Obama to decide today on torture memos

[Rhinox]

I'm sorry but did leif seriously say greta van susteren is a liberal view? Wowow rofl

[Elvis]

I think his argument is shallow and narrow but he's not a troll. I take back what I said about Swamp as well.

I've been in conversations where I was looked at like a crazy person. A lot of my views on Israel-Palestine would be considered radical as well. So it's all relative really.

He seems sincere though. Sincerely narrow.

He asked (more or less) for a substantiated counter-argument, which is fair. To be honest though, I think rhetorical arguments alone would be enough to counter him.

Just read his thoughts on the motivations of terrorists. Not all are the same. The word itself has been politicized (just as Holocaust/Nazi/Hitler/etc. have been).

There should also be distinctions between militant nationalist groups that use terror and pure terrorism. There is really very few pure terrorist groups. Terrorist groups like in the movies.

Every powerful State uses terror. In fact, that terror is much larger in scale. But the narrative is different.

At the very least - as I said before, the Iraqis have legitimate grievances. Just as the Palestinians do. Just as the Afghans do. Just as all people - in general - do. We have legitimate grievances. We do not want to be attacked again. However, that doesn't mean we have the 'right' to do whatever we please - just as 'the other' does not have the 'right' to kill civilians. Power does not imply virtue. We didn't get anywhere because we were pure of heart (as few do). Furthermore, we should put things in context and try to understand 'the other' if we want to solve our problems rather than prolonging them - unless that's the idea. And I think keeping the ME unstable IS the idea.

Based on common sense and my thankfulness for living in a country rooted in Enlightenment principles (albeit with it's more than fair share of criminality) - I am more convinced people hate us for what we've (the political 'we' ; our State) done to them rather than for our liberty, democracy, sunshine and marshmallows.

One final note: this guy is not a patriot. He's a nationalist. He roots for the 'American State' like you'd root for a sports team.

[Kuya]

The problem is, Elvis, he's not looking to argue, he's looking to justify his beliefs to himself. People who are honestly interested in convincing others or being convinced themselves, as any honest argument should be about, don't express or say what he has. His opinions may be sincere, but there is really nothing to be gained from arguing with him because as you can see, he's sure in what he believes in, and he's sure we're wrong.

[Kuya]

Everyone keeps posting all these links to ridiculous news sources like The New York Times, the cable news networks, The Huffington Post, and the BBC. Everyone seems like they've moved past whether torture is good or not because as SwampdonkeyPLD describes, not being in sync with Obama is not a very politically smart position. The debate is between whether we "go after" people who tortured, which is essentially a ridiculous debate. You can't change the law then go after everyone who acted within its bounds (and yes, forceful interrogations described in those memos were legal, despite what the op-ed page of the New York Times says.)

The media essentially has Liberal Democrats debating radical Democrats as on CBS news this morning between John McCain and Patrick Leahy.

Did the US torture? Yes.

Was the torture potentially beneficial to attempts to save American lives? Yes.

Was the torture potentially harmful to attempts to save American lives? No.

What kind of possible spin can you put on torture that doesn't boil down to "My priorities lie with saving non-American lives" or "I care what France thinks about the US" or "Someone besides the US sets foreign policy", all of which are frankly ridiculous statements.

"Human rights" concerns simply aren't valid in wartime and when trying to save lives on a massive scale. That's why we ban MSM from giving blood and secretly scan Arabs in airports so they don't get sued for preventing people who look like the other 19 that murdered 3,000 Americans from boarding planes.

In fact, let me demonstrate what he really wants.

Why are those new sources ridiculous, and why is it that your news sources are not ridiculous? It's very ingenious of you to say that.

Why is going after people who tortured (which is illegal) ridiculous? Furthermore, what are you talking about with changing the law? Calling torture, forceful interrogation does not change the fact that it's torture. That's like saying that murder isn't murder because i called it forceful sleeping. And as i'm sure that you're aware, the torture took place BEFORE the memos tried to give legal cover for the torture (read up on the Abu Zhubaida case), and the torture that actually took place went BEYOND what the memo permitted.

If people used torture, they must be brought to justice because it is legal. This is a fact, and you can't weasel out of it. It could have said lives, but we already have rapport building which is far more efficient (but i guess you're going to say that the FBI is full of liars), and furthermore, the use of torture brings harm because it demoralizes the US, and gives others the moral high ground over you.

As for the spin thing, what you're trying to do there essentially talking for others. You're trying to equate what others say to what you want them to say. Which is absurd. You either argue with what people say, or you don't argue at all.

Lastly, respecting human life is what keeps wars from turning into pure hell hole of savage relativity. And the last thing we should do is let government use wars as excuses for stripping away rights without any regulation from third parties (see wiretapping fiasco).

[Leif]

The following is heavily plagiarized, in the pattern of the mainstream liberal media:

By any objective standard, Fox News, which has about three times the amount of viewers as MSNBC, is a more respected and respectable news outlet than MSNBC–to say nothing of CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC. It has a greater variety of opinion, including liberal hosts Chris Wallace, Shep Smith, Greta Van Susteran, and Geraldo Rivera, and even its one clearly conservative host, Sean Hannity, was balanced by his liberal cohost Alan Comes, until his departure in early 2009. Hannity also happens to preside over the second-most-watched program on all of cable news.Fox News has never been caught promoting a fraud–unlike CBS (Bush National Guard story), ABC (tobacco industry report), NBC (exploding GM trucks), CNN (Tailwind), and MSNBC (Keith Olbermann).

In 2008, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, said that “starting in Iowa and up to the present–Fox has done the fairest job, and remained the most objective of all the cable networks.” Even Hillary Clinton agreed that Fox News had the fairest political coverage, citing an independent study showing that. Noting the “pattern of demeaning comments” made on NBC networks, Hillary remarked that MSNBC hadn’t issued apologies for commentary “that might have merited one.”

But reality is irrelevant. Fox News does not ferociously promote a left-wing agenda, so liberals do not consider it real news. That Fox News is ”partisan” has been agreed upon by the establishment media and they have determined that they determine what reality is. It’s as if we’re speaking French and they’re speaking Urdu. Instead of responding to the smashing success of Fox News by becoming more balanced and thereby winning more viewers, the establishment media have apparently decided to wait Fox out. Roger Ailes can’t live forever.

[Kuya]

MSNBC–to say nothing of CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC.

I don't watch these.

Care to post the study? You probably should if you're going to mention something like that. I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Are you trying to say all the links posted here are wrong? If so, i want you to point out every single information source in this thread and point out why and how it is wrong. I don't actually expect you to since you actually need to have some education in media analysis to do so, but you must have some sort of legitimate reason why to believe all the information posted here is wrong.

As for your mentioning of FoxNews having more viewers and it having liberal hosts, i don't quite know what you're getting at here either. If you're trying to say Fox News is better, then i don't really care, since i don't make it a habit to watch tv on the news, but do try to stay relevant, and that is, answer as to why you are alleging that the info posted on this thread is illegitimate.

[Rhinox]

I don't watch these.

Care to post the study? You probably should if you're going to mention something like that. I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Are you trying to say all the links posted here are wrong? If so, i want you to point out every single information source in this thread and point out why and how it is wrong. I don't actually expect you to since you actually need to have some education in media analysis to do so, but you must have some sort of legitimate reason why to believe all the information posted here is wrong.

As for your mentioning of FoxNews having more viewers and it having liberal hosts, i don't quite know what you're getting at here either. If you're trying to say Fox News is better, then i don't really care, since i don't make it a habit to watch tv on the news, but do try to stay relevant, and that is, answer as to why you are alleging that the info posted on this thread is illegitimate.

Because it didn't come out of hannity's mouth. are you this dense?!???!!

[Leif]

Which study? The study Hillary cited? http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_2...tion_Study.pdf

As far as going through and critiquing every article, I don't need to. Half of the articles are editorial pieces. The other half say things like:

"The Bush administration, in particular former vice-president Dick Cheney, claimed that waterboarding did not amount to torture but the Obama administration has ruled that it is"

Which basically sends the message "Hey guys, its torture because Obama beats Bush in the rock-paper-scissors contest"!

Even former Liberal Democratic Traitor John McCain called it a "difference of opinion" between two administrations. 58% of voters, according to a poll that I saw on Fox News, but not run by Fox News, do not want to see further "investigation" take place.

The media isn't even ballsy enough to call it "torture" when there's nobody that can officially rule it so. Obama doesn't count.

[Rhinox]

Which study? The study Hillary cited? http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_2...tion_Study.pdf

As far as going through and critiquing every article, I don't need to. Half of the articles are editorial pieces. The other half say things like:

"The Bush administration, in particular former vice-president Dick Cheney, claimed that waterboarding did not amount to torture but the Obama administration has ruled that it is"

Which basically sends the message "Hey guys, its torture because Obama beats Bush in the rock-paper-scissors contest"!

Even former Liberal Democratic Traitor John McCain called it a "difference of opinion" between two administrations. 58% of voters, according to a poll that I saw on Fox News, but not run by Fox News, do not want to see further "investigation" take place.

The media isn't even ballsy enough to call it "torture" when there's nobody that can officially rule it so. Obama doesn't count.

just lol

[Deftscythe]

Liberal Democratic Traitor John McCain

Why is anyone responding to this guy? Considering how much the word "troll" is thrown around on BG, you guys sure like to buy into them.

[Leif]

Facts are fun to respond to with "troll"! I was wrong writing the word "former". He is a Liberal traitor.

In other news, by arguing legitimate political points, I have been able to wrack up a grand total of 20 posts! How I wish I could cast votes for President like that!

[Kuya]

Which study? The study Hillary cited? http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_2...tion_Study.pdf

As far as going through and critiquing every article, I don't need to. Half of the articles are editorial pieces. The other half say things like:

"The Bush administration, in particular former vice-president Dick Cheney, claimed that waterboarding did not amount to torture but the Obama administration has ruled that it is"

Which basically sends the message "Hey guys, its torture because Obama beats Bush in the rock-paper-scissors contest"!

Even former Liberal Democratic Traitor John McCain called it a "difference of opinion" between two administrations. 58% of voters, according to a poll that I saw on Fox News, but not run by Fox News, do not want to see further "investigation" take place.

The media isn't even ballsy enough to call it "torture" when there's nobody that can officially rule it so. Obama doesn't count.

You say you want people to argue with your points instead of calling you a troll yet when called out on your assumed claim that the sources here are unreliable and wrong, you instead generalize all of them into a simple phrase. If you can't take the time to point out at least on 3 articles by which method you've arrived to the conclusion that they are wrong or misleading, then you, as i've previously mentioned, make it apparent that you're not here to argue, but to legitimize your point.

If you can't operationally point out why these sources are unreliable and instead choose to generalize, then we will be forced to conclude that your assumption that any of these sources are illegitimate is baseless.

[Leif]

I can only respond with the fact that none of your "proof" even concludes that what he did was torture. Arguing that they are legitimate goes in the same boat. If I'm too retarded and I missed this evidence, please repost it. For me <3?

As far as "legitimizing my point", I have gone my whole life living in the unpopular world of being a Republican. Instead of responding to your points, Liberals scream back "Fox News is evil! ANN COULTER! BUSH LIED! Iraq is a lie!" despite clear evidence to the contrary. Although there isn't much to respond to the two word shout outs "Bush lied!" besides citing their psychological records, which are unfortunately confidential.

I gave up my mind trying to gain the approval of traitors a long time ago. Their anti-American views have most certainly painted them as the enemy. We blow up enemies and send the survivors to Guantanamo. Too bad we'd have to send half of America to Gitmo for some real justice. On the other hand, you all can move to France like liberals were threatening on the eve of the 2004 election.

Anyways, got any proof that says "X is torture"? Like some United States law that says X is forbidden by operatives operating overseas under the authority of the White House?

[archibaldcrane]

Goddamnit BG, do I have to babysit you 24/7? I swear I step away from my computer for a few hours and look what happens.

Stop replying to Leif. You are just giving the forum terrorists exactly what they want. Torture him instead by ignoring him.

/sigh

[Maxxthepenguin]

I can only respond with the fact that none of your "proof" even concludes that what he did was torture. Arguing that they are legitimate goes in the same boat. If I'm too retarded and I missed this evidence, please repost it. For me <3?

As far as "legitimizing my point", I have gone my whole life living in the unpopular world of being a Republican. Instead of responding to your points, Liberals scream back "Fox News is evil! ANN COULTER! BUSH LIED! Iraq is a lie!" despite clear evidence to the contrary. Although there isn't much to respond to the two word shout outs "Bush lied!" besides citing their psychological records, which are unfortunately confidential.

I gave up my mind trying to gain the approval of traitors a long time ago. Their anti-American views have most certainly painted them as the enemy. We blow up enemies and send the survivors to Guantanamo. Too bad we'd have to send half of America to Gitmo for some real justice. On the other hand, you all can move to France like liberals were threatening on the eve of the 2004 election.

Anyways, got any proof that says "X is torture"? Like some United States law that says X is forbidden by operatives operating overseas under the authority of the White House?

Gotta say, you're quite a fucking troll. Haven't had one like you since Swampy and Bingbong's early days.

[Leif]

Usually when someone asks for proof, you guys just scream a lot and then deliver a bunch of innuendo and supposition. This time you're actually refusing to reply to any thread asking for facts with anything but "troll" & "stop talking to this guy".

A step in the wrong direction! Maybe the liberal cause is actually going under! Maybe a couple of terrorist attacks will seal the deal.

[Rhinox]

Goddamnit BG, do I have to babysit you 24/7? I swear I step away from my computer for a few hours and look what happens.

/sigh

I'm afraid to look is he gone yet?

[Maxxthepenguin]

Usually when someone asks for proof, you guys just scream a lot and then deliver a bunch of innuendo and supposition. This time you're actually refusing to reply to any thread asking for facts with anything but "troll" & "stop talking to this guy".

A step in the wrong direction! Maybe the liberal cause is actually going under! Maybe a couple of terrorist attacks will seal the deal.

Sounds good, I mean with Obama in office, I fully expect terrorist attacks AT LEAST as deadly as what happened under Bush's watch.

[Correction]

Instead of responding to your points, Liberals scream back "Fox News is evil! ANN COULTER! BUSH LIED! Iraq is a lie!" despite clear evidence to the contrary.

PLUS

I gave up my mind trying to gain the approval of traitors a long time ago. Their anti-American views derp derp derp

In the same breath means you're trolling and have zero interest in actually discovering the truth, having convinced yourself sometime in the Reagan era that all liberals are wrong about everything. You're so far out there all you have left is screeching namecalling while demanding 'proof' that what happened at Guantanamo and Abu Grahib was torture.

Go read up on Holocaust Denial, they use most of the same rhetoric as you are using now.

Yes, I just Godwined the thread!

[Kuya]

Goddamnit BG, do I have to babysit you 24/7? I swear I step away from my computer for a few hours and look what happens.

/sigh

I'll make this the last.

I can only respond with the fact that none of your "proof" even concludes that what he did was torture. Arguing that they are legitimate goes in the same boat. If I'm too retarded and I missed this evidence, please repost it. For me <3?

As far as "legitimizing my point", I have gone my whole life living in the unpopular world of being a Republican. Instead of responding to your points, Liberals scream back "Fox News is evil! ANN COULTER! BUSH LIED! Iraq is a lie!" despite clear evidence to the contrary. Although there isn't much to respond to the two word shout outs "Bush lied!" besides citing their psychological records, which are unfortunately confidential.

I gave up my mind trying to gain the approval of traitors a long time ago. Their anti-American views have most certainly painted them as the enemy. We blow up enemies and send the survivors to Guantanamo. Too bad we'd have to send half of America to Gitmo for some real justice. On the other hand, you all can move to France like liberals were threatening on the eve of the 2004 election.

Anyways, got any proof that says "X is torture"? Like some United States law that says X is forbidden by operatives operating overseas under the authority of the White House?

The SERE course, which the torture techniques used by the CIA are based on, were taken from torture techniques used by Vietnamese on Americans, as well as other nations, such as Japan, and China. SERE is a course that trains soldiers to resist torture, as in, they "simulate" torture on soldiers so they'll know what they'll be up against.

Here on some links with info on it:

To set up the torture program, the Department of Defense and the CIA reverse engineered something called SERE training, which was conducted by the JPRA. Based on Cold War communist techniques used to force false confessions, in SERE school elite U.S. troops undergo stress positions, isolation, hooding, slapping, sleep deprivation and, until recently, waterboarding to simulate illegal tactics they might face if captured by an enemy who violated the Geneva Conventions.

According to those who have completed the training, however, the secretive "Level C" SERE course at Fort Bragg, which "inoculates" elite troops against the extreme measures that might be employed by enemy interrogators, is composed of three stages over a period of three weeks. The first week is classroom instruction on tactics for surviving behind enemy lines and evading capture. Then, during the second portion of the training, students are literally set loose in Fort Bragg's sprawling woods for up to a week to try to evade instructors hunting them. After the students are captured, they are taken to a fake concentration camp, where they are subjected to mock interrogations and simulated torture for the final week.

A memo given to the CIA from the DOD (department of defense):

How about a document--given to DoD and from DoD to CIA and from CIA to Jay Bybee--referring to harsh tactics as torture and warning they don't work?

"The key operational deficits related to the use of torture is its impact on the reliability and accuracy of the information provided. If an interrogator produces information that resulted from the application ofphysical and psychological duress, the reliability and accuracy of this information is in doubt. In other words, a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop."

The US prosecuted other people for the use of waterboarding (a technique used in SERE and taking from it to interrogate prisoners by the CIA):

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.



More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

As you can see, the US courts themselves have already set the legal precedent. These techniques, especially waterboarding, are in fact torture.