But Joe, Torture works for Jack Bauer on "24"!

Another great column Joe. The POTUS' signing statements about torture penned by Cheney flack David Addington will be a blot on this Nation's honor for a long long time.

And where was America's most famous POW/torture victim,Sen.John McCain?
Heres McCain in 2005:Mr. McCain, who was a prisoner of war in the Vietnam War, added in closing Wednesday night: "Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us - every single one of us - knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies."
And in 2007?Sen. McCain didn't bother to vote on the AG who could not answer the question: Is Waterboarding Torture?11/8/07 Vote 407: On the Nomination: Confirmation Michael B. Mukasey of New York, to be Attorney General.Sen McCain: Not Voting.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13377.html

Good Comment, tubeboob. I can't understand why this isn't a "black and white" issue.

quote:

Originally posted by AGBrina:
Good Comment, tubeboob. I can't understand why this isn't a "black and white" issue.

Oh, but it is. It's like those robes the emperor wore? I believe those robes are a regal shade of gray.

Whatever. Why take them prisoner if we can't get information from them?

A friend, he's been dead a couple of years now told me about his time on Guadalcanal. One day, the captain who was his company CO had him in. He asked why his squad never took any prisoners. His answer? "We don't take prisoners."

Why take Al-Queda prisoner if you can't get information from them?

Sure it is....plain and simple. We should stop it.

When was the last time it was used? So ummm.. Joe, lets write one of your whinebutt articles to the Taliban about THEIR mutilation, beheading, bombing of innocents, and the myriad ways of torture THEY use on a daily basis.

And why is he titled "The War Reporter"? From reading his continuous diatribes against Bush-Cheney", he should be titled " The War Protester".
Joe-Hook up with Huber and Chavez. He needs you down there.

Galloway's spent more time in war than a lot of soldiers. He's absolutely right and it's a disgrace that any American would think torture is okay.

My short responss is the torture argument is this. simply stated it is not beneficial to our country, our military and our moral standing in the world.Theee slimeball vermin should have been left on the battlefield for th ragpickers ro fight over. I would bet that the water they weree forced ro swllow during h waterboar session was the cleanest and best tatsting waater that had ever crosed their lips.

i agree JOe, just imagine if yo come from a ountry where the only water you see is the river which flows through most cities They sre no more than open sewers. They also sre handy for dumping th bodies of your fellow muslims.then one day you are sent to tropical paradise, abet, without virgins.One moning you are taken to a beach where you are given a boaard like obejct an therere shown how o get in the water and how to kneel on the board like object. you are handed one end of long rope.the other end o the rope is comnnected to he rear o alarge noisy boat. all of udden th boata taks off pulling you acfoss the surface of the ocean at a high rate of speed.your raggidy *** clothes are ripped frorm you body snd you swallow gallons of salt water. YOU squeezewith all your might the o handle of the rop that has you in its grasp a you cry out to Allah for relief while th crazy American driving th boat goes faster and faster.THen you realize its a woman driving the boat and she is laughing at your pitiful *** as you scream like a small girl. God how you hate the Amerricans

Mr. Galloway. Thank you sir. Your's is a voice with a conscience and reason. Simply put, waterboarding is not an "interrogation technique". To "interrogate" is to question formally and systematically and is a subtle art which requires exceptional skill. I was an interrogator and a senior interrogation instructor at the US Army Intelligence Center and School at Ft. Huachuca, AZ. Waterboarding and other forms of torture were not even subjects of discussion during training because real interrogators understand that human intelligence subjects do not respond accurately while being subjected to torture. There is nothing of tactical or strategic value to be gained using torture. More critically, torture is inhumane and contrary to the values, mores, and conventions of civilized peoples. Maybe that's our problem today. The United States is embroiled in an immoral war brought about by a dishonorable clique led by the morally bankrupt. That's part of the reason why atrocities such as waterboarding are acceptable. Someday our country will face its comeuppance. God help us!

Very well stated, Misanthrope2!

I agree that waterboarding is torture. I agree that torture should not be used. I DO NOT agree with those that use the Geneva Convention as a rationale for this line of thought.

The Geneva Convention applies to uniformed combatants. The people we fight are not uniformed. Therefore, the Geneva Convention should not (in my opinion) apply. If the bad guys want to wear a uniform, we can talk Geneva Convention.

This doesn't mean I support maltreatment of people. I just want it recognized that we should be treating our prisoners properly because it is the humane thing to do.

quote:

The Geneva Convention applies to uniformed combatants. The people we fight are not uniformed. Therefore, the Geneva Convention should not (in my opinion) apply. If the bad guys want to wear a uniform, we can talk Geneva Convention.

Po1...You gotta check out the Fourth Geneva Convention: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

And finally this:http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/genevaconventions.html
However, under the Geneva Conventions, it's up to an independent judge to determine the status of the "detainees," not whoever detains them. As well, Canadian regulations on prisoner-of-war status dictate that detainees must be brought before a military tribunal to determine whether they're prisoners of war or not.

Lawyers for prisoners held at the American prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as those representing two U.S. citizens held in a navy brig as enemy combatants, have challenged the policy before the United States Supreme Court. A decision is expected in mid-summer.

Even if they are found to be "unlawful combatants" they still have rights under international humanitarian law – to humane treatment, to a fair trial if charged with a crime, and not to be tortured.

Rumsfeld has defended the use of interrogation techniques such as dietary changes, sleep deprivation, forcing prisoners to sleep naked and forcing them into "stress positions" as justified against unlawful combatants. Humanitarian organizations and some U.S. senators say those practices "go far beyond the Geneva Convention."

Uh...."fixed, recognizable sign....carrying arms openly"...doesn't sound like the IED toting suicide bomber type to me.

Uh, heres a golden oldie from Oct. 2004.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57363-2004Oct23?language=printer
Memo Lets CIA Take Detainees Out of IraqThe 1949 treaty notes that a violation of this particular provision constitutes a "grave breach" of the accord, and thus a "war crime" under U.S. federal law, according to a footnote in the Justice Department draft. "For these reasons," the footnote reads, "we recommend that any contemplated relocations of 'protected persons' from Iraq to facilitate interrogation be carefully evaluated for compliance with Article 49 on a case by case basis." It says that even persons removed from Iraq retain the treaty's protections, which would include humane treatment and access to international monitors. The Office of Legal Counsel also wrote the Aug. 1, 2002, memo on torture that advised the CIA and White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified," and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in the war on terrorism. President Bush's aides repudiated that memo once it became public this June.
The Office of Legal Counsel writes legal opinions considered binding on federal agencies and departments. The March 19 document obtained by The Post is stamped "draft" and was not finalized, said one U.S. official involved in the legal deliberations. However, the memo was sent to the general counsels at the National Security Council, the CIA and the departments of State and Defense.
"The memo was a green light," an intelligence official said. "The CIA used the memo to remove other people from Iraq." "What they are doing is interpreting an exception into an all-encompassing right, in one of the most fundamental treaties in history," Byers said. The Geneva Convention "is as close as you get to protecting human rights in times of chaos. There's no ambiguity here."

Is Waterboarding Torture? NO,NO,NO.


I am not the author......
There's Torture - And then there's 'Torture'


If the liberals think waterboarding is torture too evil to inflict on those who would slaughter innocent American citizens they ain't seen nothing yet. A new form of torture has been devised in the land, vividly described by Illinois state senator James DeLeo--a former colleague of Barak Obama incidentally.


Forced by his 10 year old daughter to get tickets for the Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana concert held at a venue in his district, applying a little Chicago style clout, the valiant legislator and devoted father came through with tickets for his daughter, dragging the Illinois governor and his family there also.
"I was there under duress, OK?" DeLeo says. "There were 20,000 screaming 11-year-olds. I'd never do it again. Not that I don't love my daughter, but, oh, my god, it was torture."


Meanwhile, back in the real world of evil, the opponents of waterboarding are strangely silent about the existence of true torture in Iraq......


"Blood-splotches on walls, chains hanging from a ceiling and swords on the killing floor — the artifacts left a disturbing tale of brutalities inside a suspected al-Qaeda in Iraq torture chamber. But there was yet another chilling fact outside the dirt-floor dungeon. Villagers say they knew about the torment but were too intimidated by extremists to tell authorities until now."

(snip)



The reports and tips now pouring in build a harrowing portrait of rule under al-Qaeda and its backers: mass graves, ruthless punishments, self-styled Islamic courts ordering summary executions. Scrawled in white paint above a bed in the torture area was a Quranic phrase in Arabic normally used to welcome a guest. But the context suggested only sadistic mockery: "Come in, you are safe."



The floor was littered with food wrappers, plastic soda bottles and electric cables that snaked to a metal bed frame, presumably where detainees were shocked, according to the U.S. Account of the discovery during a Dec. 8-11 mission.



The rooms "had chains, a bed — an iron bed that was still connected to a battery — knives and swords that were still covered in blood," said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, the top U.S. Commander in northern Iraq.



Nearby were nine mass graves containing the remains of 26 people, he said.

(snip)



Both Sunni insurgents and Shiite militia death squads regularly torture their captives before killing them — sometimes with power drills. Most of the hundreds of bodies that have turned up in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq show signs of torture.



Villagers knew about the torture site, but did not tell authorities as they were afraid of reprisals from the militants, a local policeman told The Associated Press. He spoke on condition of anonymity as he was still afraid of being targeted by extremists.

And this is a "religion of peace?"
It just dumbfounds me that there are those who think "waterboarding" is too extreme.
At least afterwards they have their heads and body parts!!!!
Call me evil, call me whatever you wish but I am a firm believer in the old adage "An Eye for an Eye".... Whats "good for the goose is good for the gander."
Did anyone stop to think that if we really did use torture (real torture) we would have had Bin Laden by now along with every other extremist leader in the world?! We would know where the strongholds are and be able to take them out before they killed/tortured/ maimed anymore innocent lives!
I understand the "turn the other cheek" argument...but there are times when I really think that doesn't apply and WAR is one of them!

How do you feel about this?
Are there times that justify a little torture?