Cheney: Don't Ban Prisoner Torture

[directfiesta]

Hummmm.... I just love that taste of democracy...

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terror suspects in U.S. custody, according to participants in a closed-door session.

Cheney told his audience the United States doesn't engage in torture, these participants added, even though he said the administration needed an exemption from any legislation banning "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment in case the president decided one was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack.

The vice president made his comments at a regular weekly private meeting of Senate Republican senators, according to several lawmakers who attended. Cheney often attends the meetings, a chance for the rank-and-file to discuss legislative strategy, but he rarely speaks.

In this case, the room was cleared of aides before the vice president began his remarks, said by one senator to include a reference to classified material. The officials who disclosed the events spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the confidential nature of the discussion.

"The vice president's office doesn't have any comment on a private meeting with members of the Senate," Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Cheney, said on Friday.

The vice president drew support from at least one lawmaker, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, while Arizona Sen. John McCain dissented, officials said.

McCain, who was tortured while held as a prisoner during the Vietnam War, is the chief Senate sponsor of an anti-torture provision that has twice cleared the Senate and triggered veto threats from the White House.

Cheney's decision to speak at the meeting underscored both his role as White House point man on the contentious issue and the importance the administration attaches to it.

The vice president made his appeal at a time Congress is struggling with the torture issue in light of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and allegations of mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The United States houses about 500 detainees at the naval base there, many of them captured in Afghanistan.

Additionally, human rights organizations contend the United States turns detainees over to other countries that it knows will use torture to try and extract intelligence information.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/5257678/det...p=nationalnews

They just keep them cumming ....

[galleryseek]

that's good... besides, america > everyone else.

[Michael O]

Isn't that one of the things that seperates "us" from "them"?

[BigFish]

http://www.flurl.com/uploaded/Army_o..._Spy_2717.html

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

Isn't that one of the things that seperates "us" from "them"?

Supposed too ...

After all, 2000+ US soldiers died to " close the rape rooms " ...

Looks like " them" won....

[Screaming]

Good, Beat the fuckers untill they crack, then beat them some more.

I don't see an issue here.

[Doctor Dre]

** knocking my head on computer screen **

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Screaming

Good, Beat the fuckers untill they crack, then beat them some more.

I don't see an issue here.

So you're OK with this also, ain't you?

[Paul Waters]

Why not just be honest and say that the president can ignor the constitution and human rights whenever he wants to?

He promises to have his spindoctor's use the word terrorism to make it seem palatible.

[alexg]

directfiesta, ALL democratic countries have certain laws that hurt some human rights, and/or freedoms. it doesn't mean the country is undemocratic.

for example, in most european countries it's illegal to form parties that have forms of racism in their ideology. it hurts freedom, but it's still necessary to save another very important principle or value.

in the same way, it can be legitimate to allow forms of torture if it is likely to prevent a terrorist act from happening (for example, the prisoner can lead to other terrorists if he has this knowledge). you hurt a human right, but you save a highly important value/principle - national security.

an innocent man was shot in London a few months ago for the same reasons.

democracy is not black and white.

[TheDoc]

The Dictatorship grows stronger and stronger...

[alexg]

Originally Posted by Paul Waters

Why not just be honest and say that the president can ignor the constitution and human rights whenever he wants to?

He promises to have his spindoctor's use the word terrorism to make it seem palatible.

don't be a hypocrite.

If there will be a terrorist attack in Toronto, you will see how the local police start ignoring human rights and arresting muslims left and right. everyone deserves a fair trial right? not unless he poses danger to national security.

[BigFish]

Video of blackops CIA agents torturing innocent iraqi:

http://www.flurl.com/uploaded/Army_o..._Spy_2717.html

[Manowar]

Originally Posted by Screaming

Good, Beat the fuckers untill they crack, then beat them some more.

I don't see an issue here.

idiot.

[ModelPerfect]

I'm sorry, but if it'll save innocent lives, American or not, I say take a belt sander to them until there's nothing left. IMHO, a terrorist's life or personal comfort is not worth the lives of the innocents he's trying to kill.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by alexg

for example, in most european countries it's illegal to form parties that have forms of racism in their ideology.

Well, I sure hoppe so ...

Originally Posted by alexg

in the same way, it can be legitimate to allow forms of torture if it is likely to prevent a terrorist act from happening

Isn't the act itself of torture terrorism ... Who decides... According to the article, it is the Monkey In Chief, the one thatr has " darn good intelligence " , the one that has proof and location of WMD ... You are not talking about a 100 watts bulb here ...

And fuck Geneva Convention.... So the Vietcongs were RIGHT to torture John McCain: He should shut the fuck up

Originally Posted by alexg

an innocent man was shot in London a few months ago for the same reasons.

He was shot because he was brownish ... Then, the administration tried to cover it up with false statments ....

It prevented nothing , it jusyt infuriated and justified the muslims in their actions !


So if this is going to be the way, fine. But the US could shut the fuck up about their values, the freedom and the spreading of democracy...

China shuts up, Iran, Saudia Arabia ... they all shut the fuck up....

You cannot be recognized as a virgin if you fuck like a tramp.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by BigFish

Video of blackops CIA agents torturing innocent iraqi:

http://www.flurl.com/uploaded/Army_o..._Spy_2717.html

Blackwater:security firms in Iraq has created outrage after a memo to staff claimed it is 'fun' to shoot people.

[alexg]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Isn't the act itself of torture terrorism ... Who decides...

If the American army and police were instructed to capture innocent people on the street and torture them, then yes that would be terrorism.
terrorism is when your goal is to kill as many civilians, without distinguishing between children, women etc'.

torturing a man who has information that can in high probability save innocent lives is NOT terrorism.

[TheDoc]

The problem with this is giving Bush the power to say do it. If someone attacks us or if we have a solid lead, I'm sure some rights will be violated. But we don't need to give Bush the power to say who should be tortured.

[StuartD]

Originally Posted by alexg

torturing a man who has information that can in high probability save innocent lives is NOT terrorism.

Sorry, but I think you mean "torturing a man who YOU BELIEVE MAY HAVE information"

The problem with torture is that you can do serious harm to someone for no good reason what so ever. You'll have someone telling you anything and everything just to make you stop causing them unbearable harm.

In the end, you may end up with no information... and then you have to distinguish between a tough guy who can take it, and an innocent person who just got brutally harmed for nothing.

And no, that's not worth giving up democracy and freedom just to stop one terrorist.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by alexg

torturing a man who has information that can in high probability save innocent lives is NOT terrorism.

As I said above, how do you know that... the CIA ????

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...light=jay+leno

ESHAWAR, Pakistan -- Badr Zaman Badr and his brother Abdurrahim Muslim Dost relish writing a good joke that jabs a corrupt politician or distills the sufferings of fellow Afghans. Badr admires the political satires in "The Canterbury Tales" and "Gulliver's Travels," and Dost wrote some wicked lampoons in the 1990s, accusing Afghan mullahs of growing rich while preaching and organizing jihad. So in 2002, when the U.S. military shackled the writers and flew them to Guantanamo among prisoners whom Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared "the worst of the worst" violent terrorists, the brothers found life imitating farce.

For months, grim interrogators grilled them over a satirical article Dost had written in 1998, when the Clinton administration offered a $5-million reward for Osama bin Laden. Dost responded that Afghans put up 5 million Afghanis -- equivalent to $113 -- for the arrest of President Bill Clinton.

"It was a lampoon ... of the poor Afghan economy" under the Taliban, Badr recalled. The article carefully instructed Afghans how to identify Clinton if they stumbled upon him. "It said he was clean-shaven, had light-colored eyes and he had been seen involved in a scandal with Monica Lewinsky," Badr said.

The interrogators, some flown down from Washington, didn't get the joke, he said. "Again and again, they were asking questions about this article. We had to explain that this was a satire." He paused. "It was really pathetic."

It took the brothers three years to convince the Americans that they posed no threat to Clinton or the United States, and to get released -- a struggle that underscores the enormous odds weighing against innocent foreign Muslims caught in America's military prisons.

In recent months, scores of Afghans interviewed by Newsday -- including a dozen former U.S. prisoners, plus human rights officials and senior Afghan security officials -- said the United States is detaining enough innocent Afghans in its war against the Taliban and al-Qaida that it is seriously undermining popular support for its presence in Afghanistan.

As Badr and Dost fought for their freedom, they had enormous advantages over Guantanamo's 500-plus other captives.

The brothers are university-educated, and Badr, who holds a master's degree in English literature, was one of few prisoners able to speak fluently to the interrogators in their own language. And since both men are writers, much of their lives and political ideas are on public record here in books and articles they have published.

How long should you torture those guys ....


THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR TORTURE, EVEN MORE WHEN YOU CLAIM TO BE A LIBERATOR AND FREEDOM SPREADER

[Drake]

Originally Posted by alexg

terrorism is when your goal is to kill as many civilians, without distinguishing between children, women etc'.

No that's not terrorism.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

[MrJackMeHoff]

Originally Posted by Screaming

Good, Beat the fuckers untill they crack, then beat them some more.

I don't see an issue here.

The issue here is that the patriot act makes it possible to name anyone a terrorist almost regardless of the crime or where they come from, including americans..

[alexg]

Originally Posted by NichePay - StuartD

And no, that's not worth giving up democracy and freedom just to stop one terrorist.

in that case, no point in arguing with you.

[alexg]

Originally Posted by Mike33

No that's not terrorism.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

thanks for the info smartass

[alexg]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

As I said above, how do you know that... the CIA ????

I never said the US intelligence is perfect (nobody can say that after 9/11), and I don't know how often the CIA does a good job.

All I wanted to say is that what Chenney said (the general idea behind it) doesn't contradict with democracy, unlike you suggested.

[alexg]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR TORTURE

see, with this statement I don't agree.

there CAN be an excuse for torture under very specific circumstances.

[Paul Waters]

Originally Posted by alexg

don't be a hypocrite.

If there will be a terrorist attack in Toronto, you will see how the local police start ignoring human rights and arresting muslims left and right. everyone deserves a fair trial right? not unless he poses danger to national security.

I agree that your forecast as to what the response to a terorrist attack in Toronto would be.

I would oppose it, and I oppose any and every law that would facilitate it happening.

Terrorists *do not* pose a danger to national security.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by alexg

thanks for the info smartass

I didn't post it as a smartass remark. Your position seems to rest in part upon what you define terrorism to be. I think a lot of people think terrorism is what you defined it as, which is incorrect, so the distinction should be made. You don't have to kill 100's of people or even drop bombs to commit a terrorist act.

[Paul Waters]

Originally Posted by alexg

see, with this statement I don't agree.

there CAN be an excuse for torture under very specific circumstances.

Like if some intelliegence agency thought that *you* might have some information about an upcoming terrorist attack?

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by alexg

see, with this statement I don't agree.

there CAN be an excuse for torture under very specific circumstances.

just like for a pre-emptive attack ?

I give up ... I am going to find a cute chick that I can " torture " .

[alexg]

Originally Posted by Paul Waters

Like if some intelliegence agency thought that *you* might have some information about an upcoming terrorist attack?

for some reason this has never happened, and I doubt it ever will...

it's not like intelligence agencies are bringing suspects from their ass

[alexg]

Originally Posted by Paul Waters

Terrorists *do not* pose a danger to national security.

you can't be serious....

[Matt 26z]

Obviously the government supports torture because it works.

When you KNOW someone has information, we have a right to get it out of them if it means protecting national security.

[Paul Markham]

Anyone here read George Orwells 1984?

Think about how some countries hold there people in check by fear. North Korea is a prime example.

Once you have them cowered in the corner you can herd them like sheep.

[alexg]

Originally Posted by Mike33

I didn't post it as a smartass remark. Your position seems to rest in part upon what you define terrorism to be. I think a lot of people think terrorism is what you defined it as, which is incorrect, so the distinction should be made. You don't have to kill 100's of people or even drop bombs to commit a terrorist act.

of course, you can kill only 1 person and still be a terrorist. or even not kill anyone but engage in some sort of terrorist activity. but the reason you killed just one person, is because you didn't have enough resources, or brain or whatever to kill more. it's not like you target a specific person who is guilty of something. you target who-ever... you target civilians....that makes one a terrorist.

and if it still doesn't fit in your dictionary definition, then ok... I only think it's ok to torture THIS kind of terrorists that I just described.

[Paul Markham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4408410.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4403166.stm

No comment needed.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by alexg

but the reason you killed just one person, is because you didn't have enough resources, or brain or whatever to kill more. i

If a group of terrorists managed to kill Bush, would you still back your above statment?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Obviously the government supports torture because it works.

When you KNOW someone has information, we have a right to get it out of them if it means protecting national security.

And the people who KNOW are the same who KNEW there was WMDs in Iraq. Seems you lost they debate before it started.

The UK citizens in Guantonimo Bay were released without charge, interviewed at length in the UK and no charges were brought against them.

So how many Afghan and Iraqi citizens are in the prison because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[Paul Waters]

Originally Posted by alexg

for some reason this has never happened, and I doubt it ever will...

it's not like intelligence agencies are bringing suspects from their ass

Maher Arar thought it would never happen to him either. But he is arab, so I guess it is just a risk he has to accept.

Maher Arar

[Paul Waters]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Anyone here read George Orwells 1984?

Think about how some countries hold there people in check by fear. North Korea is a prime example.

Once you have them cowered in the corner you can herd them like sheep.

I think the current US government has studied this book very closely.

[Paul Waters]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4408410.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4403166.stm

No comment needed.

Europe's opposition to the US in this matter will drive the US to further diplomatic isolation.

I fear what I see as an inevitable showdown of the world against the US.

With the roasting that Blair os getting, you can be sure that future leaders of Great Britain keep the US at a safe distance.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

And the people who KNOW are the same who KNEW there was WMDs in Iraq. Seems you lost they debate before it started.

They avoid it all the time. But some don't:

The real issue is why did the United States start a "pre-emptive" war with Iraq? How was it that our intelligence was so bad that we became convinced that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, when they had none?

How could we have believed that this secular tyrant Saddam, a brutal persecutor of religious fundamentalists, could have been a partner of the ultra-fundamentalist Islamists? How did we convince ourselves that there was a connection between the Iraqis and the horrendous attack on 9/11 when there was no shred of evidence that such a connection existed?

How could we have persuaded ourselves that Saddam was an "imminent threat" to the United States, likely to produce a "mushroom cloud" over us before we could find a "smoking gun?" How could we not know that starting a war with an Arab country, for whatever reasons, could only lead to a great expansion of terrorism, not a reduction of terrorism? How could we as a nation have been so stupid as to believe that if we invaded Iraq and established a military occupation we would not be quickly hated, reviled and attacked, however warmly we might be initially received by people glad to be rid of a dictator?

Landrum Bolling
Bolling, president-emeritus of Earlham College, is director-at-large of Mercy Corps and is based in Washington, D.C.

http://www.pal-item.com/apps/pbcs.dl...511050335/1003

So the one with the shorter straw or that looks more brownish will win a " all torture inclusive stay " in a secret US foreign prison.

I just love this DEMOCRACY !

[Manga1]

Originally Posted by alexg

for some reason this has never happened, and I doubt it ever will...

it's not like intelligence agencies are bringing suspects from their ass

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out?
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out?
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out?
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out?
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me?
and there was no one left to speak out.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

[After Shock Media]

Torture is always wrong.
Plus it sets the wrong set of standards for everyone else.
Had a grandfather who was tortured in WWII. Personally I would never want to give a justifiable reason for our future enemies to torture our soldiers. So it is key that America take the moral high ground, even if it could possibly mean lack of intellegence or security.

[JFK]

someone should torture the old bastard, see how he likes it

[alexg]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

If a group of terrorists managed to kill Bush, would you still back your above statment?

well of course terrorists would love to kill bush... for obvious reasons...
ok, i won't go into arguing about the accurate definition of a terrorist... yeah, i missed a few cases in the approximate definition that i gave.
but i think my idea that i wanted to pass in this thread was clear

[Paul Waters]

Originally Posted by Manga1

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out?
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out?
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out?
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out?
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me?
and there was no one left to speak out.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

One of those quotes that everyone should reread regularly.

Thank you!

[Paul Waters]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Torture is always wrong.
Plus it sets the wrong set of standards for everyone else.
Had a grandfather who was tortured in WWII. Personally I would never want to give a justifiable reason for our future enemies to torture our soldiers. So it is key that America take the moral high ground, even if it could possibly mean lack of intellegence or security.

A powerful argument well expressed!

Thank you.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by Paul Waters

Europe's opposition to the US in this matter will drive the US to further diplomatic isolation.

I fear what I see as an inevitable showdown of the world against the US.

With the roasting that Blair os getting, you can be sure that future leaders of Great Britain keep the US at a safe distance.

A country which thinks it can stuff people (irrespective who they are!) into some backwater with the object of enabling torture - namely watching others do the actual "torture by proxy" - are little better than the torturers.

This is not a new ploy by the US, - the same thing happened in Latin America, Kosovo blah.

The US remains the only western country unable to comply with Human Rights Treaties - even for it's own citizens.

Other nations are well-aware of the US double standards on many things - it's not too palatable.

There is a serious problem someplace, - even forgetting the ramblings of a perverse old ass in the Pentgon.