U.S. OKs Evidence Gained Through Torture

[waynekarnes]

when hunting down mad dogs, you put em down like mad dogs ...

[zguy95135]

IMO any terrorist who targets noncombatants (especially children) are animals and should be treated as such. They should not enjoy the rights that real human beings have.

[mjfawke]

Perhaps some here should review the history of this whole conflict (back to the USSR vs Afghanistan would be a start). FWIW - the Taliban are not listed as a Terrorist organisation, and most of the "unlawful combatants" being held were with the Taliban, not Al-Qaida.

 

Our inability to deal with prisoners under the Geneva convention (using the lame "unlawful combatants" excuse) will come back to haunt us. Parading our disregard for international law undermines our own societies.

[Guest Z-rific]

I think you guys are missing the point. A war combatant and a terrorist are two very different categories. In many cases it takes interrogation to figure out what you are dealing with. This interrogation has limits. Limits that were established by many countries (including the US) and detailed in the Geneva Convention. We demand other countries live by these limits, and we must do the same. If we demand that our POW's be treated properly under international law, and we disobey this law ourselves, that makes us hypocrits.

 

Now, there are the terrorists who can be dealt with in a completely different manner. But until you can confidently classify an individual as a terrorist, you must deal with him as a POW.

 

None of us know which of the detainees are "terrorists" or which are "POWs". I believe of the thousands of detainees, less than 10 have been charged for acts of terrorism. Many have been freed, deemed innocent.

 

Remember that our country helped hunt down and prosecute Nazi war criminals, who committed acts of torture. And you guys want us to use torture?

 

Clearly the occurances of alleged "torture" have been slight. The FBI reported just yesterday that they witnessed 3 acts of torture in Gitmo and then reported that to the Pentagon. None of the three were wevere, but still considered by the FBI (not the liberal media) to be torture. We have to take this seriously and put a stop to these actions.

 

We don't act like radical Muslims or Nazis. We are Americans. We're stern but fair.

[srgunz]

Unfortunately you cannot win a war by being moral and politically correct.

To defeat Japan we had to become as brutal and more to do so. For the Allies to defeat Germany we had to also be as brutal if not more. We tried to have a politically correct war in VietNam and it cost 55,000 lives. Had we fought the war correctly such as the total devastion of North VietNam from the air with our B52's it would have ended much earlier. That is why we built B52's in the first place. To save lives.

Saddam was able to keep control because he was more brutal than the terrorists. That is the only thing terrorists understand.

You need tought bastards, like it or not, such as MacArthur and Patton, to get the job done. You got to do what you got to do, incl. torture if necessary.

We have the people now to do it if we let them do their jobs. But all the hand wringer Liberals along with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. will not let that happen.

I served 4 years of active duty and have no regrets. It helps me see this whole thing more clearly.

[Guest Z-rific]

You can't equate our action in Iraq with WWII. We are not fighting a country or organized army. We are fighting terrorists embedded in a civilian population.

 

Remember, guys, how pissed you were when you saw pics of our POWs in the first Iraq war, who were obviously beaten (tortured)? Made you sick, right? There are acceptable and successful means of interrogation that do not include torture. In fact, intelligence experts agree that torture is one of the worst ways to get legitimate intelligence.

 

Mike, you and I often are on different sides. That's cool, it's what makes America great. People can have opinions and express them. Just be careful assuming that people who disagree with you are "passifists" praying and hoping that problems go away.

 

I also wasn't crazy about the "kill em all and let Allah sort them out" comment. That's the same mentality the terrorist pilots had on 9/11. The only result of such thinking is a cycle of violence that will last for generations.

 

I'm all about defending ourselves, our freedoms, and our lifestyles. Let's just make sure who our enemies are, and handle ourselves like world leaders.

[Guest Z-rific]

Mike,

 

I'm not complaining or blaming Bush. This whole thread is about a few rare claims of "torture" by American intelligence. I have just pointed out that I think it is unnecessary and immoral, and (in my opinion) un-American.

 

You're opinions are based on your experience and your logic. I can respect that. Hey, I have many more conservative friends than liberal. Most have respect for me and my opinion because they beleive me to be a fair and logical person. We just agree to disagree.

 

I wish I had all the right answers. Unfortunately, as you know, life aint that easy.

 

I do know that "torture" is NOT the right answer. As I have said, torture is frowned upon by senior intelligence agents as it has proved to give faulty intelligence time and time again. I'll try and find some testimony of said agents if you're interested.

 

I'm very supportive of our military folk. Both my brothers served, one was in Iraq twice, the first time in special ops (recently as a civilian). He has been in some rough situations (Panama included). I know that he isn't a proponent of torture.

 

Now let's all enjoy our Z's.

[Guest Phil1934]

OK, I'm back. If it wasn't for torture, we would nevere have gotten that confession from those three English Muslims. It's too bad England proved they were there at the time. We took Afghan soldiers and have held them for three years now without even charging them. This is not the American way. For one seventh of what we spend in military defense, or triple what we spend in foreign aid, we could eliminate the absolute poverty that creates these terrorists. We've all talked about those countries that are always in a civil war because they have nothing else to offer. That could change. Or we could just kill them all.

[johnc]

For one seventh of what we spend in military defense, or triple what we spend in foreign aid, we could eliminate the absolute poverty that creates these terrorists.

 

A pipe dream. We can't even eliminate poverty in this country despite billions of dollars thrown at the problem over decades. Throwing money at problems doesn't solve them, it just makes people feel like they are doing good without getting their hands dirty.

 

There will always be terrorists bent on killing Americans. The quantity and quality of individual terrorists will ebb and flow in almost direct relation to our (and the rest of the world's) efforts to eradicate them.

 

This is not a problem that reason (we must "understand" the terrorists and empathize with their jihad/plight) or bribery (aid to terrorist supporting regimes) will solve. Its been tried since the 1960s by dozens of wealthy first world countries and has failed.

[johnc]

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp

 

Now, because it's always the case that criticism from your own side gets more reaction than criticism from the opposition, I was curious to see what the response from Beinart's fellow liberals would be. After all, in a broad sense there isn't that much that is new to his argument; the novelty is the source more than the content. Conservatives have been saying that the Left is making the Democrats too dovish for a very, very long time. After 9/11 this became a standard refrain in most of the relevant conservative analysis. And, typically, the response from the knee-jerk Left and liberals was, "How dare you..." How dare you question my patriotism! (Kerry himself offered up that one quite often.) How dare you question my commitment to defense! How dare you assume that conservatives are better at foreign policy! Etc.

 

One regular source of this sort of complaint was Kevin Drum, the in-house blogger of The Washington Monthly and something of a clearinghouse for smart liberals on the web. He's normally sober-minded, but sometimes he sounds like he's lined up too many fallen soldiers on his airline tray. I still remember when John Ashcroft warned — presciently — that al Qaeda might try to influence the U.S. elections as it had in Madrid. Drum responded, "What a despicable worm. What a revolting, loathsome, toad." The upshot was that Drum took some modest offense at the suggestion that Democrats would be any less resolute in their fight against America's enemies.

 

So, I was particularly intrigued by Drum's initial response to Beinart's cri de coeur: "What he really needs to write," harrumphed Drum, "is a prequel to his current piece, one that presents the core argument itself: namely, why defeating Islamic totalitarianism should be a core liberal issue." He continues later on: "That's the story I think Beinart needs to write. If he thinks too many liberals are squishy on terrorism, he needs to persuade us not just that Islamic totalitarianism is bad — of course it's bad — but that it's also an overwhelming danger to the security of the United States."

 

Okay hold that thought.

 

By my very rough guess, since 9/11 National Review Online and National Review have run probably 500 articles from serious scholars to folks like me on why the threat from "Islamo-Fascism," "jihadism," or whatever you want to call it is real, serious, and likely to endure for a very long time. We've come at it from every angle, too — from narrow arguments about weapons proliferation to deep, sustained, philosophical treatises about the Islamic or Arab worldview and our own.

 

Of course, NR is not alone. Similar articles or articles on similar themes have proliferated across the mainstream media and the Internet. Whole categories of bloggers — the "war bloggers" — have sprouted up. The op-ed pages have groaned from the weight of serious people explaining how the battle against Islamic fundamentalism will likely be known as World War IV. Countless books from liberals, leftists, many, many conservatives, and a few allegedly "nonpartisan" whistleblowers have been written expanding these arguments. There've been campus debates, symposia, and course offerings. There've been international conferences, speeches, lectures, documentaries. Whole new chairs have been established at think tanks and universities, and there've even been new think tanks established, dedicated to defending democracy against this "new" form of totalitarianism. Two Cabinet positions have been created — with bipartisan support in response to this threat. Both presidential nominees staked their campaigns in large parts on their ability to fight and win the war on terror, a sometimes-clunking euphemism for Islamic fundamentalism.

 

But, what Kevin Drum thinks liberals need is a really good argument explaining the threat from jihadism. Where has he been these last few years?

[Heavy Z]

"Throwing money at problems doesn't solve them, it just makes people feel like they are doing good without getting their hands dirty."

 

By that rationale, you must be upset to see us spend as much as the whole world combined on defense.

 

Another point, consider that in real dollars foreign aid from the G7 to poor countries is only half what it was in the 60's. A new report says 45 million children will die over the next 10 years because of this. 45 MILLION PEOPLE that we can get on our side or just say "oh well" and lay the seeds of (expensive)wars to come.

 

Remember dollar diplomacy? China is doing rather well with that strategy in Asia and South America right NOW.

 

Afghanistan's GDP is around $20 Bil a year. How could you be sooo sure that we could'nt have given them one hell of a Martial Plan and not spent much less than we have so far? I know you are pessimistic in that regard, but has our military investment payed off? Now Afghanistan is supplying 3/4 of the world's opium on our watch. I wonder what Nancy Reagan would say now that the war on terror has castrated the war on drugs?

 

We learned an important lesson 30 years ago about insurgencies, it's too bad that some have forgotten that lesson and then desperately say the other side doesn't have any ideas. LOL.

[Guest Phil1934]

And poverty in this country means you live in public housing and drive a five year old car. Poverty in the third world means you die if the rains don't come.

[johnc]

I know you are pessimistic in that regard, but has our military investment payed off?

 

I think so:

 

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_9-12-2004_pg7_6

 

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7483

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1368749,00.html

 

Our first effort in "The War On Terror" is turning out well, IMHO.

[Heavy Z]

Yes, parts are encouraging, others aren't. Before we installed Karzai as interim prez he did an internship with the company now building the pipeline through Afghanistan. Would he be there today, if Karzai wasn't Unocal's prized pony?

[johnc]

Would he be there today, if Karzai wasn't Unocal's prized pony?

 

Who cares?

 

http://www.policyreview.org/dec04/kaplan.html

 

The medieval age was tyrannized by a demand for spiritual perfectionism, making it hard to accomplish anything practical. Truth, Erasmus cautioned, had to be concealed under a cloak of piety; Machiavelli wondered whether any government could remain useful if it actually practiced the morality it preached. Today the global media make demands on generals and civilian policymakers that require a category of perfectionism with which medieval authorities would have been familiar. Investigative journalists may often perform laudatory service, but they have also become the grand inquisitors of the age, shattering reputations built up over a lifetime with the exposure of just a few sordid details. When the staff of a show like 60 Minutes decides which stories to pursue and which to leave half-finished on the cutting room floor, the destiny of any number of people is quietly being determined. That is actual and not virtual authority, however responsibly it may be employed: more authority, often, than any congressman or senator has. And as the editorial tastes of the tabloids dissolve into those of the mainstream media, the pace of character destruction quickens.

[Guest Phil1934]

Florished writing doesn't change facts. He's still the prized pony. And we just lost our new homeland security chief for an illegal housekeeper and a $6mil consulting fee from Taser, who supplies Homeland Security. I'm curious, for such a sum of money do you suppose he is studied on the interaction of electrical impulses on human physiology? Or is he just selling access to our government? Seems the Feds keep locking up the city and county leaders who try it. I don't expect any more piety from our leaders than I expect from those who work with me. And for one tenth of what gov't officials do, they'd be on the street.

[Pop N Wood]

Kind of hate to get into this, but people starving to death often has little to do with the availability of food but everything to do with politics. Look at Somalia. The country was more than capable of feeding itself. Even wonder why the people in the rural areas were dying but the people in the citys were not? Because the criminals who ran the country and stole the humanitarian shipments knew that if people in the cities are starving, they will riot. But when people in the rural areas starve they just die.

 

Sudan is a more recent example. There are large groups of people who simply don't like other groups. Yet we as Americans are suppose to feel guilty about that?

 

Want to solve world hunger? Maybe the first step is to spread democracy. The second step might be education.

[Guest Phil1934]

This is where leadership come into play. It's not enough to drop a check in the mail to the leaders, as it will just end up in a Swiss account. It has to be followed through on a local scale with wells, sanitary and farming education, etc. A lot of the current problems in Africa are the result of a Muslim government intentionally starving and driving out the black population. It's not possible to do a lot there without ending the hostilities, other than humanitarian aid to the refugee camps. We have spent $95 million there, or 1/2500 what we have spent in Iraq. It would be wise to spend it now.

[Heavy Z]

Who cares?

 

http://www.policyreview.org/dec04/kaplan.html

 

You'd care, were it not somewhere far away. Would you still be as unconcerned if Chinese bankers decided our next president? Somehow I doubt it. That is some flowery writing indeed, real Buckley-esque. Despite this, attempting parallels of medieval counterveiling forces and those of today is a tough sell.

[mjfawke]

Want to solve world hunger? Maybe the first step is to spread democracy.

 

LOL! What makes you think democracy is the answer? True democracy only works when isolated from class, religion and ethnicity...