guess -

90% of people don't know what occurred, they don't know what the report said and what kind of things were done.

Those folks are probably lining up along political lines being pro-Bush/Cheney or anti-Bush/Cheney with their responses.

In other words this poll doesn't mean people support torture, it just means they are not well informed.

What always pisses me off about polls is that most of them don't ask a straight question even when it's easy to do so. This implies that the pollsters are bias in some way to start with. Very strange that this poll talks about white people and Christians for example.

I mean, why not just ask the question. Do you support the United States using torture as a means to gather information from suspected terrorists?

But no, they have to make it 'Do you support what the CIA did?' That's a politically charged question and makes assumptions / implications about what the CIA did. The results wind up being meaningless.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Sure condemn them all!

Now what?

Did you have a position on this or did you come into this thread to 'bbbb but but other presidents did it too!' As if that changes anything.

My points are two:

1) The supposed atrocities against humanity that Bush/Cheney supposedly inflicted pale in comparison to certain other Democratic presidents who have historically been thought of as heroes for their actions. Thus the hypocrisy.

2) I abhor torture in general. So do many conservatives. However, if you put yourself in a leaders position and take many plausible terrorist scenarios into consideration, I am curious as to what alternative humane methods could be used to extract needed intel that could save American lives in a short amount of time?
Say intel has been discovered that a biological weapon/dirty bomb/nuclear weapon/major bombing is going to take place within a week. You do not have a location, exact time, or enough info to stop the event from occurring. But you do have someone in custody that may know enough to stop it.

Or perhaps you have a suspect that may have knowledge of a terror cell operating within our country, and they are preparing for a major terrorist event.

What do you do? What humane resources do you use to extract the needed information? If you are president, what do you do that will be considered humane enough to fit your wishes?

Serious questions. Have at it. Otherwise, have a Merry Christmas!

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

And let it be known that I do not support events like what occurred at Abu Ghraib (sic?) and others that were never sanctioned by leadership, but were carried out by rogue personnel. I also do not support the cases where those in charge abused their responsibilities, where they strayed from their missions or went too far.

To be honest, I don't even support torture, period. However, my questions above are still valid. Until I hear better alternatives...

And also consider this: The methods of torture we officially employ today are nothing in comparison to methods that were employed previous to WW1. By comparison, we are definitely considered boy scouts. Doesn't make it right, most certainly. But again, take into account.
We use methods that are considered psychological torture for the most part. But back then, they just used to just threaten to (and actually did) rip off limbs.
They didn't screw around.

 

[MongGrel]

And yet, you inadvertently provided more information than most of your liberal compatriots bothered to. Accidentally or not doesn't really matter.

This guy is a nutcase.