Holly, How you gathered that I somehow suggested this, from any of my posts, is just amazing. I have never suggested anything of the sort. As a matter of fact, the recent information released by the Obama Administration demostrates that the CIA was methodical and quite careful to insure that they were within the confines of the law.
My point is simple. There was no authorized torture, period. The United States Army, (or any of our military branches) do not have the means nor the capability to utilize enhanced interrogation techniques. The Army is limited by the guidelines listed in the Army Field Manual, as it should be. Those who violated the written military policy should be prosceuted, as they were. The CIA is not limited to the Army Field Manual, and great as stated, the CIA as well as the Bush Administration went to great lengths and extreme measures to insure that the CIA did not cross the proverbial line.....There was no "torture" while administering enhanced interrogation techniques. I say this after extensive study of the facts and information that has been released to date. It is my qualified opinion that the enhanced interrogation techniques did not constitute torture. I say this without any partisanship whatsoever. My opinion could change, if there is more evidence that is released that may in fact constitute "torture" but to date, we have seen no such evidence. Sean is a Moonbat. He has no understanding of what actually took place or transpired, and I would surmise that he has not even read the Memoranda by Jay Bybee, Steven Bradbury, John Yoo, or the "Rumsfeld Defense Department Working Group". All Sugarshack can do, and all Sugarshack has done, is mimic those very partisan individuals who are on a hate campaign against the former Administration, but have to date, not attempted to attach any legal precepts or rational, cognitive critical thinking to their argument. "Torture" is an easy, fun word for folks like Sean to sling out, yet they have no clue what the legal definition of torture is. On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Hollywood <[email protected]>wrote: > > KIT, > > What are you saying? That the CIA operates completely outside U.S. > civil and criminal codes AND the UCMJ and is not subject to ANY of > those codes, regulations or laws? > > On May 17, 9:17 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sean, > > > > So, this is really what it boils down to, as I suspicioned. What you are > > really saying is, "I Hate Bush, But I Don't Know Why". > > > > What transpired at Abu Gharib is not at all what transpired with enhanced > > interrogation techniques by the CIA. The Army has no mechanism other > than > > the Army Field Manual to interrogate prisoners. Those individuals were > > prosecuted because they were outside of Army regulations. > > > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:26 AM, VT VirtualTruth > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we tried the little guys for what happened at Abu Gharib > > > then the precedent has already been set for the ENTIRE > > > Bush Administration. > > > > > I believe Nixon was also Impeached for his crimes > > > during the Vietnam war. > > > > > Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment for his crimes > > > while in office, and Republicans pushed all out to impeach > > > Clinton while in office about a lie over a BJ. > > > > > So both your reasons for calling me a traitor have both been > > > proven false based on previous precedent. > > > > > You have nothing left to say, because you have run > > > out of realistic arguments. > > > > > On May 16, 4:47 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey Sean!! > > > > > > Actually, I thought my post was rather witty!! > > > > > > In all honesty, you seem like a bright, intelligent, (I am assuming > > > younger > > > > than me) man. It is one thing to question our governments' > policies, > > > and > > > > quite another to jump on a traitorous bandwagon, accusing our > President, > > > > (any President!) during a time of war, of war crimes. > > > > > > I have nothing else to say on the subject. Based on all of the > > > information > > > > that has been released to date, I don't believe that we ever > "tortured" > > > > anyone. That this is just a hyped up term used by far left > extremists > > > who > > > > are either uninformed, and/or have an Anti-American agenda. One or > the > > > > other.... > > > > > > Until such time as more information has been released, (which > initially I > > > > was opposed to, but now, because the Obama Administration chose to > > > release > > > > the several Memoranda by Bybee and Bradbury) I want to see everything > > > > released, including the documents from July 2004 that former Vice > > > President > > > > Cheney has requested be released. > > > > > > Until such time, I can add nothing to the conversation.....I've said > my > > > > piece, both here in PF, as well as that Den of Moonbats, Euwetopia. > > > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 3:43 PM, VT VirtualTruth > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > That was the best you could do? > > > > > > > Keith you want to try again? > > > > > > > On May 16, 1:38 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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-. > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > 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-hars. > > > > > .. > > > > >http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/report-links-cia-to-mili. > > > > > .. > > > > >http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/harsh-interrogation-tech. > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > 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-pe. > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
