"The US does not torture"

[JonTheSavage]

I ran across this last night. Its good information about the upcoming crisis, and how it is a true "conspiracy" of ideas among those in power.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBqwtRubyJM

[killbot1000]

I ran across this last night. Its good information about the upcoming crisis, and how it is a true "conspiracy" of ideas among those in power.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBqwtRubyJM

 

Great video!

[7TH SFG]

The mission of our soldiers is to be "warriors, builders, and peacemakers" (as ordered by Gen. Petraeus).And as Gen. James Mattis ordered his Marines in Anbar "First of all, do no harm.".Plenty of folks thought Gens. Mattis and Petreaus were mistaken in issuing these orders. And perhaps Gen. Mattis' order "First of all, do no harm" sounds kinda wimpy.The embrace of torture is wholly against the orders of Gens. Petraeus.That is why the embrace of waterboarding by our politicians back home is morally shameful, and is a disastrous strategic mistake, that has gravely harmed the mission of our Soldiers and Marines."Never participate in torture" is a very wise code-of-conduct .America's top military leaders live by the

code.America's politicians should live by it too.

I am NOTadvocating coddling these men. They deserve to be treated as prisoners, no better, no worse.They've given up their right to be in free society, but WE, our military, are specifically PROHIBITED from mistreatment of prisoners. It is illegal, immoral and unethical. It is specifically enumerated in the laws of our land, the treaties that we have agreed to in the international community, and the rules that we hold our troops accountable with under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The very act of mistreatment of prisoners is degrading to our own troops and turns them into something we would rather they not be.

 

Laws aren't just written for us to follow, they are the structure and foundation of our entire society. The very thing that each of us active duty or retired has sworn to protect, uphold, and defend as servants of the government, and the People of the United States.

 

If anyone thinks the enemies of America are laughing at us now, just wait until they see us turn into a land without the rule of law and freedom. Our liberty is what they hate most about us. Every freedom, every Liberty that we flush down the toilet in response to these barbaric, illiterate thugs, is a victory for them. That's exactly what AQ wants to happen.

[Descalzo]

For those who think the price we've paid in our global war on terror is warranted and required, I would argue you haven't kept yourself adequately informed. You must certainly entertain a very limited view on what has transpired. The very foundation on which freedom and democracy relies has been rocked to its core. The rule of law has been subverted. Constitutional principles have been misappropriated, contorted, and abused. Transparency of governance has been severely curtailed. You might argue that these were done for all the right reasons but the precedence is beyond frightening. We have abandoned many of those principles for which so many have fought and died. There was a time when these principles were revolutionary and unproven but the people had faith they would lead to a better way of life. Are we turning our backs on that faith?

Maybe I'm naive, but I trust George Bush, to a certain extent. I truly believe that he is doing these things to actually fight a threat that he actually believes exists.

 

Here's my problem with Bush: he isn't following the rules. While I can have a little respect for the man who bends the rules or steps outside them for what he sees to be benign purposes, when the leader of a country does this he leads the whole land on a short road to chaos. The rules and laws that bind the government are what keep us free. While I can appreciate that sometimes the law keep us from catching the bad guy, the law also protects me. Not always directly, but indirectly, because the government must sooner or later start to think that maybe none of the laws apply to it.

 

It illustrates exactly what I'm trying to say.

[aduffbrew]

Maybe I'm naive, but I trust George Bush, to a certain extent. I truly believe that he is doing these things to actually fight a threat that he actually believes exists.

 

Here's my problem with Bush: he isn't following the rules. While I can have a little respect for the man who bends the rules or steps outside them for what he sees to be benign purposes, when the leader of a country does this he leads the whole land on a short road to chaos. The rules and laws that bind the government are what keep us free. While I can appreciate that sometimes the law keep us from catching the bad guy, the law also protects me. Not always directly, but indirectly, because the government must sooner or later start to think that maybe none of the laws apply to it.

 

It illustrates exactly what I'm trying to say.

That video clip was PERFECT! HAA HAA!

 

Unfortunately I do not trust Bush. I find him to be a short-sighted, cowardly, fool who is easily manipulated into performing the will of his minders. He might have all the best intentions in the world but what good are those when our actions have destroyed the public trust, obliterated our reputation amongst our neighbors, and weakened the democratic protections for which so many fought and died. No sir. He is not to be trusted. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

Equally unfortunate is the fact that even after he leaves office, the worst could be yet to come! International law allows any member country to file charges for crimes against humanity/war crimes and petition for extradition... as we have seen with Spain and Chile's Augusto Pinochet. Even if Bush does grant a pardon to all involved, and it is believed he will, if they ever leave the country, they will be subject to possible arrest and trial. While the reputation of the U.S. is battered and bruised, it hasn't completely vanished! Countries on friendly terms with the U.S., or merely wishing to be, will be reluctant to do so. Our enemies will not be so hesitant. What will happen to the credibility of the International Court should they ignore such requests? The U.S. has been a long time supporter of the courts especially in the cases of Balkan war crimes. The U.N. is already weakened by various divisions. It is quite possible this issue could bring to an end this international experiment should the next president not handle it in a decisive and reassuring manner.

 

I know many of you would be overjoyed with the prospects of a world without a United Nations. I have mixed feelings myself. It is rife with corruption and its ambitions tower over its meager effectiveness in colossal fashion. Maybe the world WOULD be better off but as we have seen with the political collapse of Iraq in relation to the Middle East, there might be unforeseen consequences.

 

If I could ask anything of our new president, it would be to fully investigate all allegations under the observance of an internationally appointed advisory committee and have any found culpable stand trial domestically or, if we really wanted to put our money where our mouths are, extradite them to The Hague to stand trial just like we have demanded of so many others. I guess we could argue against such oversight with claims of sovereignty and in that I believe we would be marginally justified. However, why deny the international community the benefit of Ronald Reagan's use of that now famous Russian proverb, "Doveryai, no proveryai?" "Trust, but verify!"

[sportsman]

That video clip was great!

 

Anyway, Bush is not the one to blame for the limitations of our civil rights. It's our fault for electing him and then continuing to support him because we were too afraid to stand up to the "patriotism" that flourished after 9-11.

[aduffbrew]

That video clip was great!

 

Anyway, Bush is not the one to blame for the limitations of our civil rights. It's our fault for electing him and then continuing to support him because we were too afraid to stand up to the "patriotism" that flourished after 9-11.

Amen!

[7TH SFG]

Bush and his neo-con's have given the country an i'll conceived, ILL planed long-term conflict, that will take endless amounts of money, hocking oursoul to China... The critical mistake made was the neocons believed we wouldn't need many troops(rumsfedt's you go to war with the Army you have) to secure the place and everything has flowed from that bad decision. We went into a war in Iraq without a clue as to the potential consequences, or in the worst case, a defiance of intelligence estimates and recommendations of Sr officers. Not enough planning, poor strategy for the end-game, not enough resources. We were undermanned and the full burden was put on the troops on the ground to extend their time in country, shorten their time at home and continue beyond their ETS date.

 

IMO Bush, Rumsfeldt, and the merry band of neo-cons should all be thrown in Levenworth for dereliction of duty.

There was the factor of trying to fight the war on the cheap and without tasking our people to play a role in it. That's a huge miscalculation for which we will suffer for decades to come. The number of troop strength allowed to participate was a political decision in line with the overall strategic goal of not inconveniencing the 99% of America who are NOT the military and their familes, too much in this war.

 

on Sept. 12, 2001. The whole nation was pizzed and poised to kick someone's azz. Remember the entire United States Congress signing "God Bless America" on the Capitol steps? Remember the universal support given to the President in the aftermath of that dreadful day? Remember the yellow ribbons, the flags?

 

That's gone now and The fault for that lies at the feet of the Commander in Chief who failed to call us to the task, who failed to challenge our young people to serve, who declined to give our people a role to play in the war, who decided not to pay for the war, but to borrow the money while refusing to expand the military to a level sufficient to guarantee victory in the shortest possible time.Bush and his neo-cons opted to fight a low-key, extended series of small wars for decades, rather than a whole-hog, Katy-bar-the-door . They were clueless in COIN operations.

 

 

We strayed from our Constitutional principles when we invaded Iraq. And, when confronted with facts that told us that our primary reasons for our offensive were false, we opted to "stay the course". This is a "save face" decision.

 

I can care less what side of the isle you fall on,there are a-holes, idiots and reprobates in both camps (and, in great numbers). What IS important is the fact that we are the ruled, and there are those who rule us. The reasons for their decisions are beyond us in all reality. But, we often have opinions based upon what they tell us. Well, I believe about 0% of what this admin tells me. So, suffice it to say, anything that is said to me in regard to Iraq, I say this... I will believe it when I see it!!! a result-driven thing, I guess.

 

I AM a result-driven person. And, thus far, I have seen great stride and effort on the part of my brothers and sisters in the US Army and US Marine corps.

 

But, I have not seen anything near proficient results from this admin in this regard. For 4 3/4 years This administration was substandard in choice, planning and execution and refused to impliment the correct Strategy as called for in the new Army/USMC COIN manual. Mistakes were made” in Iraq ---fair enough, that's going to happen. To remain silent, while a war is mishandled, is dereliction of duty. Rumsfeld's silence, in his letter of resignation , was one last dereliction of his duty. Donald Rumsfeld claimed no responsibility or credit for the cluster frock .This wasn't the way Rumford’s "Shock and Awe" strategy was supposed to work.

Hence Rumsfeld's terse letter of resignation, which should have been even shorter, and submitted much sooner: "I was wrong, therefore, I resign."Rumsfeld should have done us ALL a favor and resigned the summer of 2003 when it was clear there was ZERO post-war plan.

I believe history will place Rumsfeld alongside MacNamara as the two worst SecDefs in American history. MacNamara was a brilliant liar who was wrong and admitted it. Rummy will still be laying the shine on the Lord God Jehovah.

 

Gens. Petraeus and Mattis, who figured out over four years ago that our strategy was fubar'd; devised a better strategy; that strategy "in plain sight" as FM 3-24 COIN manual (while the clueless neocon politicians never realized that those Army/USMC field manuals actually mean something); then the useless Rumsfeld, Rove, and Gonzales were pushed out .And so the war finally started running at least down a better track. I will say, that these fine generals, and their soldiers and Marines who are being required to do things no other American army has been asked to do (diplomat, nation builder, engineer, and counselor). have received disgracefully weak support, from the White House, from Congress, and from both political parties.

 

 

 

BUT , President George W. Bush (Chief Executive and Commander in Chief) has the burden of bearing full responsibility for all matters from the date of his induction. Sending men to death is something every combat commander must do. The plain truth is that buck ultimately stops on the President's desk. May time and history have mercy upon his decisions for our people and our nation.

[Descalzo]

This is old, but I just found it this morning. I'm going to have to admit that the US does indeed torture.

 

Read this article all the way to the bottom, where you'll see the victim give specific examples of the psychological torture he underwent at that Guantanamo hellhole.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6659585.stm

 

Read it, O Americans, and weep with me for the sad state of our country.

[splits]

"j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;"

 

nice !

 

Seriously, all I can say is that alot of people will do whatever their sick little minds want if they can convince themselves they are righteous. Torture is illegal, and should not be tolerated, period. I can convince myself all day long that it would be ok for me to drive home after a few too many drinks, but it is illegal. If I get caught, I pay the price, period.

[hackintom]

I got a simple question, maybe someone can answer it.

 

The US soldiers that have been photographed torturing "terrorists" seemed to enjoy what they were doing with a {censored} smile on their faces... but why torturing when you could use specific drugs to make them tell the truth. Huh ?

[killbot1000]

I got a simple question, maybe someone can answer it.

 

The US soldiers that have been photographed torturing "terrorists" seemed to enjoy what they were doing with a {censored} smile on their faces... but why torturing when you could use specific drugs to make them tell the truth. Huh ?

 

The soldiers in question probably think that the person that they are torturing IS CERTAINLY a terrorist and therefore gets a rise out of sucking the life out of this human being (revenge). On the drugs front I completely agree, however, we were told in the 80's (and before) to "just say no" to drugs. This has carried over to our military haha. Our military would rather do it the old fashioned way. Hell, lets just get a baseball bat out and start smashin' in some skulls.

 

Maybe some curb stomping would be good too...

 

F-u-c-k the military.

 

(this whole post was sarcasm)

[splits]

Maybe we could just treat other people like we would like to be treated. It's not up to individuals to decide what happens to people, even if they justify it to themselves. Some people get a sick thrill from hurting others...I don't know, maybe they weren't held often enough when they were babies...

[killbot1000]

Maybe we could just treat other people like we would like to be treated. It's not up to individuals to decide what happens to people, even if they justify it to themselves. Some people get a sick thrill from hurting others...I don't know, maybe they weren't held often enough when they were babies...

 

Or maybe the answer is much more simple than that. You get a 5 dogs from the pound, all 5 are the same type of dog yet for some reason all 5 have different habits, problems, personalities, etc.

 

Humans are no different. WE ARE ANIMALS. Some of us are kind, some of us are {censored}. There is an incredible amount of variation within our own species when it comes to the mind. We are born with our base personality, it flows like a river. Life experiences are like throwing rocks into the river, damming it up, redirecting its flow, however, the river still flows in the same general direction. Thats the way we are. We have free will! However, its hard to hold onto, most of us our slaves to our base instincts and personalities. If you have a good personality, its not a problem. If you have a bad one, its bad for everyone hehe.

 

We should all promote peace regardless of whether we expect that peace to take place. If children grow up in a world where peace is valued, they will value it as well, even if at first, the peace is just a mask. Were the same way. If any of you guys are in your 20's, 30's or younger, you grew up in a world of diversity, multiculturalism, and new ideas. Even though it was based purely on the premise of "free" trade and globalization, that desire to help the whole, to understand the other side, is the unintended biproduct of this, and its a wonderful thing that this aspect of our world is changing.

[2715255]

And what if they caught the actual terrorist?

 

I do not think it is ANY way right for the U.S. to torture, it's against the law and it is inhumane. I'm just trying to make sure people (including myself) understand the other side of the debate.

 

(Wouldn't be a good discussion if everyone agreed.)

 

how many of them do they really catch. Do oyu honestly expect me to believe that a young herdsman knows how to fly a 747 or even better can extact and aerosolise anthrax. you beleive in the governments propaganda. Look if I'm smart enough to say weaponize anthrax I AINT GON GET CAUGHT.

[Generic George]

The US soldiers that have been photographed torturing "terrorists" seemed to enjoy what they were doing with a {censored} smile on their faces... but why torturing when you could use specific drugs to make them tell the truth. Huh ?

 

I'm HOPING you're joking about this. "Truth" drugs only exist in movies and tv shows. No such thing exists in real life.

[MGJulius]

Just me but this doesn't look normal...(see post above me)

[A Nonny Moose]

I'm HOPING you're joking about this. "Truth" drugs only exist in movies and tv shows. No such thing exists in real life.

 

OOPSIE

 

A truth drug (or truth serum) is a psychoactive drug used to attempt to obtain information from an unwilling subject, most often by a police, intelligence, or military organization. The use of truth drugs is classified as a form of torture according to international law.

 

Now to be fair, the reliability of truth drugs are in question:

 

According to information obtained by public disclosure, sodium Amytal can be highly unreliable, with subjects apparently freely mixing fact and fantasy. Much of the claimed effect relies on the belief of the subject that they cannot tell a lie while under the influence of the drug. It has also been said that the use of sodium amobarbital does not increase truth-telling, but merely increases talking; therefore, truth is more likely to be revealed, but so are lies.

[scottishduck]

Americans got butthurt over 9/11. So they decided they would hand over their "freedom" for "protection".

 

There still remains a big question in 9/11. {censored} Cheney knew about the planes and there were fighter jets tailing them, he was asked "shall we shoot" and he said "no, that is an order".

[Generic George]

OOPSIE

 

Now to be fair, the reliability of truth drugs are in question:

 

No oops, but since you've decided to be pedantic.

 

To clarify, "HOLLYWOOD" truth drugs don't exist. There is nothing that you can use on people to make them tell THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

 

Even the so-called "truth" drugs aren't really any such thing, unless you want to call beer and liquor "truth" drugs (at least they have the old saying "Out of Wine, truth"). Making people more inclined to babble stuff, isn't exactly making them tell the truth.

 

There still remains a big question in 9/11. {censored} Cheney knew about the planes and there were fighter jets tailing them, he was asked "shall we shoot" and he said "no, that is an order".

 

You've been listening to too many of the 9/11 truther nut cases. None of the hijacked airliners were ever targeted, by fighters.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...ge=3#intercepts

No Stand-Down Order Claim: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

 

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

 

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

 

Claim: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

 

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

********************************************

 

Nobody even suspected that there was something going on until the second plane hit the Twin Towers. Even then, it was far from clear what was going on.