28 people? Bush said NO ONE was tortured, today it is 28, what will it be later? How did those 98 people die during questioning?
If we were not torturing them, how did they die? There was a doctor present, so what happened? Answer that one please. On Apr 22, 10:27 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Mark <> wrote: > > No, it is EXACTLY the same.... when arrested the accused nterrorists are > simply people with no ID and no proof.... wrong place wrong time.... torture > is used to sort them out. > Torture is NOT acceptable on any level, I would not care whose child or > family is at risk, including my own. The is and MUST remain without emotion. > > ================== > > Mark, > > This is part of the dilemma, and I am still not convinced, at least in my > mind, that Level I, Level II or Level III enhanced interrogation tactics > constitute torture. I noticed that no one responded to my question > regarding whether these tactics (attached) from Rumsfeld's "Defense > Department Working Group" constituted "torture". > > It is also misplaced to somehow now accuse the captors (or interrogators) as > torturing individuals to sort them out, because they had no identification. > I don't believe that this happened. There is no evidence of this ever > taking place, and I am unaware of any allegations to such activity. > > There were only 28 individuals who were exposed to either Level I, Level II > or Level III enhanced interrogation tactics, and it was because these > individuals had been determined to be knowledgable of information that was > detrimental to our National Security. > > As Bradbury's May 10th, 2005 Memorandum points out, and as former Vice > President Dick Cheney stated on FOX News on April 20th and April 21st, our > Nation's intelligence agencies had relatively little information on al > Queida, the Taliban, and those who were flying jets into our skyscrapers. > We were being attacked (or thought we were) by chemicals in the mail, (you > do recall the Anthrax scare?) and it was pretty much assumed that the > "First Wave" of attacks by al Queida on September 11, 2001, were not going > to be the last. We were at war, with an enemy we knew relatively little > about. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> NOw you are mixing apples and oranges... NO ONE is arguing for a > >> universial application of torture... The argument here is about > >> using non lethal means to extract critical life saving information > >> from PROFESSIONAL terrorists --- a very limited and far greater > >> specified application than what you are seeking to argue... > > >> On Apr 21, 3:19 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > So the various police forces in the US should return to the day of the > >> > rubber hoses ?? And when your son/daughter/family member does not "rat > >> out" > >> > its ok to "save the many" by using it ?? > > >> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:16 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > The Left does not understand mental torture/extraction of information. > >> > > Mossad does, evidently.//I don't think the ME terrorists have arrived > >> > > at the mental category of interrogations which the Left assumes. The > >> > > Left is a victim oriented mentality to begin with- pass the Band-Aids. > >> > > As unemployment and crime rises in their cities and their experience > >> > > first hand challenges them, we will see. > > >> > > On Apr 21, 1:46 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > One question NOT debated is "If these methods did save hundreds of > >> > > > lives, is it justified??? If one takes the position of no, then you > >> > > > place yourself into the position of saying "not torturing 1 man is > >> > > > more important than hundreds of lives".... To date the Left ignores > >> > > > this question with the unproven claim the "torture will never give > >> you > >> > > > any worthwhile information"... > > >> > > > On Apr 20, 10:46 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > I start out where I left off last night. > > >> > > > > That I am attempting to understand and comprehend the facts of > >> what > >> > > took > >> > > > > place with our treatment of prisoners. The thirty detainess that > >> have > >> > > > > been specifically referenced by Bybee, Bradbury and to a degree > >> Yoo and > >> > > > > Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's "Working Group > >> Within The > >> > > > > Department of Defense"; these thirty detainees were subjected to > >> > > enhanced > >> > > > > interrogation tactics, which by Department of Defense and CIA > >> > > classification > >> > > > > were either level I, II or III categories of enhhanced tactics, > >> (Level > >> > > III > >> > > > > being the most alarming and disconcerting) and according to > >> recently > >> > > > > released information, only three detainees were ever subjected to > >> Level > >> > > III > >> > > > > tactics. > > >> > > > > I don't think anyone can deny that of these thirty individuals, > >> all > >> > > were > >> > > > > undoubtedly intent on destroying our very way of life, and the > >> United > >> > > States > >> > > > > as we know it. Obviously, with the more information that is > >> released, > >> > > > > the better to understand and comprehend the facts. As I said last > >> > > evening, > >> > > > > if I sound like I am playing "devil's advocate" it is only my own > >> means > >> > > > > and personal mechanism to comprehend and understand the facts, as > >> we > >> > > (with > >> > > > > unclassified security clearances) know them to be. I make no > >> > > argument > >> > > > > here. Instead, I am only trying to ascertain two distinct issues: > > >> > > > > (1) "Whether the CIA interrogators', (or other American > >> "authorized > >> > > > > interrogators' ") use of enhanced interrogation tactics > >> constituted > >> > > > > "torture"; and > > >> > > > > (2) "Whether the United States somehow avoided or evaded > >> principles of > >> > > the > >> > > > > Geneva Accords, as well as the Convention Against Torture and > >> Other > >> > > Cruel, > >> > > > > Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; (e.g.; "Cat") and > >> other > >> > > > > international treatise of which the United States is a signatory; > >> thus > >> > > > > making the actions of the Bush Administration unconstitutional. > > >> > > > > ** Not only did I send my initial message predominately regarding > >> > > Steven > >> > > > > Bradbury's May 10, 2005 and May 30, 2005 Memorandums to > >> PoliticalForum, > >> > > but > >> > > > > I also sent it to several attorney friends of mine, one here in > >> Tampa > >> > > and > >> > > > > one in Washington, D.C. who specializes in International Law. I > >> > > also > >> > > > > sent my message to another attorney in Gainesville Florida who I > >> > > believe > >> > > > > forwarded my message to other attornies, or at least she forwarded > >> the > >> > > > > message to individuals who seem to have given these issues a good > >> deal > >> > > of > >> > > > > thought. Surprisingly, (with a couple of exceptions) most of the > >> > > replies > >> > > > > by counsel have been very much colored by partisan politics, which > >> was > >> > > a bit > >> > > > > of a shock to me. It would appear that their cognitive and > >> critical > >> > > > > thinking skills and abilities are so clouded by their apparent > >> hatred > >> > > for > >> > > > > the previous Adminstration, that they can no longer see this issue > >> from > >> > > a > >> > > > > rational, non-partisan standpoint. > > >> > > > > A couple of thoughts that keep coming to mind: > > >> > > > > If a prisoner, say in any United States jail or prison is a danger > >> to > >> > > > > himself, or to others that may very well effect the safety or > >> security > >> > > of > >> > > > > the prison, because of this prisoner's mental disability, and the > >> > > prison > >> > > > > officials or his jailers administer psychotropic drugs upon the > >> > > prisoner > >> > > > > against his will in order to maintain safety and security in the > >> > > prison, > >> > > > > does this constitute "torture" to the prisoner? > > >> > > > > I know that this question, "dodges the bullet" so to speak, but > >> > > assuming > >> > > > > that Bradbury's May 10th Memorandum's facts are correct, (as well > >> as > >> > > Yoo's > >> > > > > March 31, 2004 Memorandum) and in fact, the enhanced interrogation > >> > > tactics, > >> > > > > whether they constituted torture, or whether they didn't, > >> prevented > >> > > hundreds > >> > > > > of thousands of lives lost by a dirty bomb going off in Washington > >> > > D.C., or > >> > > > > another skyscraper being hit in Los Angeles, or any other > >> metropolitan > >> > > area > >> > > > > in the United States, or in Western Europe, were the enhanced > >> > > interrogation > >> > > > > techniques sustainable and justified? > > >> > > > > There are allegations that if true, are deeply disturbing. Joseph > >> > > > > Margulies who was lead counsel in *Rasul v, Bush*, 542 U.S. 466 > >> > > (2004) has > >> > > > > made allegations that admittedly he never witnessed first hand, > >> that > >> > > he > >> > > > > alleged took place at Gitmo and Baghram, but nevertheless, I > >> believe > >> > > would > >> > > > > be hard to get around 18 U.S.C. 2340 *et. seq.* *See* *Also* > >> > > "Guantanamo > >> > > > > and the Abuse of Presidential Power"; Margulies, Jos. (2006). > > >> > > > > Attached is a a list from the January 15, 2003 Memo written by > >> > > Rumsfeld's > >> > > > > "Working Group Within The Department of Defense". Do you consider > >> > > these > >> > > > > enhanced interrogation tactics as "Acts of Torture"?? > > >> > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Lobo <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > MARK > > >> > > > > > I'm not trying to defend Clinton's actions (or Bush Senior's or > >> > > Ronald > >> > > > > > Reagan's). I agree that those renditions were illegal in most > >> cases. > > >> > > > > > But there are degrees of illegality and of moral wrongness, and > >> to > >> > > say > >> > > > > > that there is no difference between delivering a kidnappee with > >> a > >> > > > > > legal outstanding warrant to a foreign court to stand trial, and > >> > > > > > delivering one (who might simply be the victim of a bad > > ... > > read more » > > TortureOrNotTorture.pdf > 153KViewDownload --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
