Bush Administration is Right - Yet Again!

There is also a recent post by someone on this very website that commented on the fact that US interrogators gave their prisoners cookies and milk and were able to extract information out of them almost instantly.

The article just proved that diplomatic interrogation techniques can be a very effective method of extracting information from even enemies throughout the world.

reply to post by Pathos


Okay, this post clears up what you are aiming at. You are not really saying that he is right. Rather you are trying to imply that he was right by BREAKING THE LAWS set forth in the Geneva Convention.

You see the problem though right? It doesn't matter what information was gotten from the torture. The fact is still that it was TORTURE. It was ILLEGAL. Just because the president tried to say that it isn't illegal doesn't mean that that was true. It's just not legal.

Why is this such a huge issue for me? Because as a vet I have a pretty good idea of what it would be like to be captured. From a training point of view that obviously doesn't come close to the real experience. However, what I want to make sure of is that the people that have captured our brave men and women understand that there will be retribution for their treatment of said men and women. That if they break the laws set forth for treatment of prisoners that they know we will pursue them to the full extent.

The problem is now we don't have an f'ing leg to stand on. WE HAVE BURNED THAT BRIDGE. Sure, there will still be outrage of any torture of our soldiers but the problem is that there will now be MANY that will simply point to the inhumane treatment we did to their people. Of course Bush and Cheney tried to get around this by labeling these people as terrorists and not military personnel but that just isn't flying. Just because they tried the legalese of "they're non-military combatants" doesn't make torture LEGAL.

So, I understand what you are trying to say. He was 'right', according to this article, with WHY he allowed it. Just not RIGHT for doing what he did.

Originally posted by RRconservative
When you extend the meaning of torture to include "second hand smoke", then you can classify anything as torture. Just shows you how idiotic the torture claims are.

www.cnsnews.com...

The IG's office described this smoke-blowing as one of several "unauthorized or undocumented techniques" it discovered had been used in isolated incidents by CIA employees interrogating high-level al-Qaida terrorists.

Obama is an epic failure, so it's time once again to attack Bush.

I finally had to reply to this degrading post. NO IT'S NOT ABOUT ATTACKING BUSH! It's about torture and the fact that it is ILLEGAL. Period.

For you to grab the least invasive method called out by whomever is the typical mode of operation by those that want to try and legitimise the illegal actions of those they hold in high regard. Torture is torture. It is illegal. Period.

Though smoking is probably not the greatest thing to do it is NOT truly torture. However, you will probably want to argue to the contrary and turn it into a discussion about the most petty things classified as torture instead of the real big ones as described quite well in previous posts.

It's like with the 911 argument. Skeptics grab onto the most ludicrous conspiracy theory and use that to try and defame ALL conspiracies on that subject. So you have tried to do the same with torture. To belittle the suffering OTHER human beings experienced at the hands of our own people. And no, don't go on a rant about what these people do to others. Many of the people that were detained ILLEGALLY were NOT 'terrorists' but were held on suspicions ONLY. They were tortured as well.

Lets open the subject up further. I see some interesting replies, which springs forth some deeper debating (or conversation).

I. If you were in charge of pressuring your current enemy into giving you reliable information, what techniques would you consider effective?
Before you guys/gals answer this question, I want to put forth some important elements.

(1) Your enemy is spread throughout a massive region.
(2) Your enemy uses suicide bombing (sacrifice themselves) for a means to hurt large groups of individuals.
(3) Your enemy can hide in plain site.
(4) Your enemy has shown they are capable of breaking quietly through your defenses.

How would you people approach this issue? Lets put it into a more domestic way.

II. If a group of people were threatening your family, they held a few of your family members hostage, they managed to kill two of them, and you caught one of them, what would you do to the one you captured?

What type of interrogation techniques would you use on the killer, so you can get your family back safe and sound?

Do you see where the shades of gray are blurred? Should you show the killer mercy for killing your two family members? What are you willing to do to that one captured killer, so you can find and save your other family members?

Keep in mind they are willing to die for their cause. What would you do?

Do we do this?
Lockerbie kin: Release of terrorist is 'sickening'


[edit on 28-8-2009 by Pathos]

reply to post by Pathos


OK, I don't give a damn whether or not it worked. It was wrong, and the Bush Administration was wrong for using it. The reason is simple: The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. It states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

It does not state that this only applies to US citizens, it applies to any prisoner in US or any States custody. It does not state that it only applies on US soil, it applies to any prisoner held anywhere.

The Constitution cares not if you are a Democrat or a Republican. It applies to all, no matter where, no matter when.

The little dimwitted ###hole is a criminal and should be prosecuted forthright

sleep, sleep little sheep

but at least he kept us safe