wow what a stupid article it seems to me that Nancy Pelosi's meltdown and the new poll showing that more Americans are opposed to partial birth and lat term abortion and abortion on a whim is a nail in the coffin of the Demwit whores
if water boarding is torture and is wrong then what is it when Odumba and his monkey boys blow up a suspected terrorist and his whole family with a predator bomb? discomfort is evil but murder is OK you f*cktards must have sewage for brains On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 12:53 PM, VT Sean Lewis <[email protected]>wrote: > > The shifting denial about torture. > > May 16, 2009 > Sean Lewis > > Torture is just one more nail into the coffin > for the Republican Party. > > Cheney is just trying to protect himself and > doing preemptive damage control. It is clear > the torture policy was his decision. Cheney > is hoping for another terror attack so he can > be vindicated the same way the entire GOP > party wants President Obama to fail so the > GOP policies can be vindicated. > > The water down spin on torture is that water > boarding is not torture. Dunking someones > head is hardly torture, it is like getting baptised! > The rough questioning was needed to get results! > > However a few things are being left out, 98 > dead prisoners, the torture did not work, and > torture is against the both US and International > law. > > If all the CIA was doing was 'questioning' prisoners > why was a doctor needed to be present? > > I have been questioned by the police, no doctor was present. > > In previous questioning by the FBI, no doctor was present, > so what changed? > > What changed was there was now a chance that the prisoner > might die from the harsh interrogation. In fact 98 prisoners > who were being held for 'questioning died. > > http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/04/98-prisoners-died-in-us-custody-report.html > > This article had 623 footnotes verifying the deaths. > http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf > I posted one of those footnotes at the end of this article. > > The Torture Apologists want you to believe that water boarding > is not dangerous, problem is water boarding wasn't the only > harsh treatment the prisoners received. A point the Torture Apologist > conveniently do not bring up. Also if it wasn't torture > explain the 98 dead prisoners? > > Next comes the issue of why the prisoners were being tortured > and what were the results of the torture. > > We were told that the torture was to protect Americans from future > attack, and that valuable information came as a result of the torture. > This was after we were told that the US does not torture by the way. > > The truth is that the CIA was torturing prisoners. not to protect > America or Americans, but to find a connection between Iraq and > 9/11 or a connection between Iraq and Al qaeda. This was to > give cover to the Bush Administration after no WMD's were found > in Iraq. > > The torture how ever did not work, In fact it had the opposite effect. > Prisoners who were cooperating and freely giving valuable Intel about > Al qaeda without torture to the FBI, stopped cooperation when the > CIA began torturing them about non existent connections between > Iraq and 9/11 or Iraq and Al Qaeda. > > > http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/timeline-history-of-harsh-interrogation.html > > http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/report-links-cia-to-military-harsh.html > > http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/harsh-interrogation-techniques.html > > The legality of torture is, there is none. The Bush Administration > knew > this so in an effort to do a work around, the Bush Administration > redefined the status of the prisoners to a classification the Bush > Administration > deemed outside of the Geneva Convention. > > Next came the justification of 'Harsh Interrogation' because of the > 'ticking > time bomb' scenario. The White House ordered White House attorneys to > write briefs not only saying that harsh interrogation was not torture, > but > instances when harsh interrogation was prudent and advised. > > Two problems with this, the need for a doctor during 'questioning' and > the > 98 dead prisoners, also the questioning of the prisoners had nothing > to > do with an imminent threat that was time sensitive. It was about > getting > back fill Intel to justify the Iraq invasion. > > Currently the Torture Apologists are trying to say that key democratic > leaders > were also culpable in the torture. The belief is, if everyone is > guilty then > no one is guilty. The Torture Apologists are floating out the Pelosi > knew > so it;s her fault the torture occurred. > > The CIA said that the Leaders of the Democratic and Republican Parties > were > briefed about the torture already being used against prisoners. When > asked > for the dates of the briefings, the CIA gave four dates two in April > of '02, > two in September." When these dates were checked, it was discovered > that > three of these meetings never occurred. The fourth meeting was on the > topic > of prisoner interrogation. The CIA says they INFORMED the Leaders of > the > torture, even though it was already occurring without Congressional > Approval > or Knowledge for a month or more. The Congressional Leaders disagree > with > these facts and based on the erroneous dates already supplied, one has > to > wonder what else the CIA has wrong? > > > http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/floridas-graham-backs-pelosi-on-cia.html > > So the Torture Apologists have shifted reasons for Torture each time > their > reasons have been proven to be flawed or wrong. This is reminiscent of > the reasons > to invade Iraq. The Apologists have claimed there was no torture, that > the torture > wasn't limited, that the torture was needed to protect America and > finally that the > torture approved of by the Democratic leaders so it was OK. > > The one thing the Torture Apologists keep forgetting is this. Torture > is illegal, > both domestically and internationally and that America is better than > this. > > > > > 321 See DIC Table: Unknown 1 (died in November 2002 in Afghanistan > “Salt Pit” prison of hypothermia after being chained to the floor and > left without blankets; official cause of death not released); Naseer > (allegedly tortured to death by Army Special Forces soldiers in Mar. > 2003; official investigation findings not released); al-Sumaidae > (unarmed 21-year-old student allegedly killed in cold blood in June > 2005 by > Marine during a search of his home; case referred to Navy criminal > investigators 10 days after death); Dababa (June 2003 autopsy > indicates body covered by bruises and at least 50 abrasions, with head > and neck suffering the most significant abuses, resulting in > hemorrhaging throughout his brain; official cause of death not > announced); Kenami (death after detainee subjected to extreme > exercise, > cuffed, hooded and left in overcrowded cell; cause officially > undetermined); al-Izmerly (chief of forensics at Baghdad Hospital > found > January 2004 death was due to “massive blow” to head; investigation > pending); Unknown 15 (U.S. forces allege male shot during home > raid while reaching for a pistol; family alleges he was a physically > disabled old man and reportedly provides medical records indicating a > spinal condition or degeneration; no criminal investigation or any > other action appears to have been initiated); Nasef Ibrahim (military > ruled > death due to natural causes; son, with him at the time, filed lawsuit > alleging death from abuse); Khan (military initially stated death due > to > heart attack, until press reports of snakebite; family alleges abuse; > no medical or other investigation records released since death in > September 2004); A. Najem (military ruled death from natural causes > after hunger strike, but no medical records or interviews in support); > Zaid (U.S.-conducted autopsy stated accidental death from heat stroke; > army official stated possibility that Zaid was not given enough > water or proper care). Human Rights First asked the Department of > Defense on January 20 and 26, 2006 the status of the investigations > and any prosecutions in the following cases for which, as of February > 10, we had received no response: Naseer; al-Sumaidae; Dababa; > Kenami [sought comment on medical expert finding that death caused by > suffocation]; al-Izmerly; Ibrahim; Khan; Zaid. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
