Clinton actually aproves of torture in some cases

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: sandorski
Clinton did not endorse Torture, he merely said it shouldn't be removed as an option.

Double Talk

Not at all.

You cannot be somewhat for torture. It's not a case of.... well yeah it's ok to stick the guy's dick in a wall socket, but don't boil him in oil cause that's against my moral fiber and I need to get a good night's sleep.

It's gibberish.

Hey if you want to support torture that's your right to make that choice and so is Clintons. But don't try to freaking sell it to people as a half baked package in compromise. Oh oh oh lets compromise... we will only sell HALF the nation's moral fiber this decade and save the rest for last!

NO!
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Clinton did not endorse Torture, he merely said it shouldn't be removed as an option.

Which means he approves of it, which is what the thread title says. Thanks for confirming it for everyone.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
and for the record, water boarding for example was one methood approved by the administration as an interigation methood

and waterboarding is torture

so saying it was not policy is ignorant
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,213
5,794
126
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: sandorski
Clinton did not endorse Torture, he merely said it shouldn't be removed as an option.

Double Talk

Not at all.

You cannot be somewhat for torture. It's not a case of.... well yeah it's ok to stick the guy's dick in a wall socket, but don't boil him in oil cause that's against my moral fiber and I need to get a good night's sleep.

It's gibberish.

Hey if you want to support torture that's your right to make that choice and so is Clintons. But don't try to freaking sell it to people as a half baked package in compromise. Oh oh oh lets compromise... we will only sell HALF the nation's moral fiber this decade and save the rest for last!

NO!

No, that's^^ gibberish. Clinton was not defining anything. He gave a hypothetical situation where Torture or extraordinary methods(drugs) might be useful. The situation he gave is not even likely to occur. On top of that he didn't even say those methods should be used, just that the President should have those options under those rare circumstances and that there be some kind of oversight.

The Bush Admin wants these powers to be used in a much broader sense and on top of that they want retroactive application of the law to protect their asses for what has occured already.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,213
5,794
126
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: sandorski
Clinton did not endorse Torture, he merely said it shouldn't be removed as an option.

Which means he approves of it, which is what the thread title says. Thanks for confirming it for everyone.

wrong
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,742
2,518
126
Misleading thread title. Also, in his selective highlighting, ProfJohn somehow managed to miss the extremely important qualification Clinton added-that the Administration would have to seek court approval (ex post facto, if necessary). Bush has omitted the court review aspects, claiming torture is part of his presidential (ie, imperial) powers.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: sandorski
Clinton did not endorse Torture, he merely said it shouldn't be removed as an option.

Which means he approves of it, which is what the thread title says. Thanks for confirming it for everyone.

wrong

I forgot that in this dimension 2 + 2 = 3
 
Sep 14, 2005
110
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well all of you going against torture should listen to what Clinton said about torture in a

Why?

I'm against torture, why should I care what Clinton says about it? Are you assuming that people against torture somehow take their direction from Clinton?

Sad sad partisan logic.



 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,454
24,133
146
Originally posted by: Infidel
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well all of you going against torture should listen to what Clinton said about torture in a

Why?

I'm against torture, why should I care what Clinton says about it? Are you assuming that people against torture somehow take their direction from Clinton?

Sad sad partisan logic.
Well said.

WTF is it with the neocons and Clinton anyways? He is their man for all seasons now-a-days. Hell, even daddy Bush does the "wonder twins powers activate!" thang with him :p

At what point does the sibling rivalry type of excuse start to sound as childish to the neocons as it does to the rest of us? Just insert clinton for a bro or sister-

"But mom, Billy did it first!"

"Ummmmmm! Billy told a lie!"

"Billy did it too!"

"Billy said it was OK."

"I did it better than Billy, why does he always get attention!"

"Billy made the mess, now I have to clean it up?!?"

"Why is it OK when Billy does it, but not when I do it?!?"



 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,156
6,317
126
I stopped reading your post when I got to the quip, "Here is a partial transcript for the lazy people." For some reason, perhaps because I should still be sleeping, I don't know, I just decided I was too lazy to read on.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
on Abu Grahb, that was NOT torture that Clinton would have approved. And neither would have Bush or any superior officer.

Where this would apply is the few cases when the CIA has used tough techniques in limited cases, such as the mastermind of 9-11. Those are the type of poeple who pose such a grave threat that using techniques such as water boarding may be necessary. Unless you think that another 3000 dead in NYC is ok as long as we don't treat mass murders harshly.

Wait, I thought the Republicans said Abu Ghraib was a "sex ring"....
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
and for the record, water boarding for example was one methood approved by the administration as an interigation methood

and waterboarding is torture

so saying it was not policy is ignorant

Two words: SERE SCHOOL

The U.S. has been routinely training this stuff for years.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: Infidel
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well all of you going against torture should listen to what Clinton said about torture in a

Why?

I'm against torture, why should I care what Clinton says about it? Are you assuming that people against torture somehow take their direction from Clinton?

Sad sad partisan logic.
Well said.

WTF is it with the neocons and Clinton anyways? He is their man for all seasons now-a-days. Hell, even daddy Bush does the "wonder twins powers activate!" thang with him :p

At what point does the sibling rivalry type of excuse start to sound as childish to the neocons as it does to the rest of us? Just insert clinton for a bro or sister-

"But mom, Billy did it first!"

"Ummmmmm! Billy told a lie!"

"Billy did it too!"

"Billy said it was OK."

"I did it better than Billy, why does he always get attention!"

"Billy made the mess, now I have to clean it up?!?"

"Why is it OK when Billy does it, but not when I do it?!?"

I suppose they figure since they cling to what Bush does so ardently, there simply must be those who do the same with Clinton.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well all of you going against torture should listen to what Clinton said about torture in a NPR interview.

He approves of it in very limited cases.

[...]

This interview was a MONTH ago. How come we heard not one story about Clinton backing the use of torture from the MSM during this whole detainee bill?????

Here it for yourself at NPR Clinton Weighs In on Detainees, Iraq and Iran

(A) You would think we would all on the SAME side when it comes to torture, finding it morally repugnant, but unfortunately there are some moral failures out there that still seem to enjoy the idea of torture and who probably need some serious therapy.

(B) NPR is part of the MSM. If you weren't so busy digging up excuses to use torture and being a Bush Fluffer, you'd know that.

(C) When has there EVER been a ticking time bomb scenario? Ever? Sure, sure it *could* happen, but until it does and we actually resort to torture, it's merely hypothetical.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: Infidel
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well all of you going against torture should listen to what Clinton said about torture in a

Why?

I'm against torture, why should I care what Clinton says about it? Are you assuming that people against torture somehow take their direction from Clinton?

Sad sad partisan logic.
Well said.

WTF is it with the neocons and Clinton anyways? He is their man for all seasons now-a-days. Hell, even daddy Bush does the "wonder twins powers activate!" thang with him :p

At what point does the sibling rivalry type of excuse start to sound as childish to the neocons as it does to the rest of us? Just insert clinton for a bro or sister-

"But mom, Billy did it first!"

"Ummmmmm! Billy told a lie!"

"Billy did it too!"

"Billy said it was OK."

"I did it better than Billy, why does he always get attention!"

"Billy made the mess, now I have to clean it up?!?"

"Why is it OK when Billy does it, but not when I do it?!?"

Because they know he is one the best statesman this country ever had, while Bush is a blundering fool in everything he does, and they hate that. It makes them nuts.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Out of context in what way? I clearly state what Clinton seems to believe. Which is that torture is ok in some very limited cases. Did you actually listen to what he said?
.
.
I am in no way shape or form saying that Clinton is advocating that we go out and beat everyone we capture, what I am saying, and what he clearly states, is that in some cases torture may need to be used as a last resort. And that the President should have the ability to make the call on when it is used on a case by case basis.
Dear lying Bushwhacko apologist:

Following is the same quote of Bill Clinton's words with different sentences in bold text:
"Look, if the president needed an option, there's all sorts of things they can do.Let's take the best case, OK.You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that's the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or water-boarding him or otherwise working him over. If they really believed that that scenario is likely to occur, let them come forward with an alternate proposal.

"We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law, and you don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture.They can draw a statute much more narrowly, which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

..."If they really believe the time comes when the only way they can get a reliable piece of information is to beat it out of someone or put a drug in their body to talk it out of ?em, then they can present it to the Foreign Intelligence Court, or some other court, just under the same circumstances we do with wiretaps. Post facto."
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
on Abu Ghraib, that was NOT torture that Clinton would have approved.
If you don't think it was torture, I volunteer you as a test subject. Let us know what you think once you've been subjected to the same treatement for awhile.
And neither would have Bush or any superior officer.
And you know that how? From statements by liars like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld? :roll: Abu Ghraib is not the only reported case of torture and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. forces and those under their command.
New Accounts of Torture by U.S. Troops

Soldiers Say Failures by Command Led to Abuse


(New York, September 24, 2005) -- U.S. Army troops subjected Iraqi detainees to severe beatings and other torture at a base in central Iraq from 2003 through 2004, often under orders or with the approval of superior officers, according to accounts from soldiers released by Human Rights Watch today.

The new report, ?Leadership Failure: Firsthand Accounts of Torture of Iraqi Detainees by the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division,? provides soldiers? accounts of abuses against detainees committed by troops of the 82nd Airborne stationed at Forward Operating Base Mercury (FOB Mercury), near Fallujah.

Three U.S. army personnel?two sergeants and a captain?describe routine, severe beatings of prisoners and other cruel and inhumane treatment. In one incident, a soldier is alleged to have broken a detainee?s leg with a baseball bat. Detainees were also forced to hold five-gallon jugs of water with their arms outstretched and perform other acts until they passed out. Soldiers also applied chemical substances to detainees? skin and eyes, and subjected detainees to forced stress positions, sleep deprivation, and extremes of hot and cold. Detainees were also stacked into human pyramids and denied food and water. The soldiers also described abuses they witnessed or participated in at another base in Iraq and during earlier deployments in Afghanistan.

According to the soldiers' accounts, U.S. personnel abused detainees as part of the military interrogation process or merely to ?relieve stress.? In numerous cases, they said that abuse was specifically ordered by Military Intelligence personnel before interrogations, and that superior officers within and outside of Military Intelligence knew about the widespread abuse. The accounts show that abuses resulted from civilian and military failures of leadership and confusion about interrogation standards and the application of the Geneva Conventions. They contradict claims by the Bush administration that detainee abuses by U.S. forces abroad have been infrequent, exceptional and unrelated to policy.

?The administration demanded that soldiers extract information from detainees without telling them what was allowed and what was forbidden,? said Tom Malinowski, Washington Director of Human Rights Watch. ?Yet when abuses inevitably followed, the leadership blamed the soldiers in the field instead of taking responsibility.?

Soldiers referred to abusive techniques as ?smoking? or ?******? detainees, who are known as ?PUCs,? or Persons Under Control. ?Smoking a PUC? referred to exhausting detainees with physical exercises (sometimes to the point of unconsciousness) or forcing detainees to hold painful positions. ?****** a PUC? detainees referred to beating or torturing them severely. The soldiers said that Military Intelligence personnel regularly instructed soldiers to ?smoke? detainees before interrogations.

One sergeant told Human Rights Watch: ?Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent. In a way it was sport? One day [a sergeant] shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy?s leg with a mini Louisville Slugger, a metal bat.?

The officer who spoke to Human Rights Watch made persistent efforts over 17 months to raise concerns about detainee abuse with his chain of command and to obtain clearer rules on the proper treatment of detainees, but was consistently told to ignore abuses and to ?consider your career.? He believes he was not taken seriously until he approached members of Congress to raise his concerns. When the officer made an appointment this month with Senate staff members of Senators John McCain and John Warner, he says his commanding officer denied him a pass to leave his base. The officer was interviewed several days later by investigators with the Army Criminal Investigative Division and Inspector General?s office, and there were reports that the military has launched a formal investigation. Repeated efforts by Human Rights Watch to contact the 82nd Airborne Division regarding the major allegations in the report received no response.

The soldiers? accounts show widespread confusion among military units about the legal standards applicable to detainees. One of the sergeants quoted in the report described how abuse of detainees was accepted among military units:

?Trends were accepted. Leadership failed to provide clear guidance so we just developed it. They wanted intel [intelligence]. As long as no PUCs came up dead it happened. We heard rumors of PUCs dying so we were careful. We kept it to broken arms and legs and ******.?

The soldiers? accounts challenge the Bush administration?s claim that military and civilian leadership did not play a role in abuses. The officer quoted in the report told Human Rights Watch that he believes the abuses he witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan were caused in part by President Bush?s 2002 decision not to apply Geneva Conventions protection to detainees captured in Afghanistan:

?[In Afghanistan,] I thought that the chain on command all the way up to the National Command Authority [President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld] had made it a policy that we were going to interrogate these guys harshly. . . . We knew where the Geneva Conventions drew the line, but then you get that confusion when the Sec Def [Secretary of Defense] and the President make that statement [that Geneva did not apply to detainees] . . . . Had I thought we were following the Geneva Conventions as an officer I would have investigated what was clearly a very suspicious situation.?

The officer said that Bush?s decision on Afghanistan affected detention and interrogation policy in Iraq: ?None of the unit policies changed. Iraq was cast as part of the War on Terror, not a separate entity in and of itself but a part of a larger war.?

As one sergeant cited in the report, discussing his duty in Iraq, said: ?The Geneva Conventions is questionable and we didn?t know we were supposed to be following it. . . . [W]e were never briefed on the Geneva Conventions.?

Human Rights Watch called on the military to conduct a thorough investigation of the abuses described in the report, as well as all other cases of reported abuse. It urged that this investigation not be limited to low-ranking military personnel, as has been the case in previous investigations, but to examine the responsibility throughout the military chain of command.

Human Rights Watch repeated its call for the administration to appoint a special counsel to conduct a widespread criminal investigation of military and civilian personnel, including higher level officials, who may be implicated in detainee abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.

Human Rights Watch also called on the U.S. Congress to create a special commission, along the lines of the 9/11 commission, to investigate prisoner abuse issues, and to enact proposed legislation prohibiting all forms of detainee treatment and interrogation not specifically authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation and all treatment prohibited by the Convention Against Torture.

?When an experienced Army officer goes out of his way to say something?s systematically wrong, it?s time for the administration and Congress to listen,? Malinowski said. ?That means allowing a genuinely independent investigation of the policy decisions that led to the abuse and communicating clear, lawful interrogation rules to the troops on the ground.?
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: Czar
and for the record, water boarding for example was one methood approved by the administration as an interigation methood

and waterboarding is torture

so saying it was not policy is ignorant

Two words: SERE SCHOOL

The U.S. has been routinely training this stuff for years.

They volunteer and sign a waiver when they join the military.

End of discussion on this topic.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: sandorski
Clinton did not endorse Torture, he merely said it shouldn't be removed as an option.

Double Talk

If I thought someone had information that could save a lot of people and it went through the proper checks beforehand, I'd pull some fingernails out myself.

It's your right to make that choice. It's also someone else's right to report you or even arrange for you to have an accident if the situation was severe enough.