2002 memo said torture 'may be justified'

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Klixxer: Dodge
Czar: Weave
Don_Vito: Analytical dodge and weave

How do you figure? You have created a wildly unlikely scenario, then asked for a yes-or-no answer. I tend to think it would be stupid to make any broadly-applied policy decision based on any one situation, especially one that is so implausible.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: alchemize
Klixxer: Dodge
Czar: Weave
Don_Vito: Analytical dodge and weave

Did you read my post? I answered your question but also reminded you that this was a purely theoretical situation that has nothing to do with the current situation.

I said that nothing is off limits in that theoretical scenario, how is that a dodge? I can't claim to speak for Liberals though.

Sorry Klixxer, I misread your post.

My point would be is that if you are going to consider scenarios like this, then you better be ready for them if they arise. Is there a link to Abu Ghraib? I doubt it, but we'll let our elite media figure that one out

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Klixxer: Dodge
Czar: Weave
Don_Vito: Analytical dodge and weave

alchemize: Asking a stupid imaginary question whose answer will by definition prove nothing

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here's a theoretical scenario.

There is overwhelming evidence that a nuclear weapon has been smuggled into NYC, set to go off at 5:00 PM today.

A man has been captured that there is overwhelming evidence he knows the location of the nuclear device. The device is unguarded. It cannot be remotely set. It can be defused if located.

Liberals, what do you do?

I get Jack Bauer on the mobile phone. He can capture the man's daughter from UC Santa Barbara, take her to ground zero and show the man a live video feed that shows him if the bomb goes off, his daughter will get killed along with hundreds of thousands of innocent people. If he stalls, Jack can shake him violently while screaming "Come ON MAN! It's your DAUGHTER! COME ON! TELL US WHERE THE BOMB IS!!!"

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: alchemize
Klixxer: Dodge
Czar: Weave
Don_Vito: Analytical dodge and weave

How do you figure? You have created a wildly unlikely scenario, then asked for a yes-or-no answer. I tend to think it would be stupid to make any broadly-applied policy decision based on any one situation, especially one that is so implausible.

Why is this wildly unlikely? 9/11 was a wildly unlikely scenario. This is much more simplistic. And was my question about a broadly applied policy, or about a specific instance? OK, how about 5 trucks filled with fertilizer bombs? We have precedent for that.

So your answer is, "well, I guess I'd explore the moral and legal ramifications of this. Boy I sure hope I meet the 5PM deadline."

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Why is this wildly unlikely? 9/11 was a wildly unlikely scenario. This is much more simplistic. And was my question about a broadly applied policy, or about a specific instance? OK, how about 5 trucks filled with fertilizer bombs? We have precedent for that.

So your answer is, "well, I guess I'd explore the moral and legal ramifications of this. Boy I sure hope I meet the 5PM deadline."

I didn't say the bombing itself was unlikely (if anything I think the events of the last two years have made it more likely), I said the scenario was. How are we going to have "overwhelming evidence" of all relevant details of this plan, and "overwhelming evidence" of the presumed torturee's connection to it, but not know where the bomb is located?

Information gained by torture is notoriously unreliable. If your hypothetical terrorist is willing to unleash a doomsday scenario like a nuclear weapon in NYC, I don't think he would be amenable to giving reliable info on the bomb's location when he can just as easily give false info to misdirect law enforcement.

As long as we are throwing in silly and implausible details, let's assume we somehow KNEW he would provide reliable information. In that case, torture him until his bones are powder. Otherwise, no.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Watching liberals try to string Abu Ghraib out as some sort of *CRISIS* in International Law is hilarious. I wonder if they can keep this up until November...?

P.S. I found some REAL torture pics from Iraqi prisons under Saddam's regime on the web the other day. They make the Abu Ghraib psyop stuff look like a tea party. I wonder if i'll earn a BAN by posting a link to them here...

:beer:

Who is worse is not the issue.

it is exactly the issue. when we have clearly done wrong and there is not much room to argue otherwise; "who is worse" becomes the only issue we have left to raise. so get with the program man, stay on topic here; clearly, we are not as bad as Saddam.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Watching liberals try to string Abu Ghraib out as some sort of *CRISIS* in International Law is hilarious. I wonder if they can keep this up until November...?

P.S. I found some REAL torture pics from Iraqi prisons under Saddam's regime on the web the other day. They make the Abu Ghraib psyop stuff look like a tea party. I wonder if i'll earn a BAN by posting a link to them here...

:beer:

Two wrongs don't make a right. Should nobody complain about genocide unless they top the six million done by the nazis? Of course not. Torture under Saddam is worthy of discussion, it's just not the topic here. Focus.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: alchemize
Klixxer: Dodge
Czar: Weave
Don_Vito: Analytical dodge and weave

Did you read my post? I answered your question but also reminded you that this was a purely theoretical situation that has nothing to do with the current situation.

I said that nothing is off limits in that theoretical scenario, how is that a dodge? I can't claim to speak for Liberals though.

Sorry Klixxer, I misread your post.

My point would be is that if you are going to consider scenarios like this, then you better be ready for them if they arise. Is there a link to Abu Ghraib? I doubt it, but we'll let our elite media figure that one out

From what we do know, 25% have been released without charges in the last two weeks, it has also been reported that NONE of the abuses, tortures, murders were related to getting info from prisoners, it was done for punishment and amusement.

If it was meant to be an analogy it was a real bad one, if not, then i understand your point and i have no problems with using extreme force to prevent such an event, even if it means a violation of human rights.

A better analogy would be to round up the neighbourhood of some people who might have info and torture and/or murder them, let's say they would do that to the terrorist in your example in NY or wherever, i would not agree with that.

If there is ever a scenario like that, i would be ready for it and i would not complain about it.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Watching liberals try to string Abu Ghraib out as some sort of *CRISIS* in International Law is hilarious. I wonder if they can keep this up until November...?

P.S. I found some REAL torture pics from Iraqi prisons under Saddam's regime on the web the other day. They make the Abu Ghraib psyop stuff look like a tea party. I wonder if i'll earn a BAN by posting a link to them here...

:beer:

Who is worse is not the issue.

it is exactly the issue. when we have clearly done wrong and there is not much room to argue otherwise; "who is worse" becomes the only issue we have left to raise. so get with the program man, stay on topic here; clearly, we are not as bad as Saddam.

Yet.



J/K, or am i. hehe

 

[Czar]

also noteworthy it is not just this one prison, Abu Ghraib, there are reports of same things happening in at least 4 other prisons in Iraq

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Who ever says that Saddam was worse has to look how he got into power. He was backed by the CIA in the '60s for a coup against the existing government. We are responsible for the torture and killing of his citizens, as we put him in power in the first place.

How much did the CIA back him so that the US put him in power?

 

[jahawkin]

Also included in the memo (not mentioned in this report) is this line (from WSJ article):

To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

The president is King!!

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Watching liberals try to string Abu Ghraib out as some sort of *CRISIS* in International Law is hilarious. I wonder if they can keep this up until November...?

P.S. I found some REAL torture pics from Iraqi prisons under Saddam's regime on the web the other day. They make the Abu Ghraib psyop stuff look like a tea party. I wonder if i'll earn a BAN by posting a link to them here...

:beer:

Watching dittoheads trying to make excuses for the behavior at Abu Gharib is even funnier. Because theres absolutely no justification for what happened there. "Saddam was worse" doesn't cut it. "It's no big deal" doesn't cut it because it is big deal. At least to Arab world, we're trying to make friends with.

Every liberal and quite a few conservative colleagues agree that the behavior displayed at Abu Gharib was dispicable, shameful and counter productive of the war effort. Only guys without morals like Limbaugh would be so crass as to revel in the prison photos. He's on drugs, whats your excuse?

OWNED....

<- sending :beer: smileyz way

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here's a theoretical scenario.

There is overwhelming evidence that a nuclear weapon has been smuggled into NYC, set to go off at 5:00 PM today.

A man has been captured that there is overwhelming evidence he knows the location of the nuclear device. The device is unguarded. It cannot be remotely set. It can be defused if located.

Liberals, what do you do?

Let he who is without sin do the torture.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here's a theoretical scenario.

There is overwhelming evidence that a nuclear weapon has been smuggled into NYC, set to go off at 5:00 PM today.

A man has been captured that there is overwhelming evidence he knows the location of the nuclear device. The device is unguarded. It cannot be remotely set. It can be defused if located.

Liberals, what do you do?

I guess we can just call you over to handle the torture since you're so keen to jump in there and cause some damage . . .

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here's a theoretical scenario.

There is overwhelming evidence that a nuclear weapon has been smuggled into NYC, set to go off at 5:00 PM today.

A man has been captured that there is overwhelming evidence he knows the location of the nuclear device. The device is unguarded. It cannot be remotely set. It can be defused if located.

Liberals, what do you do?

LOL - I think I'll adopt the answer of Atty General Ashcroft, who is so "liberal" he won't dance, because it might incite impure thoughts:

"Do you think torture might be justified - not a memorandum - just a question to you, attorney general of the United States?" Biden asked.

"I am not going to issue or otherwise discuss hypotheticals. I will leave that to academics," Ashcroft replied.

"John, you sound like you're in the State Department," Biden shot back.

"I condemn torture. ... I don't think it's productive, let alone justified," Ashcroft responded.

Biden told Ashcroft "there's a reason why we (Congress) sign those (anti-torture) treaties" and it is to protect U.S. military personnel.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here's a theoretical scenario.

There is overwhelming evidence that a nuclear weapon has been smuggled into NYC, set to go off at 5:00 PM today.

A man has been captured that there is overwhelming evidence he knows the location of the nuclear device. The device is unguarded. It cannot be remotely set. It can be defused if located.

Liberals, what do you do?

LOL - I think I'll adopt the answer of Atty General Ashcroft, who is so "liberal" he won't dance, because it might incite impure thoughts:

"Do you think torture might be justified - not a memorandum - just a question to you, attorney general of the United States?" Biden asked.

"I am not going to issue or otherwise discuss hypotheticals. I will leave that to academics," Ashcroft replied.

"John, you sound like you're in the State Department," Biden shot back.

"I condemn torture. ... I don't think it's productive, let alone justified," Ashcroft responded.

Biden told Ashcroft "there's a reason why we (Congress) sign those (anti-torture) treaties" and it is to protect U.S. military personnel.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&amp;threadid=1305083&amp;enterthread=y



And it's gotten worse for Ashcroft.

 

[alchemize]

DM: Dodge
MB: Weave
Conjur: Duck

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize
DM: Dodge
MB: Weave
Conjur: Duck

Three more things Scty Ashcroft's faith won't allow him to do . . .

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize
DM: Dodge
MB: Weave
Conjur: Duck

alchemize: Parry

BTW, alchemize, I don't see you commenting in that thread I linked to above.

What's the matter?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: alchemize
DM: Dodge
MB: Weave
Conjur: Duck

Allsurmise, maybe you should take a look at your original post and what it had to do with the what was being discussed. You Flung N Pooed that hypothetical out there to change the topic so you could say others were avoiding you. Try to get real. I'm not Simpo Dill here, Bubba that can't see what's going on. And where did you come up with the ridiculous notion that you can torture the truth out of people. And why also, since I'm on the subject, don't you see that humanity, as is, is headed for extinction. We wanted our nuclear toys and that road leads right down the way to a suitcase nuke in every home. Science will arrange nicely for everybody who is insane to very soon personally be capable of destroying the world. Can you see that simple inevitability, Mr Hypothetical Man. Unless we take seriously the mental health of our neighbor we will soon be all gone. There's something for you to IfIfulate about.

 

[fornax]

Interesting thoughts about the leader of team that authored the "torture is OK if done for national securiy" memo:

Billmon's

 

[fwtong]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Watching liberals try to string Abu Ghraib out as some sort of *CRISIS* in International Law is hilarious. I wonder if they can keep this up until November...?

P.S. I found some REAL torture pics from Iraqi prisons under Saddam's regime on the web the other day. They make the Abu Ghraib psyop stuff look like a tea party. I wonder if i'll earn a BAN by posting a link to them here...

:beer:

Who is worse is not the issue.

I didn't know that this was some sort of game to some people. In that case, with some hard work, American can catch up and surpass Saddam! American is all about winning!

:beer: