On Torture

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Lawman' post='354036' date='Sep 29 2006, 04:59 PM'][url="http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20060929458997.html"]http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20060929458997.html[/url]

Detainees Sent Home After Plea To Bush
Two Kuwaiti detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, went home this month after a personal plea from the emir of Kuwait to President Bush, an attorney said Thursday.

Sheik Sabah Al Ahmed Al Sabah, the newly installed ruler of the Persian Gulf oil nation, asked Bush for return of all six of his nationals just after Labor Day during an official visit to Washington, said attorney David Cynamon.

On Sept. 14, the Pentagon announced release of two of the men -- Omar Rajab Amin, 31, and Abdullah Kamel al Kundari, 32, both fathers who had been held at the remote U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba since soon after their capture in Afghanistan in early 2002.

In a telephone conference call with reporters, Cynamon credited ''discussions between the emir of Kuwait and President Bush that took place after Labor Day in Washington'' for the pair's release.

--CAROL ROSENBERG

[/quote]
Too bad every illegal detainee doesn't have the Emir on their legal team...

[Guest bengalrick]

i'm tired of the useless snickering homer... i just have one complaint about what your saying, and if i'm misinterpreting then please correct me: your complaint is mostly b/c of putting us on a slippery slope in the future, where the president and/or sec. of defense can interpret this document differently than it is says here... to me, the law was already being intrepretted wrongly by this administration (hense the backlash from the supreme court) and they are now trying to cover their own ass by specifying what can and can't be done... i've heard that this shouldn't be considered unconstitutional down the road, so its not something that they are trying to push for only a limited period of time... it doesn't allow torture... it is for foreign members only... there are checks in place... i just don't really get the fuss on this particular issue...

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='354266' date='Sep 29 2006, 08:39 PM']i just don't really get the fuss on this particular issue...[/quote]
Let's use your buddy MLK for another fine example. Did he have a dream tht "ALL" men are created equal? Or just the Americans?

The idea that you don't give basic human rights to ANY and EVERY one is the most hypocritical bunch of bullshit possible from an American government. Period. Rationalize it all you want, Rick. Tell yourself what you need to to sleep at night. But the current administration has shown they have no understanding at all of what the following means. Good thing it was only meant as a theory, and not as the basis for creating a nation.

[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that [b]all men are created equal[/b], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/quote]

The idea that certain people are somehow unworthy of due process and freedom from torture is fucking ridiculous. And that you can stand up in support of such a notion shows that you have no fucking idea what it is supposed to mean to be an American. Sorry.

If you could unwrap yourself from your flag for just a moment, you might realize that this is more than a slippery slope. From the outside, it reeks of "master race". Not to mention that placing the full responsibilty as to whether or not this slope is slid down in the hands of one man, is the makings of a dictatorship. The power no longer lies in a system of checks and balances. Sorry, but that is blatantly un-American, whether W or the media says so or not.

[Lawman]

[quote]Jamie_B,
the idea that they do it which might give us any slightest right to do anything that might be considered torture is a slippery slope that can at times lead us to Abuh-Graib incidents.[/quote]

Sorry to confuse you, my implication was that we (Soldiers/sailors) should not expect the same treatment if captured, correction we [u]WILL [/u] not receive the same treatment. We will probably be tortured and killed soon after capture like the most recent soldiers in Iraq.

The Abu-Grhaib crowd was a reserve National Guard unit. Guantanimo is a Joint Command (SOUTHCOM)currently headed by an Navy Admiral.

[Lawman]

[quote]The "killing machine" types need to be weeded out and not even allowed in to the military to begin with. Now am I so naive to believe that those types can always be prevented? No, but at the same time training needs to be very much stressed in this area so that the average grunt understands that. Now this doesn’t mean that during battle I expect them to play the "careful killing" clause, no when the heat is on men react in ways unimaginable to those who have never been in battle, myself included. But what it does mean is that when their lives are not in immediate danger, that discretion should be the better part of valor.[/quote]

Like that piece-of-shit Gardner, the guy in BJ's photo punching a prisoner at Abu-ghraib. People need to understand that people like this piss us (Military personnel) off of just as bad and if not more than most of our civilian citizens.



[quote]We don’t and never should be treating any of these enemies like Nick Berg.[/quote]

Sorry, you lost me here. Cutting someones head-off is not a Legal practice and I believe would never be an accepted practice.

But I am sure you have heard of Saddm's shredding machines or the practice of attaching C-4 to one of the unfortunate soles that ran afoul of his death squads.

[Lawman]

[quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='354234' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:54 PM']Too bad every illegal detainee doesn't have the Emir on their legal team...
[/quote]

More like Barnabas x2.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='353968' date='Sep 29 2006, 10:16 AM']Serious question, what are we doing that you know for sure, to [u]you[/u] constitutes torture practices?[/quote]


You hae a point. I know of nothing in this whole mess for sure. I don't even know for sure that there are US military people in Afghanistan. I don't know for sure that there are detainees in Guantanimo at all. I don't know for sure what you are doing. I certainly don't know for sure that you're being completely honest about your actions and intentions, and I strongly suspect that you are not.

[Lawman]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='354958' date='Sep 30 2006, 10:44 PM']You hae a point. I know of nothing in this whole mess for sure. I don't even know for sure that there are US military people in Afghanistan. I don't know for sure that there are detainees in Guantanimo at all. I don't know for sure what you are doing. [u]I certainly don't know for sure that you're being completely honest about your actions and intentions, and I strongly suspect that you are not.[/u][/quote]

Well, as I suspected, no definitive answer.

Well with a TS/SCI clearance; there is not much I can say. I can only elaborate when something that was once classified becomes declassified.

Resent release of CNN tapes; CNN anchor "can we obtain information from these tapes"


x 10.


As for interrogation vs torture; I have stated that I have attended SERE training.

Torture is not an efficent tool for extracting information. Other means have proven more beneficial.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[center][img]http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/bengals/ww2.jpg[/img]



[b][size=7].... Nuff Said [/size] [/b] [/center]

[Lawman]

[quote]WHODEYUK,
The idea that certain people are somehow unworthy of due process and freedom from torture is fucking ridiculous. And that you can stand up in support of such a notion shows that you have no fucking idea what it is supposed to mean to be an American.[/quote]

From "My Girl"

A response from emailer after this post:

CIA Torture: Another Gay Night Out
The Leftist English rag The Guardian reveals the shocking, just shocking, details of "torture" the CIA wants to use on terrorist savages. (HT Hot Air via LGF)

Revealed: the tough interrogation techniques the CIA wants to use

The techniques sought by the CIA are: induced hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; a technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized; the "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; the "belly slap"; and sound and light manipulation.

Gee, this is weird. The "tough torture" sounds very much like the other evening when I danced the night away at Girl Bar. I became dehydrated, got hot and cold, there was loud music and flashing lights, the barely clad go-go dancers were probably offensive (if you're a Muslim I suppose, which I'm not, so I rather enjoyed them. A lot.) I watched women getting "attention grabbed" by their friends (and strangers to boot). Shocking. A shirt was even tugged at one point. I'm sure at one stage one gal slapped another for looking too long at those go-go dancers. Belly slapping galore, and even more sound and light manipulation.

Oh, I also didn't get a lot of sleep, and had to stand up for a long time when I didn't feel like dancing. Now that was hell. Where was John McCain then?

[url="http://tammybruce.com/2006/09/cia_torture_another.php"]more[/url]


[i]Lawman: For the record, I do not feel waterboardeding and pencil-tapping to the forehead is necessary.[/i]

[b]My Answer About the Use of "Torture" Against Terrorists[/b]

This little gem came from this post about the shock from the international community about the "torture" the CIA has listed it wants to use. Even the horrific example of pulling on a terrorist's shirt to get his attention. I know, I haven't been able to sleep for weeks about that one.

In the Comments section this little ditty was indeed just submitted. I thought it a good opportunity to counter the sophomoric arguments against persuasive measures to get mass murderers to talk about their next plan, especially because those arguments are seeping with moral relativism and sick self-obsession. Personally, I am sick and tired of this puerile tripe, Malignant Narcissism and nihilism masquerading as "progressive politics" and "concern for American values." My comments are bracketed and bold. I have also redacted this Commenter's name and email to save him/her any further embarrassment. You know who you are.

[i]Tammy,

I can't believe that you are being honest in this article. Do you really believe that we should advocate torture?

You make fun of the types of torture that the CIA would like to administer, comparing it to a night out at a night club. That is sad.[/i]

[b][Believe it, it's the truth. You need to get out more].[/b]

[i]Let's say that the CIA only wanted to tap a terrorist's forehead with a number 2 pencil. Would you make fun of that? Would it be funny if after tapping the terrorist's forehead for 4 days that the terrorist became psychotic for lack of sleep? Would it be funny if after a week a hole was tapped in his head and became infected? Would it be funny as the terrorist lied there shaking from the fever and chills of the infection from the hole?[/i]

[b][Let's see...tapping a guy with a pencil...an infected sore and a fever while trying to get a mass murdering terrorist to reveal the next plan. Let me think....wait...Yes, I'm all for that. But actually, I'm more all for water-boarding which doesn't take four days; it takes two minutes to work].[/b]

[i]How funny would it be if a CIA (under a different regime) decided that you were a terror because of your "revolution book."[/i]

[b][Remarkable. You cannot, or refuse, to distinguish between actions we take to get information about the next mass-murder plan so we can save lives, and a tyrannical regime’s punishment of a writer because they don’t like what’s been written.

This is like saying a husband and father who, when a rapist/killer enters his home to rape and kill, beats him up to stop him, is equal to the neighbor who goes outside and for no reason pummels the paperboy. Young person, and you must be young considering your insipid position, these situation are not the same. One is justified, the other is not. They are not morally equal. They are not morally relative.

What a world we live in when this still has to be pointed out.][/b]


[i]I guess my point is this. In my America we don't justify torture, we give everyone due process and avoid cruel and unusual punishment, because those are inalienable human rights, that come from both the Constitution and God.[/i]

[b][That's for American citizens, not foreign mass murdering terrorists who are enemy combatants. As a matter of fact, if you were to suggest to the world that our Constitution and Bill of Rights be adopted by every country on Earth, you'd be laughed out of the room. To give the benefits of our law to foreign murderers who exist to kill us is an insult to every American who works hard to make this country great. Our rights are not to be spread around to anyone who will take them like yesterday's expired blueberry muffin].[/b]

[i]I want my America to be a shining example of what government by the people can be. That we can stand strong in the face of terror, because we know deep down that freedom, and fairness are rights given by God not man. And that in the end they will prevail over terror.[/i]

[b][Aww, that's very nice and sweet, and such a lovely sentiment, but sentiment won't uncover plots of mass murder or get savages to talk. Now go look again at the people jumping from the 80th floor of the WTC. Nice cuddly, happy feelings are wonderful. I want this government to be all it can be as well. But in order to have that you first have to believe that you are worthy of defending, and then implement that defense].[/b]

[i]I just don't like to see those principles cheapened.[/i]

[b][Here's the cheapened principle: your desire to feel morally superior coming at the cost of hundreds or thousands of innocent lives. You and I are different--I am less interested in the way I am perceived than I am in making sure we do everything, everything possible to make sure we get all the information we need to save innocent people from dying. That includes the 2 minutes of water-boarding applied to Khalid Sheikh Muhammad which gave us the details of at least 12 planned attacks against the United States innocent civilians, including the plan to fly an airplane into the tallest building in Los Angeles.

The "cheapened principle" is not considering the thousands of people dead in order so you (or we?) can argue and be somehow seen as "fair"? Fair to whom? When does "fair" kick in for the murdered, when making a terrorist uncomfortable for two-minutes (water-board!) would save their lives, but you don't want that because it would irritate your idea of you being decent. The indecency is allowing more people to die so you can think good thoughts about yourself. Now that's sick, self-obsessed, and contrary to everything it means to be an American.


Now, just for good measure, here's a picture from the Beslan School Massacre. Because for people like you this is all about theory as opposed to real people at risk, real people targeted and real people dying:



Now, I would use water-boarding, or even tapping a guy on the head with a pencil for days on end to stop this. You, you freak, wouldn't. Now *that's* sick. In fact, I would do even more. And considering you're appalled by my support of shirt-tugging and sleep-deprivation, I won't give you nightmares with a description of what I would support to get a terrorist animal to talk so we can save innocent lives. But if you or your family ever, God forbid, gets hurt or killed in a terrorist action, the first thing you're going to wonder is, Did we do enough to stop this? Now that water-boarding is banned, the answer will be "no, we didn't," and it is then, when you are holding a dead loved-one in your arms, you will wish this was the United States of Tammy].[/b]

[Homer_Rice]

Tecumseh, the Shawnee, who as a man created a confederacy of tribes to oppose US westward expansion, experienced something as a young warrior in his teens, which is instructive here.

A war-party he was a junior member of engaged with some enemies on the Ohio river. After the brief skirmish, the warriors tortured the survivors before killing them. Tecumseh was sickened by the event and stood up before them, even though he was still a teen at the time, saying that he would never engage in such practice again, nor would he associate with any other Shawnee who stooped so low. The moral authority of his argument shamed the older and more experienced warriors in that war-party, and it marked Tecumseh as a future leader.

So let's cut to the chase here and rid ourselves of the self-delusional bullshit put forward by very disturbed individuals who favor torture, or who spend too much time trying to semantically justify what is a barbaric practice.

1) Torture tells us more about the nature of those doing the torturing than it does of those on the receiving end. It is an irrational and immoral response to any situation. Period. No hypotheticals, no justifications, no rationales for engaging in such practices can remove that taint which smells of rotten souls who have a base conception of what it means to be human.

2) The purpose of torture is not to retrieve actionable intelligence, even though that is claimed. The real purpose of torture is to humiliate and dominate another human being who is powerless and in one's control.

3) Brainwashing, an adjunct of torture, has "conversion" as its purpose. Those doing the brainwashing do not seek to obtain information, they seek to dominate the thought processes of another human being, and would do so with deceptive and demeaning measures. Passive compliance to a set of ideas is the goal.

So, the next time you are tempted to torture someone, or advocate that others do it for you--which is practically the same thing, consider the damage you have done to your own soul and to the human species as a whole. Worms are slimy little creatures, but they serve a useful and important purpose in Creation. Torture advocates are slimy, too. But for less noble reasons.

[|Bunghole|]

Both Lawman and Homer provide compelling arguments here.
I cannot side with abuses of humanity that we pretend to abhor but uphold in private.
We need to realign ourselves as the "shining example" for the world to show everyone that no matter what you do to us, if we capture you, you will be treated with a modicum of basic human respect, and I firmly believe that the prisoners in Guantanamo are receiving that treatment.
What I don't like is this indefinite imprisonment, even if these guys in Gitmo are the sorry sacks of shit we think they are.
They need to be paraded on the public stage in front of the world WITH EVIDENCE to support their prosecution.
If we don't have that accountability, then that "slippery slope" we keep referring to willl be infinetely more slippery if we don't answer to the critics that claim we are imprisoning supposed terrorists without reason.

[Homer_Rice]

My second post in this thread pointed towards the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts.

No one took up the hint. [url="http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9779"]Raimondo explains it well.[/url]

[Lawman]

Homer,

Nice piece on Tecumseh.

I believe you, myself and others on this board share the same desire; as Bung put it ("the "shining example" for the world to show everyone that no matter what you do to us (like those two soldiers in Iraq who were tortured and mutilated in 48 hours after capture), if we capture you, you will be treated with a modicum of basic human respect)

First I will address SERE training myths as displayed in Wilkopedia.

Level A - Entry level training. All services personnel are provided this basic level training annually.
Level B - For personnel operating (or anticipated to operate) forward of the division rear boundary and up to the "forward line of own troops" (FLOT). Normally limited to flight personnel of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
[u]Level C - For troops at a high risk of capture and whose position, rank, or seniority make them vulnerable to greater than average exploitation efforts by a captor.[/u] [i]This was my training.[/i]

The actual techniques used in the school have been classified by the US government, but several official sites exist to give a general overview of the curricula. The training has been widely reported to provide a realistic simulation of harsh and abusive interrogation techniques. The SERE program has been reported to involve the following elements:

extreme temperatures - [color="#000099"]non-life threatening[/color]
waterboarding - being tied to a board with the feet higher than the head and having water poured into the nose - [color="#000099"]not used and now banned interogation technique[/color]
noise stress - playing very loud and dissonant music and sound effects. Recordings have been reported to include babies wailing inconsolably, cats meowing, and irritating music (including a record by Yoko Ono
sexual embarrassment -[color="#000099"]not true[/color]
religious dilemma - being given the choice of seeing a religious book desecrated or revealing secrets to interrogators.
flag desecration
prolonged cramped or restrictive confinement
sleep deprivation
starvation non-life threatening
mock execution -[color="#000099"]not true[/color]
overcoming food aversion (eating bugs, roadkill, dumpster diving, urine drinking) [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]
[s]height/water[/s]/enclosed spaces
physical beating - [color="#000099"]not true[/color]
"stress inoculation" , this is not a bad thing if one understands it.

In order to address [u]real[/u] Torture, I have presented in various threads the story of the [url="http://www.persecution.com/about/index.cfm?action=WurmbrandStory"]Rev.
Richard Wurmbrand[/url], author of Tortured for Christ and reccomended reading
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Freaks_%28book%29"][i]Jesus Freaks[/i], [/url] by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dc_Talk"]dc Talk[/url].

[quote]Homer_Rice
So let's cut to the chase here and rid ourselves of the self-delusional bullshit put forward by very disturbed individuals who favor torture, or who spend too much time trying to semantically justify what is a barbaric practice.

1) Torture tells us more about the nature of those doing the torturing than it does of those on the receiving end. It is an irrational and immoral response to any situation. Period. No hypotheticals, no justifications, no rationales for engaging in such practices can remove that taint which smells of rotten souls who have a base conception of what it means to be human.[/quote]

[i]Well said, the question I am posing "what to you consitutes [u]real [/u] torture?"[/i].
The media has sucessfully been able to transform the word interrogation as a synonym for the word torture.

[quote]Homer_Rice,
2) [u]The purpose of torture [u]is not to retrieve actionable intelligence[/u], even though that is claimed[/u]. The real purpose of torture is to humiliate and dominate another human being who is powerless and in one's control.[/quote]

I disagree with this assertion; as it seems in this case:
[i]Now a ban technique, the 2 minutes of water-boarding applied to Khalid Sheikh Muhammad which gave us the details of at least 12 planned attacks against the United States innocent civilians, including the plan to fly an airplane into the tallest building in Los Angeles. [/i]

[quote]3) Brainwashing, an adjunct of torture, has "conversion" as its purpose. Those doing the brainwashing do not seek to obtain information, they seek to dominate the thought processes of another human being, and would do so with deceptive and demeaning measures. Passive compliance to a set of ideas is the goal.[/quote]

Brainwashing, sorry I am little confused on what you are trying to say

But if you mean to find out "why an individual wants to kill us (you)" I think this is something that should be explored.

[quote]Homer_Rice
So, the next time you are tempted to torture someone, or advocate that others do it for you--which is practically the same thing, consider the damage you have done to your own soul and to the human species as a whole. Worms are slimy little creatures, but they serve a useful and important purpose in Creation. Torture advocates are slimy, too. But for less noble reasons.[/quote]

One last time, Torture is not an efficient techique. i was watching the History Channel last night and it was about the Knights Templar, i am sure you know the story, but after the fall of the "Holy lands", they were persecuted and all of their wealth confiscated. They were tortured and forced to confess to charges which iare now debatable today as having any validity.

From the Clinton Legacy thread:

[quote]Homer_Rice
But here's the point. The extreme crazies who have hijacked the R-epublican party have done quite a bit to destroy this country in the past 6 years. It's time to throw them out of power. And then it's time to throw some of them in jail.[/quote]

a little "political theater"

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='354333' date='Sep 29 2006, 07:41 PM']Let's use your buddy MLK for another fine example. Did he have a dream tht "ALL" men are created equal? Or just the Americans?

The idea that you don't give basic human rights to ANY and EVERY one is the most hypocritical bunch of bullshit possible from an American government. Period. Rationalize it all you want, Rick. Tell yourself what you need to to sleep at night. But the current administration has shown they have no understanding at all of what the following means. Good thing it was only meant as a theory, and not as the basis for creating a nation.
The idea that certain people are somehow unworthy of due process and freedom from torture is fucking ridiculous. And that you can stand up in support of such a notion shows that you have no fucking idea what it is supposed to mean to be an American. Sorry.[/quote]

who said i don't want to give basic human rights to their prisoners of war? Telling me to rationalize it, but not providing the context of what your talking about... are you assuming i support torture, even though i have plainly denied that on this thread a few times?

let me make this clear, and if you say it differently from hear on, you are lying:

- i DO NOT support torture, but i obviously support interrogating our prisoners... i actually think that the cut off line should be water boarding, but according to lawman, that has now been banned... so according ot the law, waterboarding is also illegial... loud music, sleep depervation, carrots and sticks, are successful tactics that i do support.. i don't support things like whips, bamboo sticks under the nails, and things that normal people would consider torture...

- i do support the prisoners having a fair trial, but only so that the jury/judge/lawyers have the classified information, and not hte suspect... there is no reasons for him to get that classified information, and be able to use this against us... no reason for him to find out our tactics of getting information, or how many operatives we have working in iraq or whereever... they have a right to a fair trial, but we have to be careful about the info we release to indict them publically...

- this bill that we're discussing, DOES NOT allow torture, and does not allow these rules to be able to be used on american citizens, as homer is saying here... in that bill, section 7 clearly says that all of this only refers to "alien" citizens... this bill is to allow the prisoners to get their day in court, and anyone that says "if you support that bill, you support torture" is either ignorant to the fact that their full of shit, or are purposely saying that to fog the issue and make bush, mccain and everyone that supports the bill look bad...

- if you don't support this bill, or something similar, you either a.) support holding prisoners without trials b.) would rather let all prisoners go w/out any interogation instead of figuring out the most fair, yet safe way to try these people...

[quote]If you could unwrap yourself from your flag for just a moment, you might realize that this is more than a slippery slope. From the outside, it reeks of "master race". Not to mention that placing the full responsibilty as to whether or not this slope is slid down in the hands of one man, is the makings of a dictatorship. The power no longer lies in a system of checks and balances. Sorry, but that is blatantly un-American, whether W or the media says so or not.[/quote]

explain how this smells of the "master race"... your rhetoric isn't going to scare me away from my position...

stop using shock words, and explain what the fuck your talking about... somehow, this detainee bill is a beginnings of the master race in america, and is going to somehow install a dictatorship? forgive for my ignorance, but where the fuck did you make that jump?



lawman, you are nailing this topic my man... i wish i could pick your brain on the behind the scenes shit, but i obviously know that isn't going to happen... great explaination about seperating torture from interrogation...

[Lawman]

Washington Times
October 2, 2006
Pg. 12

[b]Catered To At Gitmo[/b]

By Mark Steyn

"This is not just a bad bill," said Vermont's Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "This is truly a dangerous bill." And it's not just a dangerous bill. It's also "unconstitutional" and "unconscionable" and represents the loss of the nation's "moral compass".

Wow. That's quite a lot for a humble bill on military trials for terrorist (OK, "alleged terrorist") detainees. But Vermont's leftie colossus wasn't done yet in his excoriation of the Bush administration. "Even they cannot dismiss the practices at Guantanamo as the actions of a few bad people," he continued. "Before they just did it quietly, and against the law, on their own say-so, [u]but now they are obtaining license to engage in additional harsh techniques that the rest of the world will see as abusive, as cruel, as degrading and even as torture."[/u]

Hmm. I should say a word about [b]"the practices at Guantanamo." [/b] As it happens, I've just got back from Gitmo. (That glitch on my Green Card was finally straightened out.) I've visited several prisons in several countries over the years [u]and never seen anything like this one[/u]. Granted, most of what I know about enemy detainee camps comes from what Rear Adm. Harry Harris, who runs Guantanamo, calls "bad movies and worse TV shows," and from a distance very little seems to have changed: The basic look -- barbed wire and watch towers -- would be recognizable to any World War II POWs. But, close up, pretty much everything else has been flushed down the toilet of history. Indeed, even the toilet has been flushed down the toilet of history: [b]In the interests of cultural sensitivity, Gitmo cells were fitted with "Asian-style toilets," because "that's what the detainees prefer." [/b] Given that much of the matter that should be going down there [u]ends up flung over the guards[/u] , it seems this sensitivity over choice of bathroom fixtures is not always appreciated.

When visitors swing by like yours truly, [u]the camp likes to serve them the same meal the prisoners get[/u]. This being Ramadan, Adm. Harris was particularly proud of the fresh-baked traditional pastries his team had made for the holy month. And he was right: [b]the baklava was delicious[/b]. "Baklava" is said by some linguists to come from the Arabic for "nuts" -- and, indeed, in that sense this entire war can sometimes seem like one giant baklava.

There was a film out earlier this year called "The Road To Guantanamo," and the poster showed the usual emaciated prisoner hung by shackles against a dungeon wall. No doubt the actor in question did the full Robert De Niro and lost 40 pounds to get himself looking that cadaverous.

If they have anything like that going on at the real Gitmo, they must be doing it behind the confectioner's sugar at the back of the pastry chef's cupboard. If you're hoping to hear about the old wooden chair under a bare light bulb swinging on its cord, here's the reality: [b]The detainees are [s]interrogated [/s] [i]tortured[/i] on either a La-Z-Boy Recliner or a luxuriously upholstered sofa -- blue plush with gold piping.[/b]

As for being emaciated, [b]it's the only death camp in history where the soi-disant torture victims put on weight.[/b] In contrast to the undernourished thesp in the movie version, [b]the average gain at Gitmo is 18 pounds[/b]. The Afghan detainees were the chunkiest Afghans I've ever seen. If they ever make it home, their old comrades -- the lean wiry warriors of the Hindu Kush -- will wonder why a party of Florida retirees has suddenly shown up. These Pushtuns are pushing a ton.

And, if you do start losing weight suddenly, don't worry. One of the camp's medical staff explained they offer free colon-cancer testing for jihadis over 50. If President Hillary decides to have another crack at socialized medicine in 2009, there are worse slogans than "Every American should have the right to the same health care plan as a Sudanese terrorist who put his arm out stabbing a prison guard."

Perhaps this is what Mr. Leahy means by "abusive" "cruel" "degrading" "torture." If you're used to the Afghan health system, no doubt it's profoundly [u]humiliating to be offered free colonoscopies every time you bend down to use the prayer mat[/u]. Nevertheless, it surely requires a perverse genius to have made the first terrorist detention camp to offer home-made Ramadan pastries a byword for horror and brutality. If I had to summon up Gitmo in a single image, it would be the brand-new Korans in each unoccupied cell. [b]To reassure incoming inmates that the filthy infidels haven't touched the sacred book with their unclean hands, the Korans are hung from the walls in pristine surgical masks. It's one thing for Muslims to regard infidels as unclean, but it's hard to see why it's in the United States government's interests to string along with it and thereby validate their bigotry.[/b]

When I put this point to Adm. Harris, he replied, "That's an interesting question," and said the decision had been made long before he arrived. He explained they had a good working system whereby whenever it became necessary to handle a Koran -- [u]because a weapon or illicit communication had been concealed in it [/u] -- a[b] Muslim translator would be called to the cell to perform the task[/b]. But I wasn't thinking of it in operational so much as psychological terms: What does that degree of abasement before their prejudices tell them about us?

Mulling it over since I got back, I would go further: it seems to me that one sign this war is over is when Muslims are grown-up enough not to go to full-blown baklava nuts over other folks touching their Korans.

Of course, for the likes of Mr. Leahy, not only is the war far from over, it hasn't even begun. Almost every argument in this area isn't "about" the war so much as whether there even is a war. As The Washington Post reported, [b]"The Senate joined the House in embracing President Bush's view that the battle against terrorism justifies the imposition of extraordinary limits on defendants' traditional rights in the courtroom."[/b]

Well, they're only "extraordinary" if you regard these men as traditional "defendants." If you regard them as traditional wartime detainees -- rather than O.J.s in turbans -- the only "extraordinary" aspect of this is [u]the kid gloves with which not just their Korans but the jihadists themselves are handled[/u]. [b]This is the only war in American history in which enemy detainees have been freed before the end of hostilities. Of those released, at least 22 are known to have returned to the battlefield in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere[/b].

The ones who remain are dangerous men, no matter how "sensitive" you are. [u]They unscrewed the foot pads from those Asian-style toilets and used them as bludgeons to attack the guards.[/u] After listening to Pat Leahy's contribution to the debate, I wonder if the Gitmo medical facility's lavish team of mental health experts might not be more usefully deployed to the U.S. Senate.

[i]Mark Steyn is the senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc. Publications, senior North American columnist for Britain's Telegraph Group, North American editor for the Spectator, and a nationally syndicated columnist.[/i]

[Lawman]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='357602' date='Oct 2 2006, 09:13 PM']Both Lawman and Homer provide compelling arguments here.
I cannot side with abuses of humanity that we pretend to abhor but uphold in private.
We need to realign ourselves as the "shining example" for the world to show everyone that no matter what you do to us, if we capture you, you will be treated with a modicum of basic human respect, and I firmly believe that the prisoners in Guantanamo are receiving that treatment.
[b]What I don't like is this indefinite imprisonment, even if these guys in Gitmo are the sorry sacks of shit we think they are.
They need to be paraded on the public stage in front of the world WITH EVIDENCE to support their prosecution.
If we don't have that accountability, then that "slippery slope" we keep referring to willl be infinetely more slippery if we don't answer to the critics that claim we are imprisoning supposed terrorists without reason.[/b][/quote]

Bung,

many detainees are still at GITMO, because they have nowhere to go. Their countries of origin [u]do not want them[/u].

The passage last week will allow for the "Commisions" to begin again soon. And then judgement should be passed on GITMO.

[Lawman]

[quote]lawman, you are nailing this topic my man... [u]i wish i could pick your brain on the behind the scenes shit, but i obviously know that isn't going to happen... [/u] great explaination about seperating torture from interrogation...[/quote]

br,

I wish I could, but I will be working under the premise of what is permitted.

If you only knew

[Homer_Rice]

[quote]In order to address real Torture, I have presented in various threads the story of the [url="http://www.persecution.com/about/index.cfm?action=WurmbrandStory"]Rev.
Richard Wurmbrand[/url], author of Tortured for Christ and reccomended reading
Jesus Freaks, by dc Talk.[/quote]

Are you suggesting that real torture is only applied to Christians? That what we do to others is not?

I didn't think so.

Here's a suggestion for a torture guideline: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

If it weren't so serious, I would find it amusing that this so-called debate over acceptable interrogation techniques is even taking place. It is another sign of the slow descent into depravity of this nation. And look who is leading the way. Is the Third Awakening another extension of the craziness of Jonathan Edwards, or just that guard bitch-slapping you back into consciousness for another go-round?

[Khatmandude]

I have heard firsthand (James Yee) stories to the absolute contrary than what is described in Lawman's posts. Remember James Yee?

I choose to beleive that what really goes down there is hidden from people such are yourself Lawman. Are there some fair, decent guards? Of course there are. Are there some animals? Of course there are. Don't tell me to the contrary...I have heard firsthand EXACTLY what sort of treatment some are subjected to. <insert ninja emoticon>

One thought....the prisoners who sling feces at the guards may be doing so that the guards will administer a severe, maybe (hopefully) fatal punishment (beating) to the prisoner. Now why would they want this if they are being treated so nicely down there? Those articles make it sound like their quality of life is nicer than many here in the states. I dont think so.

[Homer_Rice]

[url="http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=867&Itemid=135"]From Empire Burlesque:[/url]

***

Fatal Vision: The Deeper Evil Behind the Detainee Bill
Written by Chris Floyd
Tuesday, 03 October 2006

There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country - if the people lose their confidence in themselves - and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance.
- Walt Whitman

I.

It was a dark hour indeed last Thursday when the United States Senate voted to end the constitutional republic and transform the country into a "Leader-State," giving the president and his agents the power to capture, torture and imprison forever anyone - American citizens included - whom they arbitrarily decide is an "enemy combatant." This also includes those who merely give "terrorism" some kind of "support," defined so vaguely that many experts say it could encompass legal advice, innocent gifts to charities or even political opposition to US government policy within its draconian strictures.

All of this is bad enough - a sickening and cowardly surrender of liberty not seen in a major Western democracy since the Enabling Act passed by the German Reichstag in March 1933. But it is by no means the full extent of our degradation. In reality, the darkness is deeper, and more foul, than most people imagine. For in addition to the dictatorial powers of seizure and torment given by Congress on Thursday to George W. Bush - powers he had already seized and exercised for five years anyway, even without this fig leaf of sham legality - there is a far more sinister imperial right that Bush has claimed - and used - openly, without any demur or debate from Congress at all: ordering the "extrajudicial killing" of anyone on earth that he and his deputies decide - arbitrarily, without charges, court hearing, formal evidence, or appeal - is an "enemy combatant."

That's right; from the earliest days of the Terror War - September 17, 2001, to be exact - Bush has claimed the peremptory power of life and death over the entire world. If he says you're an enemy of America, you are. If he wants to imprison you and torture you, he can. And if he decides you should die, he'll kill you. This is not hyperbole, liberal paranoia, or "conspiracy theory": it's simply a fact, reported by the mainstream media, attested by senior administration figures, recorded in official government documents - and boasted about by the president himself, in front of Congress and a national television audience.

And although the Republic-snuffing act just passed by Congress does not directly address Bush's royal prerogative of murder, it nonetheless strengthens it and enshrines it in law. For the measure sets forth clearly that the designation of an "enemy combatant" is left solely to the executive branch; neither Congress nor the courts have any say in the matter. When this new law is coupled with the existing "Executive Orders" authorizing "lethal force" against arbitrarily designated "enemy combatants," it becomes, quite literally, a license to kill - with the seal of Congressional approval.

How arbitrary is this process by which all our lives and liberties are now governed? Dave Niewert at Orcinus has unearthed a remarkable admission of its totally capricious nature. In an December 2002 story in the Washington Post, then-Solicitor General Ted Olson described the anarchy at the heart of the process with admirable frankness:

[quote]"[There is no] requirement that the executive branch spell out its criteria for determining who qualifies as an enemy combatant," Olson argues.

"'There won't be 10 rules that trigger this or 10 rules that end this,' Olson said in the interview. 'There will be judgments and instincts and evaluations and implementations that have to be made by the executive that are probably going to be different from day to day, depending on the circumstances.'"[/quote]

In other words, what is safe to do or say today might imperil your freedom or your life tomorrow. You can never know if you are on the right side of the law, because the "law" is merely the whim of the Leader and his minions: their "instincts" determine your guilt or innocence, and these flutterings in the gut can change from day to day. This radical uncertainty is the very essence of despotism - and it is now, formally and officially, the guiding principle of the United States government.

And underlying this edifice of tyranny is the prerogative of presidential murder. Perhaps the enormity of this monstrous perversion of law and morality has kept it from being fully comprehended. It sounds unbelievable to most people: a president ordering hits like a Mafia don? But that is our reality, and has been for five years. To overcome what seems to be a widespread cognitive dissonance over this concept, we need only examine the record - a record, by the way, taken entirely from publicly available sources in the mass media. There's nothing secret or contentious about it, nothing that any ordinary citizen could not know - if they choose to know it.

II.

Six days after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush signed a "presidential finding" authorizing the CIA to kill those individuals whom he had marked for death as terrorists. This in itself was not an entirely radical innovation; Bill Clinton's White House legal team had drawn up memos asserting the president's right to issue "an order to kill an individual enemy of the United States in self-defense," despite the legal prohibitions against assassination, the Washington Post reported in October 2001. The Clinton team based this ruling on the "inherent powers" of the "Commander in Chief" - that mythical, ever-elastic construct that Bush has evoked over and over to defend his own unconstitutional usurpations.

The practice of "targeted killing" was apparently never used by Clinton, however; despite the pro-assassination memos, Clinton followed the traditional presidential practice of bombing the hell out of a bunch of civilians whenever he wanted to lash out at some recalcitrant leader or international outlaw - as in his bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in 1998, or the two massive strikes he launched against Iraq in 1993 and 1998, or indeed the death and ruin that was deliberately inflicted on civilian infrastructure in Serbia during that nation's collective punishment for the crimes of Slobodan Milosevic. Here, Clinton was following the example set by George H.W. Bush, who killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Panamanian civilians in his illegal arrest of Manuel Noriega in 1988, and Ronald Reagan, who killed Moamar Gadafy's adopted 2-year-old daughter and 100 other civilians in a punitive strike on Libya in 1986.

Junior Bush, of course, was about to outdo all those blunderbuss strokes with his massive air attacks on Afghanistan, which killed thousands of civilians, and the later orgy of death and destruction in Iraq. But he also wanted the power to kill individuals at will. At first, the assassination program was restricted to direct orders from the president aimed at specific targets, as suggested by the Clinton memos. But soon the arbitrary power of life and death was delegated to agents in the field, after Bush signed orders allowing CIA assassins to kill targets without seeking presidential approval for each attack, the Washington Post reported in December 2002. Nor was it necessary any longer for the president to approve each new name added to the target list; the "security organs" could designate "enemy combatants" and kill them as they saw fit. However, Bush was always keen to get the details about the agency's wetwork, administration officials assured the Post.

The first officially confirmed use of this power was the killing of an American citizen, along with several foreign nationals, by a CIA drone missile in Yemen on November 3, 2002. A similar strike occurred on December 4, 2005, when a CIA missile destroyed a house and purportedly killed Abu Hamza Rabia, a suspected al-Qaeda figure. But the only bodies found at the site were those of two children, the houseowner's son and nephew, Reuters reports. The grieving father denied any connection to terrorism. An earlier CIA strike on another house missed Rabia but killed his wife and children, Pakistani officials reported.

However, there is simply no way of knowing at this point how many people have been killed by American agents operating outside all judicial process. Most of the assassinations are carried out in secret: quietly, professionally. As a Pentagon document uncovered by the New Yorker in December 2002 revealed, the death squads must be "small and agile," and "able to operate clandestinely, using a full range of official and non-official cover arrangements to ... enter countries surreptitiously."

What's more, there are strong indications that the Bush administration has outsourced some of the contracts to outside operators. In the original Post story about the assassinations - in those first heady weeks after 9/11, when administration officials were much more open about "going to the dark side," as Cheney boasted on national television - Bush insiders told the paper that "it is also possible that the instrument of targeted killings will be foreign agents, the CIA's term for nonemployees who act on its behalf.

Here we find a deadly echo of the "rendition" program that has sent so many captives to torture pits in Syria, Egypt and elsewhere - including many whose innocence has been officially established, such as the Canadian businessman Maher Arar, German national Khalid El-Masri, UK native Mozzam Begg and many others. They had been subjected to imprisonment and torture despite their innocence, because of intelligence "mistakes." How many have fallen victim to Bush's hit squads on similar shaky grounds?

So here we are. Congress has just entrenched the principle of Bush's "unitary executive" dictatorship into law; and it is this principle that undergirds the assassination program. As I wrote in December, it's hard to believe that any genuine democracy would accept a claim by its leader that he could have anyone killed simply by labeling them an "enemy." It's hard to believe that any adult with even the slightest knowledge of history or human nature could countenance such unlimited, arbitrary power, knowing the evil it is bound to produce. Yet this is exactly what the great and good in America have done.

But this should come as no surprise. They have known about it all along, and have not only countenanced Bush's death squad, but even celebrated it. I'll end with one more passage from that December article, which sadly is even more apt for our degraded reality today. It was a depiction of the one of the most revolting scenes in recent American history: Bush's state of the Union address in January 2003, delivered live to the nation during the final warmongering frenzy before the rape of Iraq:

[quote]Trumpeting his successes in the Terror War, Bush claimed that "more than 3,000 suspected terrorists" had been arrested worldwide - "and many others have met a different fate." His face then took on the characteristic leer, the strange, sickly half-smile it acquires whenever he speaks of killing people: "Let's put it this way. They are no longer a problem."

In other words, the suspects - and even Bush acknowledged they were only suspects - had been murdered. Lynched. Killed by agents operating unsupervised in that shadow world where intelligence, terrorism, politics, finance and organized crime meld together in one amorphous, impenetrable mass. Killed on the word of a dubious informer, perhaps: a tortured captive willing to say anything to end his torment, a business rival, a personal foe, a bureaucrat looking to impress his superiors, a paid snitch in need of cash, a zealous crank pursuing ethnic, tribal or religious hatreds - or any other purveyor of the garbage data that is coin of the realm in the shadow world.

Bush proudly held up this hideous system as an example of what he called "the meaning of American justice." And the assembled legislators ... applauded. Oh, how they applauded! They roared with glee at the leering little man's bloodthirsty, B-movie machismo. They shared his sneering contempt for law - our only shield, however imperfect, against the blind, brute, ignorant, ape-like force of raw power. Not a single voice among them was raised in protest against this tyrannical machtpolitik: not that night, not the next day, not ever.[/quote]

And now, in September 2006, we know they will never raise that protest. Oh, a few Democrats stood up at the last minute on Thursday to posture nobly about the dangers of the detainee bill - but only when they knew the it was certain to pass, when they had already given up their one weapon against it, the filibuster, in exchange for permission from their dumbass masters to offer amendments that they also knew would fail. Had they been offering such speeches since October 2001, when the lineaments of Bush's presidential tyranny were already clear - or at any other point during the systematic dismantling of America's liberties over the past five years - these fine words might have had some effect.

Now the killing will go on. The tyranny that has entered upon the country will grow stronger, more brazen; the darkness will deepen. Whitman, thou should'st be living at this hour; America has need of thee.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='357353' date='Oct 2 2006, 02:02 PM']Well, as I suspected, no definitive answer.

Well with a TS/SCI clearance; there is not much I can say. I can only elaborate when something that was once classified becomes declassified.

Resent release of CNN tapes; CNN anchor "can we obtain information from these tapes"
x 10.
As for interrogation vs torture; I have stated that I have attended SERE training.

Torture is not an efficent tool for extracting information. Other means have proven more beneficial.[/quote]


Torture is not an efficient tool for extracting information, but torture is useful. Torture is useful for terrorizing people into submission and for extracting politically useful confesions, false or otherwise.

There's nothing to suspect on your part - it's pretty obvious that the general population has only various accounts and reports to go by, and has to sift through a hail storm of partisan flack to try to figure out what's going on. We have to decide whom we find most credible in that process. Self-serving testimony, such as yours is always suspect. Your vested interest in the image of the US military is as obvious as the fact that We the People are in the position to only evaluate the information we get second hand.

When a person attempts to use authority pressure via some kind of supposed expertise, the listener needs to ask two questions - is this person truly an authority in the field being addressed and if so, do they have a reason to lie about it? On the first count, a military person with this or that clearance may indeed be privy to information that would definitively settle this matter, but then again they may not, and may only be exposed to a more sophisticated form of propaganda to keep them operating as an asset in the psychological warfare being waged against the publics rising in opposition to the eggregious policy being pursued. On the second count, a military person with this or that clearance certainly has potential motive to lie about what they know - either about the extent and quality of knowledge that their clearance actually affords them or about the actual nature of the knowledge that they have.

Partison advocacy merely deepens suspicion in this case. Your clearance merely means that your organization trusts you more than other people to cover its ass. It actually works against your credibility in this case.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='358047' date='Oct 3 2006, 04:27 PM'][url="http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=867&Itemid=135"]From Empire Burlesque:[/url]

***

Fatal Vision: The Deeper Evil Behind the Detainee Bill
Written by Chris Floyd
Tuesday, 03 October 2006

There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country - if the people lose their confidence in themselves - and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance.
- Walt Whitman

I.

It was a dark hour indeed last Thursday when the United States Senate voted to end the constitutional republic and transform the country into a "Leader-State," giving the president and his agents the power to capture, torture and imprison forever anyone - American citizens included - whom they arbitrarily decide is an "enemy combatant." This also includes those who merely give "terrorism" some kind of "support," defined so vaguely that many experts say it could encompass legal advice, innocent gifts to charities or even political opposition to US government policy within its draconian strictures.

All of this is bad enough - a sickening and cowardly surrender of liberty not seen in a major Western democracy since the Enabling Act passed by the German Reichstag in March 1933. But it is by no means the full extent of our degradation. In reality, the darkness is deeper, and more foul, than most people imagine. For in addition to the dictatorial powers of seizure and torment given by Congress on Thursday to George W. Bush - powers he had already seized and exercised for five years anyway, even without this fig leaf of sham legality - there is a far more sinister imperial right that Bush has claimed - and used - openly, without any demur or debate from Congress at all: ordering the "extrajudicial killing" of anyone on earth that he and his deputies decide - arbitrarily, without charges, court hearing, formal evidence, or appeal - is an "enemy combatant."

That's right; from the earliest days of the Terror War - September 17, 2001, to be exact - Bush has claimed the peremptory power of life and death over the entire world. If he says you're an enemy of America, you are. If he wants to imprison you and torture you, he can. And if he decides you should die, he'll kill you. This is not hyperbole, liberal paranoia, or "conspiracy theory": it's simply a fact, reported by the mainstream media, attested by senior administration figures, recorded in official government documents - and boasted about by the president himself, in front of Congress and a national television audience.

And although the Republic-snuffing act just passed by Congress does not directly address Bush's royal prerogative of murder, it nonetheless strengthens it and enshrines it in law. For the measure sets forth clearly that the designation of an "enemy combatant" is left solely to the executive branch; neither Congress nor the courts have any say in the matter. When this new law is coupled with the existing "Executive Orders" authorizing "lethal force" against arbitrarily designated "enemy combatants," it becomes, quite literally, a license to kill - with the seal of Congressional approval.

How arbitrary is this process by which all our lives and liberties are now governed? Dave Niewert at Orcinus has unearthed a remarkable admission of its totally capricious nature. In an December 2002 story in the Washington Post, then-Solicitor General Ted Olson described the anarchy at the heart of the process with admirable frankness:
In other words, what is safe to do or say today might imperil your freedom or your life tomorrow. You can never know if you are on the right side of the law, because the "law" is merely the whim of the Leader and his minions: their "instincts" determine your guilt or innocence, and these flutterings in the gut can change from day to day. This radical uncertainty is the very essence of despotism - and it is now, formally and officially, the guiding principle of the United States government.

And underlying this edifice of tyranny is the prerogative of presidential murder. Perhaps the enormity of this monstrous perversion of law and morality has kept it from being fully comprehended. It sounds unbelievable to most people: a president ordering hits like a Mafia don? But that is our reality, and has been for five years. To overcome what seems to be a widespread cognitive dissonance over this concept, we need only examine the record - a record, by the way, taken entirely from publicly available sources in the mass media. There's nothing secret or contentious about it, nothing that any ordinary citizen could not know - if they choose to know it.

II.

Six days after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush signed a "presidential finding" authorizing the CIA to kill those individuals whom he had marked for death as terrorists. This in itself was not an entirely radical innovation; Bill Clinton's White House legal team had drawn up memos asserting the president's right to issue "an order to kill an individual enemy of the United States in self-defense," despite the legal prohibitions against assassination, the Washington Post reported in October 2001. The Clinton team based this ruling on the "inherent powers" of the "Commander in Chief" - that mythical, ever-elastic construct that Bush has evoked over and over to defend his own unconstitutional usurpations.

The practice of "targeted killing" was apparently never used by Clinton, however; despite the pro-assassination memos, Clinton followed the traditional presidential practice of bombing the hell out of a bunch of civilians whenever he wanted to lash out at some recalcitrant leader or international outlaw - as in his bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in 1998, or the two massive strikes he launched against Iraq in 1993 and 1998, or indeed the death and ruin that was deliberately inflicted on civilian infrastructure in Serbia during that nation's collective punishment for the crimes of Slobodan Milosevic. Here, Clinton was following the example set by George H.W. Bush, who killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Panamanian civilians in his illegal arrest of Manuel Noriega in 1988, and Ronald Reagan, who killed Moamar Gadafy's adopted 2-year-old daughter and 100 other civilians in a punitive strike on Libya in 1986.

Junior Bush, of course, was about to outdo all those blunderbuss strokes with his massive air attacks on Afghanistan, which killed thousands of civilians, and the later orgy of death and destruction in Iraq. But he also wanted the power to kill individuals at will. At first, the assassination program was restricted to direct orders from the president aimed at specific targets, as suggested by the Clinton memos. But soon the arbitrary power of life and death was delegated to agents in the field, after Bush signed orders allowing CIA assassins to kill targets without seeking presidential approval for each attack, the Washington Post reported in December 2002. Nor was it necessary any longer for the president to approve each new name added to the target list; the "security organs" could designate "enemy combatants" and kill them as they saw fit. However, Bush was always keen to get the details about the agency's wetwork, administration officials assured the Post.

The first officially confirmed use of this power was the killing of an American citizen, along with several foreign nationals, by a CIA drone missile in Yemen on November 3, 2002. A similar strike occurred on December 4, 2005, when a CIA missile destroyed a house and purportedly killed Abu Hamza Rabia, a suspected al-Qaeda figure. But the only bodies found at the site were those of two children, the houseowner's son and nephew, Reuters reports. The grieving father denied any connection to terrorism. An earlier CIA strike on another house missed Rabia but killed his wife and children, Pakistani officials reported.

However, there is simply no way of knowing at this point how many people have been killed by American agents operating outside all judicial process. Most of the assassinations are carried out in secret: quietly, professionally. As a Pentagon document uncovered by the New Yorker in December 2002 revealed, the death squads must be "small and agile," and "able to operate clandestinely, using a full range of official and non-official cover arrangements to ... enter countries surreptitiously."

What's more, there are strong indications that the Bush administration has outsourced some of the contracts to outside operators. In the original Post story about the assassinations - in those first heady weeks after 9/11, when administration officials were much more open about "going to the dark side," as Cheney boasted on national television - Bush insiders told the paper that "it is also possible that the instrument of targeted killings will be foreign agents, the CIA's term for nonemployees who act on its behalf.

Here we find a deadly echo of the "rendition" program that has sent so many captives to torture pits in Syria, Egypt and elsewhere - including many whose innocence has been officially established, such as the Canadian businessman Maher Arar, German national Khalid El-Masri, UK native Mozzam Begg and many others. They had been subjected to imprisonment and torture despite their innocence, because of intelligence "mistakes." How many have fallen victim to Bush's hit squads on similar shaky grounds?

So here we are. Congress has just entrenched the principle of Bush's "unitary executive" dictatorship into law; and it is this principle that undergirds the assassination program. As I wrote in December, it's hard to believe that any genuine democracy would accept a claim by its leader that he could have anyone killed simply by labeling them an "enemy." It's hard to believe that any adult with even the slightest knowledge of history or human nature could countenance such unlimited, arbitrary power, knowing the evil it is bound to produce. Yet this is exactly what the great and good in America have done.

But this should come as no surprise. They have known about it all along, and have not only countenanced Bush's death squad, but even celebrated it. I'll end with one more passage from that December article, which sadly is even more apt for our degraded reality today. It was a depiction of the one of the most revolting scenes in recent American history: Bush's state of the Union address in January 2003, delivered live to the nation during the final warmongering frenzy before the rape of Iraq:
And now, in September 2006, we know they will never raise that protest. Oh, a few Democrats stood up at the last minute on Thursday to posture nobly about the dangers of the detainee bill - but only when they knew the it was certain to pass, when they had already given up their one weapon against it, the filibuster, in exchange for permission from their dumbass masters to offer amendments that they also knew would fail. Had they been offering such speeches since October 2001, when the lineaments of Bush's presidential tyranny were already clear - or at any other point during the systematic dismantling of America's liberties over the past five years - these fine words might have had some effect.

Now the killing will go on. [b]The tyranny that has entered upon the country will grow stronger, more brazen; the darkness will deepen[/b]. Whitman, thou should'st be living at this hour; America has need of thee.[/quote]

Good piece, but the true test was failed when the powers that be delliberately made a banana-republic farce out of the 2000 election (the spectacle was not necessary to fix the election), and the American people let it happen. The more a people corrupts itself, the easier it is to enslave. That was a great indicator of how brazen tyranny could be, and the tyranical oligarchs have never looked back.

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='357955' date='Oct 3 2006, 02:57 PM']Are you suggesting that real torture is only applied to Christians? That what we do to others is not?

I didn't think so.

Here's a suggestion for a torture guideline: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

If it weren't so serious, I would find it amusing that this so-called debate over acceptable interrogation techniques is even taking place. It is another sign of the slow descent into depravity of this nation. And look who is leading the way. Is the Third Awakening another extension of the craziness of Jonathan Edwards, or just that guard bitch-slapping you back into consciousness for another go-round?[/quote]

Homer.

I am suggesting that you put aside your political agenda and be honest. If you have read, Tortured for Christ, stories of the Knights Templar when they were tortured, Spanish Inquisitation, Salem Witches and others etc.. Then how can you equate "sleep depravation" and "prolong standing" with these other practices.

see the Buckingham Palace Guards.

Homer, you of all people being prior Navy know what I am talking about. You "Stood the Watch", you endured sleep depravation and prolonged standing.

[quote]I would find it amusing that this so-called debate over acceptable interrogation techniques is even taking place.[/quote]

We are having this Homer do to the mis-information promulgated by the MSM, which the average American swallows whole every time. The MSM opines on practically everything withan agenda to fuel their product and without concern for responsibility and accountability.

[Lawman]

[quote]IKOTA
I have heard firsthand (James Yee) stories to the absolute contrary than what is described in Lawman's posts. Remember James Yee?[/quote]

Your speaking in past tense, my reference is of the here and now.


[quote]I choose to beleive that what really goes down there is hidden from people such are yourself Lawman. Are there some fair, decent guards? Of course there are. Are there some animals? Of course there are. Don't tell me to the contrary[u]...I have [b]heard firsthand [/b] EXACTLY what sort of treatment some are subjected to[/u]. <insert ninja emoticon>[/quote]

Then it had to be from a Detainee himself and straight out of the Al-qaida playbook.

[quote]One thought....the prisoners who sling feces/[color="#000099"]sperm [/color] ( Jihadi Cocktails) at the guards may be doing so that the guards will administer a severe, maybe (hopefully) fatal punishment (beating) to the prisoner. [color="#000099"]It hasn't worked yet.[/color] Now why would they want this if they are being treated so nicely down there? [color="#000099"]You know this answer, but more importantly so do I and others[/color] Those articles make it sound like their quality of life is nicer than many here in the states. I dont think so.[/quote]

Their quality of life is better than those incarcerated in the states, their food and health care is better than some Americans. This is sad.