Bush: "We don't torture" -- The Facts: . . . all that much

Morally-challenged Attorney General Michael Mukasey can't figure out whether waterboarding is torture or not -- he seems to think it is an open question -- but there is nothing stopping him from following the example of fellowdoubter Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is a flagrant Iraq War cheerleader who had earlier parsed waterboarding as a form of "extreme interrogation" rather than torture. Accusing him of torturing the language, critics suggested he get waterboarded himself and then say whether he thought it was torture or not. The Guardian reports that Hitchens has just published his experience being waterboarded in Vanity Fair:

So what did it feel like? Hitchens recounts how he was lashed tightly to a sloping board, then, "on top of the hood, three layers of enveloping towel were added. In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose ... I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and - as you might expect - inhale in turn."

That, he says, "brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, flooded more with sheer panic than with water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal" and felt the "unbelievable relief" of being pulled upright.

The "official lie" about waterboarding, Hitchens says, is that it "simulates the feeling of drowning". In fact, "you are drowning - or rather, being drowned". (The Guardian)

The title of Hitchens's Vanity Fair article? "Believe me, it's torture."

In still other torture news, the New York Times reports this, from the US sponsored caribbean resort at Guantanamo:

The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of "coercive management techniques" for possible use on prisoners, including "sleep deprivation," "prolonged constraint," and "exposure."

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Some methods were used against a small number of prisoners at Guantánamo before 2005, when Congress banned the use of coercion by the military. The C.I.A. is still authorized by President Bush to use a number of secret "alternative" interrogation methods.(New York Times)

The chart was originally contained in a 1957 article, "Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War" by a sociologist, Albert Biderman, who studied how false confessions were elicited from American prisoners during the Korean War. When confronted with the evidence, Senate investigators got the following lame response:

"I can't speculate on previous decisions that may have been made prior to current D.O.D. policy on interrogations," Colonel Ryder said. "I can tell you that current D.O.D. policy is clear -- we treat all detainees humanely."

Does this mean we currently treat all detainees humanely as opposed to a few years ago? But a few years ago DOD also told us they treated all prisoners humanely. And are we supposed to believe it just because they say so? I guess so, as in President Bush's determinative statement: "We don't torture."

Since President Bush has maintained the same awkward, unnatural and stressed position for years, now, I guess he doesn't consider it torture. It's just torture for the rest of us.

More like this

Christopher Hitchens' views on war in the Middle East often infuriate me, even while I greatly enjoyed his views on religion. My respect for him goes up, though, because he has done something I wouldn't: to determine whether it really was torture, he had himself waterboarded by the US military (…
It's going to be one of those weeks, so I don't know how much I'm going to get to post. I do, however, want to share the editorial from this week's Nation (emphasis mine): George W. Bush's decision to move Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and thirteen other "high value" Al Qaeda captives from secret CIA…
One of the most astonishing things about the Bush administration, in my view, is how many former officials have come out and criticized things the administration has done, and how little impact it has had politically. This can partially be chalked up to an uninformed populace, of course, but also…
One of my colleagues (a clinical psychologist) was once asked the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist. "You have to understand," he said, "that a psychiatrist doesn't have a PhD." It turns out there is at least one more difference. The professional association of psychiatrists have…

With all due respect Revere we are here again. The waterboarding you are describing isnt the real hard core stuff that I have seen. As I have also said before, you would confess to the Kennedy killing if the method that I saw used was employed.

This is very nice description of the one that the Chinese used in the 1950's on our people. You know we are above them right? The Russians? The Ruskies used the method that I refer to as did the Sandinista's in my old stomping grounds. They would put you onto a board face up w/o the mask and the board would be a pivoted into a horse trough type of arrangement. Technology at work. The board had a hinge midway down and all you did was lift and dunk with the guy face up.

Strapped to it with either leather or appropriate restraints, there was little work involved. Now about ten seconds into it with your sinuses filling up the gag response starts and choking. The first response is to inhale. Not going to kill you as the water is gravity bound so you pull it in and then they tip you back up enough for it to flow out. Then just after you clear the water, in you go again. Yep, very effective and ensures that you are going to hear all sorts of things. Mostly for the people doing it to get them to stop. I saw it done by the police forces of a certain central American nation and three minutes wasnt even close. This guy had two 30 second dunkings and on the third he talked as he went in.

Will it cause mental stress and possibly turn them into blubbering, babbling idiots if its done repeatedly over a few weeks? Possible, just possible. But none of the people who get it are low risk threats either. They could indeed always have just negotiated but now there is that problem with 9/11. What would we have done if we knew that something was going to happen? Trample the Constitution? Yup and I would be more than happy to take my chances with a court.

We cant play by the old rules any longer Revere, it just didnt work. Bombings, hijackings, attacks on ships, and all the time we sat on our asses and took it. Then they killed a bunch of people. All morality goes out the door when you target civilians intentionally. Thats the difference between being in the military and a code of honor, and some sack of shit that thinks that by killing civilians its going to win his day. I know that it means that this will become widespread if its employed and pose risk to our troops and our people. But, hey about that beheading thing. Thats pretty stressful too I think on their subjects and I know that Al Qaeda picks up the Geneva Convention Daily thats delivered to their doors in Pakistan.

I am sorry its come to this but we were attacked (repeatedly across the last nearly 40 years) and it was ignored. We N E G O T I A T E D with them and each time we balked, they did it again. Iraq wouldnt have been necessary if we simply told them to stop and just tore into the place and pulled it apart like a two dollar watch. The 101st was going to go into Teheran on the first day of Reagans term and cause ungodly harm to the place and get those hostages out... Probably forgot them too. The only reason that they are doing it is because we let them and mostly because the consequences are not high enough to prevent them from doing it. Even an idiot knows that if you are dead you dont get to even negotiate, much less attack.I am all for this with these people.

But back to the waterboarding. I am not sure what method was used on the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed but he lasted only like 3 minutes before he started to talk. Some say he got it 200 times, some say 100 times. It doesnt matter. I hear through other circles it lasted only three times. Each time he clammed up they put him on the board and were just getting started and the guy started singing like a bird.

The lefties have the idea that we wont use it and take some sort of moral high ground by doing so. This means that someone has to die that didnt give their permission for it later because we didnt find out in time. After a while those morals will go by the wayside as they take hostages at a school as they did in Russia, or attack a Cole, embassies in Africa (Clinton saw we took the high ground there....we cut and ran), the first attempt on the WTC's and of course 9/11.

We have seen multiple attempts since then and with the exception of London and Madrid, we have successfully interdicted them.

Its going to get down to boarding or Obama. McCain doesnt want it used. The military is specifically prohibited from using it by Presidential order now and only the CIA is allowed to do it under special circumstances.

We will try to stand on our moral high ground and while we do in the next Presidency we are going to get hit. Waterboarding? Attacks on civilian targets? Take your pick. I can play the game either way but there is a limit to my tolerance and attacking a warship is one thing, attacking the Sears Tower, or dropping the Golden Gate or Brooklyn bridges are others. I know what my response would be and waterboarding would be the most minimal thing I would do.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 03 Jul 2008 #permalink

Randy: Since you insist on putting morality to one side (your choice, not mine), let's talk your language. Does it work? Or does it produce false information? Experienced interrogators think it does. So using it makes us worse off. Not to mention no different.

Well we nabbed helluva lot of bad guys off of Khalid....Thwarted several additional attack plans and stuck it in their eye for about a year or two. Waterboarding? Revere I would have done just about anything to him to stop any of it and/or grab others. If you mean experienced interrogators are we talking about those that were staged by Amnesty International with the actors? Cant say that was a real torture session because those guys were still able to walk. Most of the ones I have seen went out on stretchers.

I can cite other interrogators that say that it does work even though they completely agree that they might not give you good info.Get the same from simple interrogations. I have seen it in action and we are not talking about the electro-testicle treatment. I have seen the pure on ass whipping kind done by para-police in central America. Its not very pretty and they too all talked. Flat boards across the shins, the 50 lb weight stretches. Sleep deprivation is really messy after day three. Its all about the voltage you apply to the situation though. There is no morality in the world any longer and thats the problem of the highest order. We are dropping human life to the valuation of zero and when that happens you HAVE to go with it on your side of the fence. You cant sit back and pontificate when the intent of running aircraft into buildings is the wholesale slaughter of people and economic destruction of the US and other countries. I have posted before about the rail cars and their transport into and around towns, refinery security, and its just not there. Same with food. They can get us, they know it so the ONLY way to stop it is to take it to the source. I wouldnt want to take everyone out of Iran, Saudi Arabia and others, but please come up with something better than we shouldnt be torturing people to get information to stop attacks. My count is over 150 since 1968 and major ones at that. We could attack and the OPEC might embargo for a short period, but I would simply cut the food transport to what we consider to be minimal support levels to them. It would last about a month. Again the morality thing comes into play and the use of food as a weapon but its a war and not a cricket match. How many people ship food to their enemies? How about oil on the flipside? They set the fire and we might have to use extreme measures including torture to put it out. The "human rights" stuff that started under Eleanor Roosevelt and went overboard during Carter only applies if everyone plays by the same rules. This includes the waterboarding or if you will torture of people. The right not to fear waterboarding is the same right not to go to work in fear of some misguided human missile with either a bomb or a plane strapped to his ass too!

Current events seems to put both notions out on the window ledge. We can coddle these people or we can do something about them but we do know what their bent is.... Tactics of terror. We get what we want by the implication of the threat of death...... Sounds like waterboarding and then again takes us back to morality and the drop to zero the value of human life by both sides of the argument. Thus, it results in what we have today. Me, I have said it time and again and that is that I would level a city to stop an attack on this country or our allies. Get them if I could other ways but if not.....toast 'em.

That is unless you plan to negotiate.......

Its a good post Revere and a subject that should be examined each time it comes up. Its come up through history off and on. I dont slight you for your opinion or anyone else who thinks its wrong. It is a valid and very moral approach you are taking and its not wrong... Far from it. I think we should avoid it if possible but we now have little guys running around in a big world doing very bad things. It is wrong in a normal world... Can anyone say we are in that right now?


By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 03 Jul 2008 #permalink

Randy: They got nothing out of KSM. The only evidence is that they say they did. And they are themselves inveterate liars.

So let me get your position. Yes, they torture, but it's OK because the end justifies the means. Even if it is illegal. The law means nothing. The law is what they (and you) say it is.

Torture is barbaric. Therefore those who would practice torture must be stopped. All of them. Now. Period.

By dubiquiabs (not verified) on 03 Jul 2008 #permalink

Sorry Revere, Congress didnt vote to end it and they sure didnt vote to call it that. Mukasey said it wasnt, therefore its not. To have you say it, we are just supposed to sit back and do nothing and let them get stronger off of our money. How could this not end in the manner that it has?

Amazing, we buy their oil because we cant use ours and then one day they launch the big one. Hell in September of last year we came to within 24 hours of a nuclear launch by Israel against those chemical weapons and their launchers. Torture? Interrogations? What are they supposed to use, harsh language?

Please, if you dont support the war thats fine. If you dont like hard interrogations then okay too. But we cant fight these people with one hand behind our backs. Its the same politically correct bullshit that cost us Vietnam. IMO we warn Iran to back off or suffer the consequences and we wade in and break things and just leave for a change with a border guard force to keep the Rus and Chinese out. For you to say that they didnt get anything out of KSM isnt the fact.

Vietnam would have lasted for about a week if we had just done them. Instead of bombing politically correct school crossing guards we should have just bombed party headquarters and got the little bastards while they were in session. We are being chipped away at piece by piece and a lot of it is from our own people. If you go in to fight a war you do EVERYTHING to win it. If the guys arent wearing uniforms then okay, you call it a terrorist cell and take out a city block. If nothing else the locals will figure out that its not cool to hang with the baddies because if you do, you likely will see the front end of a 500 pounder.

Here is something about Echelon and sometimes electronic spying is a good idea. But those Democrats who vilify it sure vote for the refunding every year. Perhaps you can explain it?

From GlobalSecurity.com

"KSM appears to have been popular among the al Qaeda rank and file. He was reportedly regarded as an effective leader, especially after the 9/11 attacks. Co-workers describe him as an intelligent, efficient, and even-tempered manager who approached his projects with a single-minded dedication that he expected his colleagues to share.

Like Yousef, KSM reasoned he could best influence U.S. policy by targeting the countrys economy. KSM and Yousef reportedly brainstormed together about what drove the U.S. economy. New York, which KSM considered the economic capital of the United States, therefore became the primary target. For similar reasons, California also became a target for KSM. KSM claims that the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center taught him that bombs and explosives could be problematic, and that he needed to graduate to a more novel form of attack. He maintains that he and Yousef began thinking about using aircraft as weapons while working on the Manila Air/Bojinka plot, and speculated about striking the World Trade Center and CIA headquarters as early as 1995.

Indeed, KSM describes a grandiose original plan: a total of ten aircraft to be hijacked, nine of which would crash into targets on both coaststhey included those eventually hit on September 11 plus CIA and FBI headquarters, nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildings in California and the state of Washington. KSM himself was to land the tenth plane at a U.S. airport and, after killing all adult male passengers on board and alerting the media, deliver a speech excoriating U.S. support for Israel, the Philippines, and repressive governments in the Arab world. Beyond KSMs rationalizations about targeting the U.S. economy, this vision gives a better glimpse of his true ambitions. Although Bin Ladin listened to KSMs proposal, he was not convinced that it was practical. Bin Ladin was receiving numerous ideas for potential operations KSMs proposal to attack U.S. targets with commercial airplanes was only one of many. Thus, although KSM contends he would have been just as likely to consider working with any comparable terrorist organization, he gives no indication of what other groups he thought could supply such exceptional commodities.

KSM acknowledges formally joining al Qaeda, in late 1998 or 1999, and states that soon afterward, Bin Ladin also made the decision to support his proposal to attack the United States using commercial airplanes as weapons. Bin Ladin summoned KSM to Kandahar in March or April 1999 to tell him that al Qaeda would support his proposal. The plot was now referred to within al Qaeda as the planes operation. No one else but KSM, Bin Ladin, and Atef were involved in the initial selection of targets.

Much of his activity in mid-1999 had revolved around the collection of training and informational materials for the participants in the planes operation. For instance, he collected Western aviation magazines; telephone directories for American cities such as San Diego and Long Beach, California; brochures for schools; and airline timetables, and he conducted Internet searches on U.S. flight schools. He also purchased flight simulator software and a few movies depicting hijackings. To house his students, KSM rented a safehouse in Karachi with money provided by Bin Ladin. The course in Karachi apparently lasted about one or two weeks. According to KSM, he taught the three operatives basic English words and phrases. He showed them how to read phone books,interpret airline timetables, use the Internet, use code words in communications, make travel reservations, and rent an apartment. KSM told them to watch the cabin doors at takeoff and landing, to observe whether the captain went to the lavatory during the flight, and to note whether the flight attendants brought food into the cockpit.

Although Bin Ladin, Atef, and KSM initially contemplated using established al Qaeda members to execute the planes operation, the late 1999 arrival in Kandahar of four aspiring jihadists from Germany suddenly presented a more attractive alternative. The Hamburg group shared the anti-U.S. fervor of the other candidates for the operation, but added the enormous advantages of fluency in English and familiarity with life in the West, based on years that each member of the group had spent living in Germany.

KSM played a key role in facilitating travel for al Qaeda operatives. KSM provided his operatives with nearly all the money they needed to travel to the United States, train, and live. The available evidence indicates that the 19 operatives were funded by al Qaeda, either through wire transfers or cash provided by KSM, which they carried into the United States or deposited in foreign accounts and accessed from the United States. KSM, Binalshibh, and another plot facilitator, Mustafa al Hawsawi, each received money, in some cases perhaps as much as $10,000, to perform their roles in the plot. According to KSM, the Hamburg cell members each received $5,000 to pay for their return to Germany from Afghanistan after they had been selected to join the plot, and they received additional funds for travel from Germany to the United States.

Sheikh Mohammed's arrest in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003 marks one of the most important breakthroughs in the fight against al-Qaeda. The two key factors leading to his arrest was a bribe to an Al-Qaeda operative in the amount of $27 million, as well as information gained from the NSA electronic surveillance network, Echelon. Although the arrest was solely a Pakistani operation the FBI observed the arrest and was to a large degree invovled in the interrogation process. Pakistani officials claim that KSM remained in Pakistan for 3 days and then was subsequently moved to an undisclosed location by US officials.

Reportedly, the use of harsh interrogation techniques in the questioning of Khaled Sheik Mohammed was approved by Justice Department and CIA, according to a May 13, 2004 New York Times report.

Well now there you go..... The lefty Times reported that he spilled his guts, using interrogation methods. How interesting. We know that neither they or Dan Rather ever make up stories either.

BTW and just in....Obama just did a flip flop on Iraq. So even the kid gets it now. We are in it because its a cheap beach head right now. Its also going to give us the position to hit Iran and yes, we are going to do them. Iran knows it, we know it and everyone in the region is begging us to do it. Persia has a bad history of invasions and domination..... They know their 15 minutes of fame is here... better use it while they can.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 03 Jul 2008 #permalink

D-labs.... its not torture. Its interrogation. Everyone does it. I didnt see Amnesty International doing it in their little video last year either. If its torture, then you do that to just screw with people. I fyou do it to get information its interrogation.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 03 Jul 2008 #permalink

M. Randolph Kruger , "Will it cause mental stress and possibly turn them into blubbering, babbling idiots if its done repeatedly over a few weeks? Possible, just possible..."

Revere, "Randy, So let me get your position. Yes, they torture, but it's OK because the end justifies the means. Even if it is illegal. The law means nothing. The law is what they (and you) say it is..."

Howdy and right royal happy 4th July (Oz time) to Randy and Revere... I plan to have a few glasses of vino later whilst finally scanning some old photos of me and my family (when we llived in NY back in '80) into j-pegs... Unfortunately, I don't have the photo showing me as a smiling teen waving a sparkler on a Long Island beach -- this innocent image depicts all that America has lost in recent years... Sparkler, of course, represents the Statue de la Liberté torch which, in the photo, is being held by a young man growing into our future's promise of freedom and opportunity for all . Gonna have to get that photo from my Mom. I'd like to use it as the cover of whatever autobiographical book I end up writing. We Yanks do appreciate a certain irony...

By the way, the above quotes could very easily describe the nazi manner in which a great many State and Federal American and Australian government politicians -- and paid public servants -- continue to violently torture gay and lesbian citizens:*)

Happy 4th of July, 2008

By Jonathon Singleton (not verified) on 03 Jul 2008 #permalink

You know, one thing that the torture fans never mention is that none of those people that we're torturing have been found guilty in court. So I guess the presumption of innocence is yet another American tradition they're ready to throw out the window in order to feel "safe."

Such a strange mixture of abject terror and macho posturing on the right these days. On the one hand, they're all, "waaaahhhh! existential threat! do anything, Daddy, but just make the scary go away!" At the same time, they fancy themselves to be the tough guys, so incredibly macho that they rush to top each other's amoral, genocidal fantasies. But I guess that's the essence of the right-wing authoritarian: blind allegiance to the Leader/Daddy who can do no wrong, paired with a love of cruelty toward those they perceive as being the "other." Remember the description of John Bolton as a "kiss up, kick down guy"? I think about that a lot these days.

Here is my 4th of July response to those that consider what was is being done. Our system of laws and regulations is specifically for those who are American citizens and if you look at our preamble, liberty is the 4th thing on the list. Domestic tranquility is way ahead of it. The framers went through a lot of thought on this and in certain cases, our Constitution is applies even to those who would do us harm.

In my mind, there are two types of those people. One is your garden variety crim that we already give so many rights to that the entire system is turned upside down in their favor. Shit, we already know they get out with community service after multi stab wound killings or 12 gauge shots to the back of the head (Winkler).

Then there is the other kind. This is the one that would do harm to our country, spy vs spy stuff, fifth columnist and they use our system of laws to mock us and then when the time is right, they attack. Now they could just declare war but theirs is a war of the 1000 pin pricks. Some bigger, some smaller but the effect is to bleed us. The difference now is that our enemy wears no uniforms as they did in WWII, we cant see him, we cant hear him, we can only catch them via methods that are first generally violations of international law and likely the country in which they reside laws.

Then when we do capture them, the same people who game the system scream that they have those rights under the law and that they are not enemy combatants or whatever designations you want to put on them. So we had or have to have someplace we can interrogate them without the normal stream of lawyer induced writs, motions, and detainee rights.

People dont understand that as a designated soldier of a country CAN be interrogated under the Geneva Convention. Every country in WWII did it and the Germans were particularly good in the methods. The Chinese were rank amateurs compared to them and the Russians took just about every note there was. But, what to do with people who really have no country other than Islam...Gods Country if you will of the Middle East. We were bombed by Saudis, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Iranians and etc. Without a declaration of war, without a uniform on them other than maybe their passport and street clothes were they enemy soldiers, saboteurs or terrorists. The last two by international law in a war could be shot on the frigging spot. But not during the absence of it. Did or do they have "rights." Well lets see, the UK might give them cover, France maybe. Germany maybe, Italy maybe. Russia no, Saudia Arabia no, Pakistan no, Afghanistan no, Syria no. The latter countries under their laws would simply behead them on Saturday morning unless it was state sponsored terrorism. So how do we treat them?

Our laws at the time were vague, and our Congress in two years of leftist control has now failed to back up those that dont live here, Amnesty International and Revere's position. Our Supreme Court has reached in and basically told the Administration AND the Congress that to prevent things from spinning out of control in this that now they have to treat these particular prisoners as law breakers rather than terrorist/saboteurs. I for one didnt like the status they were held in. I did like the fact that we could extract information out of them without the Conventions being used... remember they had no status between the two sets of laws. One of a declared war, the other of our normal day to day criminal.

So now the stage sets. The Congress and the new President are going to have to come up along with the UN a set of "terrorist/saboteur" laws that gives some sort of status to these pieces of shit and an international response to their acts. If a country allows their bad actors to leave and cause "acts of the public enemy" to another then that country should be held to account, either by war or by economic pressure. The latter should include food, medicines etc. so that these governments who are publicly sorry about attacks but fund them through charities and outright grants. Need I remind you that Arafat had a billion dollars in Swiss accounts at the time of his death?

Calling a situation pathetic PFT does not solve the problem. Its pathetic when I turn on the TV and find someone being beheaded on it and it certainly doesnt stop it does it? When you have people that blow up facilities of the UN then pathetic and your one word argument fall apart.

STH-You are right and guess what? Now they have rights so they can get their hearings just like all of the other people here in the US that will be back out on the street for "good behavior". Screw me but please.... Its the only time they ever behaved in their lives. Game the system AGAIN! Summary execution is what they should all get on the third pass. Thats okay though, these people that have not had their day in court will be released because of the lack of evidence, witnesses that will turn up dead...Its a Muslim Mafia and I do hope that you understand they might soon come to a theater near you. If you live in the UK well they are willing to apply Sharia laws now to the Muslims... Good but that means they get put to death immediately... Problems now again with Amnesty.

To add to this STH you assert that this country cannot be brought down. Thats pretty dumb. We are now at a crossroads in history. Do we stoop to the level of terrorists and employ their methods or do we stick to the Constitution and moral high road. There are some that say the latter at all costs. Quick, you just found out that a 30 meg weapon is in a container down in Manhattan with a four hour countdown. When it goes off it will kill all of New York City, Long Island, most of NE Jersey and in a day everyone in Boston and everyone in between with fallout. One man has the location and container number and you have him in custody and he aint talking.

What are you willing to do if you are President of the United States?

Thats the problem that this President AND the next one is going to have to face.

Nuke/bio/chem ALL trump the law STH. If it doesnt, then you get to go resting on your laurels.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 04 Jul 2008 #permalink

Come to think of it, the Tripoli Six confessed under torture to giving Libyan children AIDS, didn't they?

Good thing it can't happen here.

Back to square one folks......

We will jump off of it again when we get tagged again.

I wonder how many 9/11 families hold your beliefs?

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 04 Jul 2008 #permalink

Randy dude, you have got to stop watching FOX...

By Jonathon Singleton (not verified) on 05 Jul 2008 #permalink

As a member of a 9/11 family, torture is WRONG.
Go have yourself waterboarded Randy and THEN pop off.

G indy, save your breath. He'll just say "yeah but I doubt the other families think like you". Watching Faux News does that to people's brains. Please understand.

Then again, that last sentence was seems like pretty good advice. How 'bout it Randy? Hitchens had enough guts to try it; what about yourself?

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." -- Confucius

G in Indy... I have the list of 9/11 families right here. I also have most of their phone numbers, even the unlisted ones.

Your name would be....?

So all of these anti-interrogation people say that is wrong. Your tune would change the instant someone grabbed your kids and told you they were going to kill them, or level a building with you wife or husband in it. I have seen these high road people in action and well, it just doesnt work in the realities of todays world. You think its bad now. Wait til this time next year that is unless something dramatic happens.

By M. Randolp;h Kruger (not verified) on 05 Jul 2008 #permalink

Do you actually drink that early in the afternoon, Randy?

Not good.

M. Randolph Kruger, aside from the question of whether we need to use torture/enhanced interrogation to save ourselves, to go against previous agreements and to go beyond the Constitution (to whatever extent the activities do) cannot honestly be called a "conservative" position.

BTW, why and how would you have all those phone numbers, even the *unlisted* ones? Don't people have their numbers delisted for a reason?


Dylan-I dont drink much at all and you know my position on drug use.

Neil B.. Here is the thing on the torture/enhanced interrogation. The Supremes have decided that these people cannot be held in limbo forever. This is in fact if they are held as people that we are applying the Habeas to. IF the moronic, crack smoking stupid sacks of shit in the DoD and by this I also include our President had simply declared them as enemy combatants, they would have gotten the Geneva. You CAN be interrogated under the Geneva Conventions and there are specific and many specified methods to do it. Sparky gonads isnt one of them but milk jugs of water is. There was a Japanese who did it in WWII who was convicted of war crimes and sentenced to I think like ten years.

The reason we didnt apparently call them enemy combatants was that they couldnt have the CIA doing anything to them if they were Geneva'd. This is where the rub starts. We need the information and at the time no one in the world would have given these gomers the time of day. They were captured with rifles and weapons and transported to Gitmo. Thats within the purview of the DoD. As was Abu Ghraib. Where this went south for the administration was that you cant have a limbo land, they either are or they arent. The Supremes decision I understand but it doesnt mean that I can live with it. Congress failed to act upon the request of the Prez and AG to produce a law that would cover these bozo's and how they were to be designated. Remember, in Vietnam even the Cong were considered enemy combatants and afforded Geneva. We simply turned them over to the ARVN for disposition. Which they promptly did with a bullet to the brain or the tiger cages if you are that old.

So there is the problem... its the law and it sucks and Congress, the DoD and the Prez are responsible. I personally think that the Congress just liked to harp it when really they are/were the ones responsible. The Constitution applies to the citizens of the United States and those that they designate to having rights under it. So the Supremes waited and waited until a suit was filed and they ruled. Right to rule, now if we get fucked by some bozo its going to be on Congress for not making a law, and the Administration for not pushing it along to a logical signing and conclusion. If they were Geneva'd, shit we could hold them for the rest of their lives and there wouldnt be any Amnesty Internationals because they would have legal standing in either the military courts or the civilian ones. Issue gone because there would be no more limbo.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 07 Jul 2008 #permalink

Dylan-I don't drink much at all...(MRK)

Randy: This (you do realize, don't you?) can very easily be compared, directly, to "We do not torture!"



Dylan-Thats a pretty far reach. I dont beat my kids either but the threat of its there at any time that I get pissed too. I havent waterboarded my kids in at least a month. Besides I like the more traditional kind which isnt to cover their heads with a bag, Tiltboarding is a lot more effective I think because the water even if it enters their lungs just comes out from gravity....

Come on Dylan. I wouldnt ever employ any interrogation method that wasnt necessary at the time. Life threatening situations for others not my personal safety. This is the difference here. I would employ it if there was no other immediate way to get what was needed. There is always a chance it would be tainted or invalid. The left wants to indict, try and convict them like they are criminals. Criminals steal things, they murder and what have you. Terrorists attack civilians. Enemy combatants attack military targets. Thats what this entire thing was and is. Congress and the Prez never came together and the Dems outsmarted them to a certain degree and used it against him. Torture/interrogation right now might be outmoded unless you find out about something really big about to happen. We havent captured many since last year so have we won? Not if Iran is sponsoring it. Absence of war isnt peace, but if its a state sponsored thing then they are enemy combatants targeting civilians and that is under the Geneva Conventions. They should be held, then determined if it is a war crime. But "global war on terror" doesnt get me. Congress should have simply declared war and THEN these peoples status wouldnt be questioned. They target non manufacturing facilities (WTC's) and they are tried and found guilty, they hang. But its a military tribunal and not a civilian court. The entire thing hangs around a declaration of war. We aint got it. Its been an attack directed at .....? Well, lets start at Muslim and then work our way down to particular countries. Mis-targeted? Partially only. We will hit a few more too. I am just glad as the Russians and Chinese are that they all dont have a rifle and 200 rounds of ammo and a leader to direct them.

By M. Randolph Krugerq (not verified) on 07 Jul 2008 #permalink

Come on Dylan. I wouldn't ever employ any interrogation method that wasn't necessary at the time." MRK

This says nothing about what you would be willing to do, and you know it.

It is really very, very simple.

It does not get any more simple than this: "Torture is torture."

No matter the circumstances.

No matter the reason.

Prove otherwise.

"Interrogation" is not an argument. When, exactly, do you cease "interrogating?"

And why?

How do you know, precisely, when you have exactly the "information" that you are looking for; or that you feel that you "need?"

Explain this to me.

When you are satisfied? Why, and how? Because you seem to connect the dots that you never even had the slightest hint that ever existed?

I've been an investigator. I spent twenty years doing it.

And I was a very good one.

And I never tortured a single person. Never even deprived them of their "Miranda Rights."


Because it made me...and all the others... who were also engaged in my profession, put in a position where they were forced to respect the same rights that were accorded all other citizens; and it necessarily made them better cops. How could it not?

You had to think.

Not use force.


Tell me when.

Torture is better.

And why.

And then justify it.

Torture is torture.

Let us see your arguments, Randy.

That is it.

End of discussion.

Depending on the level of what was required Dylan let me be blunt. There is NO level that I wouldnt stoop to to stop attacks on the US. If I had to run out and grab his /her family and take them apart to keep it from happening to us, then I would.

Ends to justify a means? Maybe. But as you know the law is for people who will obey it. When the police are unable to deal with a situation because of some goddamn rule book you have to find someone who is willing to toss it out. I could and would. I dont Mirandize anyone if they are talking about possible attacks causing huge losses of life. You are trying to apply a police tactic on an military situation... Doesnt work. I dont try to hunt them down and arrest them. I try to hunt them down and kill them. Simply different approach is all. Are the criminals, terrorists or combatants. Take your pick. I will say that if everyone continues acting like they are just criminals they are going to get handed a building or a school in their teeth in very short order.

I have seen tortures of prisoners before and waterboarding wasnt on the list. These guys in central america always got the info and they didnt play at all. They verified the information and if it was good they let them back out into the prisons or they let them go. Of course the people who I am speaking of always had the opportunity to do things right, remain within the law, and of course not to be hauled up and get the crap kicked out of them. There is a big difference between torture and interrogation. In interrogation its pretty rare that someone dies, in torture you have a good 50/50 chance of not coming out of it alive.

Torture is something I would do to stop say someone from blowing up the Boston Tunnel system with several thousand people from being buried alive. Or the same for the Golden Gate Bridge, or from setting a nuke off in NY Harbor. Yup, would do it live on national TV if I had too.

Never justified? I wouldnt say that and only the survivors of a situation should get to make the call on whether to do it or not. I for one wouldnt let the law stand in my particular way and if I did it then that 50/50 would probably be reduced to 82/20 in favor of him/her not making it out. I wouldnt want to do it but again it goes back to who has the rights here? 100,000 citizens or some prick with an axe to grind against our government or our people. I for one will stick with our people each and every time. Governments are governments and they can register a complaint. I for one have already had enough of our citizens getting whacked, time to inflict some harm on those who would do it to us and that means proactively rather than reactively.

I dont limit myself to Muslims in this. I would do it to anyone and pre-emptively but thats just the way I am. You cant bring a writ to a gun fight if you want to come out of it alive. Sorry.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 07 Jul 2008 #permalink

Randy, suppose the FBI comes to your door and says:

"Mr. Kruger, we have reliable information that you know where a 30 MT thermonuclear device is that will explode in NYC in the next week. We have 7 of your family members in custody. Tell us where it is or we will torture them to death one by one until you do tell us."

How many of your family members do you allow to be tortured to death before you tell them where it is?

I would like you to consider two hypothetical cases, one case where you do know where a 30 MT thermonuclear device is, and the case where you do not.

You might want to read the article and watch the video over at http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/07/mccains_false_confession.php regarding congressional evidence presented concerning the use of torture.

The UK spent 50 years battling the IRA terrorists. In the beginning they used torture techniques identical to those used by Bu$hco. But found that they do not work. Worse, they estimate the community backlash from those sympathetic to the IRA but who were still not terrorists probably extended the fight by a good 20 years beyond what it would have been had they not used torture at all.

The video ends with him referencing an old interview with Sen John McCain where JM talks about how and why he broke under N. Vietnamese torture and made false confessions.

I'll repeat, esp. for MRK's benefit: this is congressional testimony, under oath, from a representative of a government that went through identical terrorist experience and used identical methods to those MRK proposes and Bu$hco use, and discovered they do not work. And John McCain knows they do not work from personal experience, yet is now supporting them anyway.

By GrayGaffer (not verified) on 08 Jul 2008 #permalink

On a more personal note:

In 2002 I took the Oath of Naturalization, which may be more like the oath taken by amongst others Mr President than that parroted in our schools. The core of the oath is "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic".

Now, changing one's nationality is a far more serious undertaking than a daily high school routine, and deserves serious study. Through that I came to a much better foundation for my decision.

That "piece of paper" is as epochal to civilization as was the Magna Carta and the Writ of Habeus Corpus, and is why I live here now instead of in the UK. It is the genesis of a truly honorable society, one governed by the Rule of Law rather than the whim of its owners. One that is worth fighting for and even dying for.

And I talk not only of armed service, but of accepting the daily risks as a citizen - I choose to uphold the Constitution and risk dying in a terrorist attack over shredding it for convenience in misguided attempts to thwart those attacks.

I believe that if our foreign policies and commercial dealings are also carried out with that sense of honor then the threat of terrorist attacks is reduced. Naive of me perhaps, but I do think events since 2002 have proven my thesis correct.

The honor has been compromised, the Constitution ignored by those most entrusted with its defense, and we are reaping the results.

By GrayGaffer (not verified) on 08 Jul 2008 #permalink

...and then Randy wonders why this euphemism is applied to him...

NJ, that would explain both the content and length of his "leavings."

Tell us the one about the CIA hiding their plans for a sex-ray in your hearing aid again, Grampa.

Randy, you have now been in custody 23 hours, and have not disclosed where the 30 MT nuclear device is. Now you have only 6 relatives in custody, the first one having just died from the 23 hours of torture. They have started on the next one.

Your 6 relatives are begging and pleading with you to tell the FBI what they want to know before the next one dies.

When are you going to disclose where the 30 MT thermonuclear device is?

NJ thats okay, you probably sell them. Just make your point and get on with it. I dont do drugs and its a typical lefty approach to something. Attack anyone who doesnt hold your position on anything... Like global warming and its causes. Come up with something better next time.

Deadie-they are just going to die under your scenario along with several million more. Whats your point please? That the Gestapo will kick your door down? Sure if you let them. This is the reason we have laws to keep the police powers in check in this country. These people we are talking about are not being waterboarded on US soil, so its a moot point. You cant use interrogation OR torture methods on our turf so you really dont know what is going on. Ships, islands, surrogates? I hear a lot of conjecture about Abu Ghraib too. Those people should have been either afforded Geneva OR they were terrorists or uspected ones. The latter puts them out on the far end of the limb. The fact that the US government was paying contractors to do this meant that someone was thinking. It gave them the insulation they needed. How many died under this torture? Zero as far as I could tell. In Vietnam they were burying them after they were turned over to the ARVN. But shit they got rights under our laws. No, they dont. They are either soldiers or not and without a declaration, they DONT!

There is a difference between arrest without warrant and a slapdown attack by police forces of a state. You dont understand the processes apparently. There is no law that allows this kind of activity to happen on US soil because we are citizens and any person here is afforded the same right. Thats the difference here and you keep pushing for a logical conclusion to make your point that torture is wrong. This would never happen except on the orders of the AG or Prez.

Here is your logical conclusion... they all die. If I make it then thats fine too. I would simply remove the perps from the face of the earth not for violating our laws but for killing my family. Thats another thing. They would make a mistake in not killing me or making me an invalid. I would take them one by one and its simple as that.

If your point is that the "credible evidence" affords the government some right then again, you make my point. Torture has the implications of death and a lot of the time it happens. Designation as a terrorist would put you into the FBI and CIA's hands. But it doesnt give them any rights to do anything other than interrogation and its FBI interrogation. Interrogation generally ends up the the detainee producing information and rarely a death. They havent transported anyone from the US to other places to do the number one them that I am aware of. I could be wrong about that. Mostly though the homegrowns get indicted or arrested, a trial. So our laws are in effect.

Keep playing your scenario out though Deadie its pure entertainment.

Gray-The UK is entirely different than we are on this. They are allowed to censor their media too so does that make that right by our standards? I disagree that the methods used dont produce results. Said results are mixed. That I do agree with.

Torture or interrogation... its a name and it has different outcomes. If you think I am defending the right to use it then you are correct. If you think that I would just whip down on every gomer that we thought was a threat then not so fast. I think Obama is a threat but I am not out thinking about a way to whisk him from the US to find out if he is really a US citizen.... A lot of questions there on that.

Honor where honor is given. They always could put on a uniform and connect to Geneva and we will fight it out as the Conventions said we should do. So up til now the US could have little or nothing for them other than to say dont do it. But now, there is dont do it or else. There has to be consequences for everything Gray. These people would do you harm and doing so would be outside of our laws and international laws system. They law is for those who would follow it. They know that blowing up a Trade Center or two would drop the economy like a rock, cost us all billions, and make us antsy enough to start a war. That ball is still rolling and in play.

I dont like this idea that they have rights when we live under the daily threat of an attack. Used to be we only had to worry about an occasional off the wall nutcase and criminals. Now we have to pull our shoes off because they might be bombs. Stick to the ideas though. I think that we all are in a rocking boat and if everything goes back to normal then you will be 100% right. I am betting though that you wont be. From the chatter I hear going on I would say sometime just after Thanksgiving or just before we might have to deal with another problem.

Me, I would volunteer to do the guys that would do it and that means every connotation you can come up with. Generally everything that Amnesty Intl. and other human rights groups try to pump. I wonder what they said about the WTC's and the rights of those people.... Just a bad day I guess.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 09 Jul 2008 #permalink

So, Randy, you're so terrified of an attack that you'll do anything to prevent it? You don't care if it's moral, or legal, or even effective, you just want to torture someone.

Or course, you can't bear to actually address any of the valid points here, you just babble.

Torture is wrong. It is illegal. But you are eager to ignore these facts in your fear and lust for torture. And you admit to ignoring these facts, and making excuses for anything out of fear. But there's another thing you're too terrified to even acknowledge. Torture doesn't work for what you claim to want it for. It's a wonderful tool for generating false confessions. Great for show trials and state-sanctioned murder. Quite a method to promote fear among the citizens and discourage dissent. But when it comes to getting useful information, torture simply isn't effective, or necessary. Information obtained through torture is known to be unreliable. And if you pick up the wrong person, there's no hope of getting any information out of them no matter what techniques you use.

Randy, you are endorsing terrorism to fight terrorism. You are cowering in fear from imaginary enemies, willing to sell out everything worthwhile about your country for a handful of magic beans.

Randy the wannabe terrorist:

G in Indy... I have the list of 9/11 families right here. I also have most of their phone numbers, even the unlisted ones.

Your name would be....?

So all of these anti-interrogation people say that is wrong. Your tune would change the instant someone grabbed your kids and told you they were going to kill them, or level a building with you wife or husband in it. I have seen these high road people in action and well, it just doesnt work in the realities of todays world. You think its bad now. Wait til this time next year that is unless something dramatic happens.

Okay, so this nutcase sees someone disagreeing with him and proving his idiotic assertions wrong, then he demands personally identifiable information and says they'd change their tune if someone threatened their kids. Doesn't this qualify as a terroristic threat?

By phantomreader42 (not verified) on 09 Jul 2008 #permalink

Randy, you are living in la la land.

Jose Padilla, US citizen, arrested on US territory, tortured.

"How many died under this torture? Zero as far as I could tell."

You might want to read prepared testimony of Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson. Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002-2005


As I compiled my dossier for Secretary Powell, as I did further research, and as my views grew firmer and firmer, I needed frequently to reread that memo. I needed to balance, in my own mind, the overwhelming evidence that my own government had sanctioned abuse and torture which, at its worst, had led to the murder of 25 detainees in a total of at least a 100 detainee deaths. Death, Mr. Chairman, seems to me to be the ultimate torture, indisputable and final. We had murdered 25 or more people in detention; that was the clear low point of the evidence.

Testimony under oath by the Chief of Staff to the US Secretary of State.

My family is a military one Phantom. Ever since they were born they were military and headed to it as they got old enough. The possibility of them being snatched or attacked on any given day was much higher than most peoples. The possibilities were high as well that once snatched or under attack they would not make it. They were, have been and are aware of that fact even now as one is serving now as an USAF Lt. and the other is about to be old enough to go in. Those people that have been under attack or might be would be screaming and crying like babies for their government to do something if it happen. If mine were alive they would do their best to take as many of them with them if they couldnt escape as possible. They might be tortured. They certainly wouldnt be interrogated. If they were captured, they would be trying to escape and again they might be tortured and not interrogated. But you assert that I would torture someone out of fear. You are nuts. I wouldnt do it out of fear at all. I would do it because I want a result and not some sack of shit lefties interpretation of it. I can tell you I would take bolt cutters, blow torches, dry ice and nails to someone who fucked with this country like they did on 9/11. I can get a lot more graphic because I know the difference between torture and interrogation. You just dont get it. Even in 1775 we were torturing the goddamn British. We were violating just about every humane law that there was because we had our backs to the walls. This was during the time that wars were fought with chivalry and humane methods. In otther words you might as well quit harping it. Its gone on ever since we started the first war on this planet.

I dont ascribe to its use. I do defend its use in the most limited manner. I would think that you would get that by now. So were you on 9/11 ready to kiss and make up with terrorists?


In the above you'll find the now convicted Jose Padilla who was not classified for two years as anything other than an enemy combatant. He wasnt given an attorney because of that classification and we keep covering the same ground. He was later declassified as a combatant and reclassified as a criminal. He was charged, convicted and put into jail. Rot in Hell as far as I am concerned. There were allegations of interrogations that the media called torture. You CAN interrogate people under Geneva in the US. Sorry this one doesnt float. If he didnt like it then good, he should have been as an enemy combatant and it was LEGAL under that classification. What wasnt contained above was that he tried to exclude what they found out about him and his little group from the testimony while he was classified as enemy combatant. Oh, the lefties happily sit back and say these people have rights.... No they dont. They dont get Miranda when they are enemy combatants, they dont get an attorney, they get interrogated. Some of you might find that harsh but in the same breath you seem to want to come down on the side of these people that are convicted. Once again too many people deciding that interrogations are torture. You simply have no concept of what that entails.

Deadie-So they were classified as enemy combatants and then declassified to prisoner status in Iraq. Without a functioning government there, they could do anything they wanted as contractors. They fucked up when they left them in US operated facilites. So your point is that they were tortured? Very likely under contract and on foreign soil. I cant find anyone that says that they died being tortured, only later from shitty conditions.That is not the US government ordering the torture of prisoners. Plausible deniability..... You should really understand more about how the real world works. All of this stuff doesnt mean shit out in the field. It means something here in the US only.

But, it goes back to my first supposition. Quit fucking around with these people and declare war. Then just about everything is legal but it is delinineated as to what isnt and is.

Torture, torture, torture. Be sure to learn Arabic. The above from the good Colonel is powerful and unhappy because he is locked in the old ways of doing things. This is a street fight and the sooner you folks realize it the better.


By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 09 Jul 2008 #permalink

M. Randolph Kruger,

Hon, I am with you 100-percent on this!
That limey GreyGaffer was askin nonsense like, is it OK to torture the family of a terrorist?

You and me both know that the only answer to that question is, "yes siree bobtail, fine and dandy, how do you do?!"

As long as they ain't white, that is!
Even if they're American citizens, if they're Moslem, they're fair game, am I right, son or am I right?

If the government nabs somebody off the street and thinks they got some kind of WMD, well by golly I say it's time to torture! Even if we ain't positive we got the right person, we just can't take that chance no more! You took the words outta my mouth: "it's a street fight!"

Now I seen some prissy boy on here whine about who sets the standards, who says enough is enough, who says when a threat is credible enough for torture, etc and other silliness.
That's just a whole mess of bull poo!

It's a new fight, and it's time we brought new rules to the game; you certainly got that right! We need to torture everybody we arrest for any crime, anywhere, anytime. No exceptions!
It's time we bring out the battery cables, rape rooms, axes and hatchets for dismemberment!

If we gots to arrest some Iraqi eight-year-old boy for possibly selling bootleg liquor to terrorists, then it's time to scare the Jesus INTO him.
If he won't talk, then it's time to castrate him(post-sodomy of course)! If he still won't talk, then we bring in his ma' and have her raped in front of him, then surgically sterilized without anesthesia!

It might be extreme, but how do we know he don't hold the codes to a nuclear bomb sitting in a warehouse in downtown Little Rock?

That's right; we don't, and I for one don't want to take that chance! Plus, that boy shouldn't have put hisself in a place to be arrested nohow! It'd be his own fault neither him nor his ma' would be able to have kids!

Remember: they ain't American, so it's legal!

Fortunately, it's all nice and legal since the President ain't bound by no treaties:


I for one am hopin the President is working on clearing the way for doing the same to criminals here on US soil.
The bill of rights is just a piece of paper! It's time we rip it up and let the President get on with the job at hand!

-Norma Jean

Strange days here lately revere.
Me thinks people are going bonkers or have already arrived.

MRK is correct with much of what he writes. And some of you have the gall to say he rants. You don't know him nor do you have the nerve to get to know him.
We are dealing with people that are bad to the bone, so bad they don't deserve to be a human being.

It's a warring universe, always has been and always will be.

Thanks Norma Jean for your illiterate description of how the Billy Bobs would handle it. I wonder if you know that the majority of the reserves and actives are from the South. Our pot is very much in the fire right now and very few believe as you do. They also know that interrogation is all the military can do legally and under the prescribed methods set forth. The CIA of shore can do anything that they can get away with... that might be torture.

But thazzzokay Norma Jean, maybe it'll just take a couple of beheadings of kids or a school to be blown up to get your attention. Are they combatants, terrorists or criminals. You apply the voltage as you see fit and see if it works. If it doesnt you ratchet the level up until it does.

Its great to be outnumbered by so many libs by at least 20 to 1.. I think its quite an even match.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 09 Jul 2008 #permalink

M. Randolph Kruger,

Well hon, I'm sorry but I reckon we're gonna have to agree to disagree.
I'm afraid you may be too sissfied after indoctrination by the liberal public schools to do what needs to be done to win the war on terror.
You said earlier,

"There is NO level that I wouldnt stoop to to stop attacks on the US. If I had to run out and grab his /her family and take them apart to keep it from happening to us, then I would."

You said yourself it's a new game, and new America needs to play by new rules.
By golly, if you're gonna draw a line in the sand, you gonna have to stand behind it! I reckon maybe you and me disagree about what "take them apart" might consist of.
For me, that includes apprehending a suspect's family, dismemberment, sexual abuse, and death!

I'm sorry you're just too meek to stand up proper to them terrorists who want to torture and kill Americans!

Do you hate America so much you'd stand by and watch innocent people die, just cause you're too squemish to do what needs to be done?

-Norma Jean

Almost forgot y'all,

MRK, you never did answer the question bout when torture is justified? Is it justified when one American life is threatened? Is it justified if American lives MAY BE in jeapordy?

Judging by your previous post, I'm gonna guess you'd be too dadblame leninet on terrorists.

Me, I say torture - up to and including death of the subject and/or his family - is justified if American interests of any sort are threatened. Whether that's an American life, an American's home, an American's pet canary, even an American's Levis; it don't matter!
Stinking terrorist never shoulda messed with the good ole US of A.

Only lefty pinkos would disagree!

-Norma Jean

Norma, if an Americans life was jeopardized -Yes. The reason for this is that you dont seem to get is that they no longer fear us. Do you think for one minute that they didnt know the US would retaliate when the WTC's went down. Pinko's are communists BTW and you have high disregard for the lives of Americans.

I'll put it in a way you might understand but I doubt it...What do you think the response would have been if a nuke would have been on the planes that crashed into the WTC's? There would have very likely have been an in kind response and a full NATO one at that.

I would indeed torture the living fuck out of anyone who had information to prevent an attack. It wouldnt be an interrogation so lets just drop all premises that I wouldnt. I would also do it on US soil but that doesnt matter. It gets down about when and where to do it. We are arguing semantics. It wouldnt be about parakeets Norma Jean. I often pose the question... If FDR had had a nuke at the outset of the war and it was deliverable, would he have used it? What level of carnage prevents war? Thats not peace mind you, its the absence of war. A standoff if you will.

Our standoff capability with the Russians prevented war-MAD. With the Muslims and I am constantly confused by their peaceful natures and then what they are willing to do in the name of God. Beheadings, destruction of Israel, school bus bombings, WTC's? Whats next? As of yesterday their ability to extend that question about FDR to Iran is out there. Their reach by missile is now 1250 miles. That covers just about every country out there in the Persian Gulf. Want to wait to see if they use it? One nuke and Israel is done and they will gaggle fire an estimated 60 into the region.....Masada all over again. I doubt there is a target that they dont have in their sights, Tehran, Riyadh, Istanbul, Damascus, Moscow, Beijing, Paris, Bonn. The Israelis have postured before that these countries that had caused them harm before would suffer. I believe them.

Now at what point would most people take the Constitution and set it aside to prevent a near planetary holocaust. I dont know but lets just say my threshold is a lot lower than others and I am intolerant of people attacking the US and its allies.

I believe that your references to parakeets and Levi's simply dont match up with todays world and the realities of it. Fact is that Islamists are killing school childen in Russia, attacking theaters there too, blowing up schools in Israel, attacking our embassies in Africa, attacking our ships in port, attacking our soldiers barracks in Saudia Arabia, attacking our largest cities and buildings, attacking UN headquarters in Iraq, attacking UN peacekepers in Lebanon, and attacking and hijacking airplanes for the last nearly 50 years. In short we keep taking the hits and they just keep on attacking and I guess we should just keep on doing that. They ae only Americans and innocent ones at that? Sorry but the math for me just doesnt work out.

So it ends up as a conclusion. Logical but eliminating humanity and the equation. If it was Jimmy Carter he would probably hand them a bon bon and pat them on the head. If it was Reagan we would have already leveled Teheran. But on the smaller scale with big implications, do we torture or interrogate? Do we have the time to wait if and when we know a bomb would go off of any size? Do we make someone a martyr for his cause, or do we watch a city be leveled because of the law. When is it justified? Never? I would bet though its would never be about parakeets and Levi's unless Americans were collaterals to their destruction.

You have pretty flip attitude about this Norma Jean and I find it pretty distasteful. So lets cut to the chase. Yes, I would use torture to get information about the possibility of an attack on large groups of Americans or its allies. Yes, I would do it on US soil and take my chances with the courts. If the CIA/NSA kicked my door down as asserted with "credible evidence" and went after my family on a maybe then they had better kill me when they torture me about the nukes going off. But it wouldnt happen under the law. But thats what we are talking about really. Setting aside the law, both God and mans to do something like this. Terrorists are allowed to be tortured but not on our soil. In fact they can be summarily shot in a wartime setting and this is what was never given to the people in a manner that they could understand and that is the media's fault. Humane treatment of a terrorist? There's no such thing. As stated they can form an army, have themselves registered with the Geneva Conventions and then we can go after them and if they are captured then they can be interrogated. But that will never happen. When is it justfied? With the above events that have already happened and the scalings of their attacks going up, its game time. Time to determine the strategy, how you'll handle certain things. This is one of them. Its not a football game though because you generally walk away from that. Get this one wrong and you'll have to determine what is acceptable US losses from a terrorist attack. Thats generally reserved for the military assets. They have brought the war to us and it would seem that the left would just try to play nice-nice with them.

Code of Hamurabi

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 10 Jul 2008 #permalink


Well hon, Im glad to see you aint a total pantywaist, but I declare ifn you still aint loathe to push the envelope to these terrorists!

You wrote:
Yes, I would use torture to get information about the possibility of an attack on large groups of Americans or its allies. Yes, I would do it on US soil and take my chances with the courts. If the CIA/NSA kicked my door down as asserted with "credible evidence" and went after my family on a maybe then they had better kill me when they torture me about the nukes going off. But it wouldnt happen under the law.

Fortunately for the rest of us, President Bush has shown that while it may not be legal to arrest and torture you as an American citizen, youd be fair game as an enemy combatant.


Thank Jesus that so long as you aint on US soil you and your family could be tortured til you broke!

Fortunately for freedom-loving Americans everywhere and thanks to that good patriot John Yoo, your wife and children can be raped and mutilated as you watch.


Now we know the terrorists would be willing to do this to YOU! Why should the government not have the same power?

By golly, if we aint willing to meet the terrorists on their level, how can we hope to win their hearts and minds?

-Norma Jean

This one above is fruit loops MRK, let it go.

Sorry Norma, you still dont have it right. Enemy combatants are able to get Geneva, terrorists are not. Designation only. You get interrogated until they determine you crossed the line. Even GWB acknowledged that as early as 2002. +

I am aware of Mr. Yoo's statement. He is correct and the Congress when requested by the Administration to develop laws as this is our first terrorist war, wussied out and then decided that they would just vilify the President instead. .

And I agree Norma, they should have the right to do it to those who would do us harm.

Its that same thinking that you are pumping Norma that gave us Vietnam. No declaration of war. Once a war is declared against individuals or nations all things fall into place.

No Lea, Norma is fairly clear about what we all would like to see but then there goes that making sense thing. We show up to talk and negotiate while they kill our people. She simply has forgotten how many have already died that were the citizens of the US in terrorist activities. Not to mention the Australians, Brits, Germans and Italians.

Payback can be a sonuvabitch and the next war is on the burners. Just have to cook it a bit more before its ready. Norma can spout all she wants about whether torture is legal. Its not on our soil. Its not by our soldiers and anyone participating in it will be arrested and imprisoned, or hung if a death results. On the other hand where you get into a situation where its nation working against nation it gets into the spying business, the fifth column, the terrorism. But the worst part is that she doesnt get apparently is that these people dont care whether they die or their own families die. Torture might produce some results, interrogation would yield more but more slowly. Torture is for the immediate got to have information but even then it couldnt be done on US soil without an approval and a designation of terrorist. So we remain with the laws and terrorists are both enemy combatant and terrorist. Do they get Geneva? Do they get a judge? Do they get a military tribunal. Sabotage as a enemy combatant in WWII in uniform was a military act. Sabotage without a uniform even today is grounds for immediate execution if it happens on or to a military base or personnel.

Some people just dont understand that I want these peoples designations to change and to have it clearly delineated as to status. What is a cop supposed to do with a kid carrying a satchel full of explosives in his backpack to school? First thing is to not let him into the school because of the number of casualties. Who has the rights here?

This is what I am saying and I wanted Congress and the President to decide once and for all what "WE" are in the US. Temporary laws that expire or are renewed that allow torture on our soil and to determine what these peoples status is. No uniform under Geneva puts them in shark infested waters and we are the sharks. No mercy, no Habeas, no phone call to your lawyer is what I wanted. This way there would be no question because it would be the law. It would unfetter the police, FBI, NSA, CIA. We shouldnt have to transport people to Gitmo just to use a step over the line of torture. Oh, they'll start about the international conventions about torture and the like. Well, I havent seen anyone stop on the other side ofthe planet and those conventions were signed by their home countries too.

So out the window with it. Its not reality. The guy who is left standing at the end of this game is going to be the one that wins. There will be blood... and a shit load of casualties along the way. Make sure you are not one of them and train your kids as I have mine to be prepared.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 10 Jul 2008 #permalink

Just so the record is straight here, I think Randy is 100% wrong, factually, legally and morally. Torture is illegal and so is failure to punish it. Bush is a war criminal and will go down in history as a war criminal. Some day this will be adjudicated. Meanwhile, the criminals are in charge and nothing will happen.

revere, dear heart: the criminals have always been in charge, you know, the top 1% wage earners on this spinning blue marble? or is it now 2%?
Do you see? We are truly idiots for allowing the government to have gone as far as it has.

Everyone can talk about right and wrong on the blogs but nothing, absolutely nothing is changing for 98% of the people. Sadly too, it won't change, unless each and every human being steps out of their comfort zone and goes to war with the government.

It's all frakking religious wars anyway, always has been, always will be. The feeling of power drives even the sanest of men and women to ridiculous levels.

Oh its not religious with me. Its about sinking to whatever levels that are necessary to stop all of this shit thats going on. Face it, we dont need a Patriot Act or FISA or any of the other stuff thats come down the pike since 9/11 if there hadnt been. If Jimmy Carter had roared into Teheran and w/wo the approval of the UN and grabbed our people then even if they had died they would have died knowing that their government did everything to get them out.

Why did they give them up? Because R. Reagan was prepared to launch a 3 division invasion and the US Navy was going to be the point of the spear. Then on the eve of the destruction Carter sold us out. He released 5 billion in assets back to the Iranians then paid another 5 for their release which the Algerians brokered.

We dont negotiate with terrorists... we kill them. The only president in history to do so openly. Well we now see what happens when an act of war is not responded to. Its only taken 30 years of evolution to do it.

Iran is building a bomb and threatening to use it. What else do we need to know? Inspections, negotiations, no fly zones, trade sanctions. We saw how well they worked in Iraq. If we had simply knocked him off with a tactical air strike we wouldnt be in the shape we are now.

But thats pacifism and appeasement for you......

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 10 Jul 2008 #permalink


Darlin, I reckon were just gonna have to agree to disagree.

I am proud of you for wanting to stand up to terrorists, but its pretty obvious you done been too indoctrinated by the public schools to take the necessary precautions to save American democracy.

You wrote, Torture might produce some results, interrogation would yield more but more slowly. Torture is for the immediate got to have information but even then it couldnt be done on US soil without an approval and a designation of terrorist.

I agree with you on the torture part, even if these left-wing pinko communists disagree:
These pansy limey officials obviously dont know what you and me know; torture produces results 100% of the time. These crybaby lefties messed up cause they werent experienced enough to figure what was lies and what was wasnt. That dont happen with American interrogators: theyre too smart to fall for the traps these limey whiners did.

But it seems to me youre just too meek to take the next step: torturing American citizens and/or their families. You said yourself youd be willing to break the law if it saved American lives. So why would you object if the President arrests you, says youre an enemy combatant, tortures you and your family, and then lets you go later if youre innocent; even if it happened in Trenton, NJ it should be OK.

But really, if youre innocent, then you wouldnt be arrested in the first place.

Which means only guilty people and their families would be arrested and tortured.

But youre all up n arms that torture of citizens is OK only if a number of American lives are at stake. I dont understand why youre taking such a soft stance on terrorists.

A suspected terrorists life (and/or his/her family) aint worth risking even one solitary American citizens injury.

Takin your approach, the terrorists would almost always win.

I reckon everybody already knows the hypothetical about the terrorist who knows where a nuclear bomb is. But heres another

Hypothetical: a cop on the beat in Harlem sees a kid walking down the street. The cops got a pretty good suspicion the kid has terrorist connections, so he arrests him.
Now with your approach, that cop has to wait for federal authorities to come on down and make sure the kid really is a terrorist, then interrogate him, then have the president designate him an enemy combatant, and then and only then get information out of him. Course by that time its too late and the anthrax bomb has gone off and killed everyone in the city. All because YOU wanna take it easy on terror.

Now my approach (which you only back up so far) is: the cop grabs the kid, finds out where he lives. He cant waste time calling back to HQ, so he grabs a couple of buddies and breaks down the kids door. They subdue the family and ransack the house; no luck.

Now they aint got no choice. They figure the kids a terrorist, he could have a bomb anywhere, or know somebody with a bomb, or making a bomb, or thinking of making a bomb. How they know? Do they take a chance like that? No way, no how.

The kid wont talk. They break his thumbsthey beat him; still no luck. That when you start cutting into him. If he still dont talk, thats when sexual assault starts, right? And you just move on through his family till he talks.

When he finally spills the beans (even if his ma has to be raped and killed to do it), the cops get there in time. Disaster averted.

But you would have let Americans die to preserve the rights of Americans? What about the rights of the dead?

If youre a true patriot, you oughta be OK with the government torturing anyone for any reason anywhere at any time.

Its what Jesus would do.

-Norma Jean