Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not waterboarded 183 times in one month

[Fern]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Fern
BTW: Anybody who believed the guy was waterboarded 183 times is loony, it's patently absurd on the face of it. I'll also note that we've seen several journalists etc get waterboarded, not even they themslves considered each time water was poured on them a seperate instance of waterboarding. That would be like taking a beating, but calling it seven beatings because that's how many times you got punched.

It's like someone being subjected to several beatings, totaling 183 punches, and you've got to be far off your rocker to miscomprehend that.

I don't see how I've "miscomprehended" anything (if you're referring to me).

It's like being waterboarded 5 times, all totaling 183 water pours. Or, to be consistent, getting 5 beating totaling 183 punches, which is what I said in the 1st place. I.e., not 183 beatings.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

Now we've just seen Obama also admiting that it has produced useful info. His objection is that it could have produced by other means, but not even he denies that it produced useful intel.

No, he was intentionally vague about it, which I believe is appropriate from his particular position as President, especially since the matter could soon be tried in court in future prosecutions of Bushwhackos who committed these heinous crimes.

Obama did not specify what, if any, useful information was obtained from anyone through torture so you're still out to lunch to provide an example. More importantly, he said that harsh interrogation techniques used by the previous administration did not yield any information that could not have been obtained through other means, and he went much further. He stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture.

Obama says Bush-approved waterboarding was torture

Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:04am EDT

By Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama called simulated drowning a form of torture on Wednesday, and defended his decision to end a practice used against terrorism suspects by the Bush administration.

Obama said the process, known as waterboarding, violated American ideals and was not appropriate even if it made getting information from suspected enemies easier.

"Waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture," he told a news conference.

"That's why I put an end to these practices."

Pressed on whether that meant former President George W. Bush's administration had sanctioned torture, Obama said: "I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that ... whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake."

Many experts say harsh interrogations lead to unreliable information because a person will say anything to stop them.

Obama said intelligence that may have resulted from the technique could have been elicited through other methods.

"We could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are," he said.
.
.
(continues)

He went even further than that. He cited the example of Winston Churhill, Prime Minister of Great Britain during WW II. He said:

And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British ? all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood ? you start taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes what's ? what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

The whines you're hearing from blood thirsty, amoral Bushwhaco sycophants is the sound of that corrosion trying to corrupt the principles on which our nation was built ant that brought us the greatness we have enjoyed until now, and the corrosion that, if allowed to fester, will tear very foundation of our nation from under us.

As far as "evidence" in this particular person's case, we're waiting for Obama to release the memos on that. In the meantime it's hardly fair to make the challenge about 'evidence'.

As far as any "evidence" from this case, it doesn't matter. We will NOT defeat evil by becoming the evil we claim we want to defeat.

BTW: Anybody who believed the guy was waterboarded 183 times is loony, it's patently absurd on the face of it.

Anybody who believes that waterboarding torturing or otherwise torturing even ONE individual even ONCE is acceptable is an amoral, subhuman piece of shit.

I'll also note that we've seen several journalists etc get waterboarded, not even they themslves considered each time water was poured on them a seperate instance of waterboarding. That would be like taking a beating, but calling it seven beatings because that's how many times you got punched.

You should note the difference between the situation wher a journalist or anyone else is subjected to the physical act of waterboarding, knowing it is as an instructional example of the physical experience by friends and continued torture of a captive supposed enemy who has no such assurances that it will ever end short of their death.

And of course, you conveniently ignore the case where the captive happens to be innocent, which has happened. Then, what happens to all of your pissant excuses? :shocked:

If you care to, and have time please reprint that definition of torture you have (I only ask because I suspect you keep these in amcro). I've seen many here claim that torture is NEVER ok, I think your definition etc will surprise you.

You're at odds with U.S. international law and the Geneva Conventions against torture. I believe them. I believe you're a pathetic, immoral Bushwhacko apologist.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

You can't provide ONE verifiable piece of evidence that he gave us ANY useful information, but you're right. Even if he had, we don't care "how many times, or in what manner, we doused this killer" because ONCE is ONCE too many times, and most of us are not the evil you would have us become. Obviously, you already are. :|

Yet you condone the butchering of unborn babies.... how hypocritcal.

There's nothing hypcritical about it.

1. I don't "condone" any such thing. There are any number of valid reasons why a woman would chose to terminate a pregnancy. I'm not going to judge each and every one of them, and you're not qualified to do so, either.

2. A woman't right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term is not the subject of this Thread. Thanks for the straw man bullshit.

However, if YOU don't support a woman's freedom to choose what happens to her own body and life, but you condone torture in any form, that would make YOU the hypocrite... TROLL!

So a woman can commit murder of an innocent unborn child... thats ok in your book.

But a mass murder gets slapped around a bit for information and you move on into left wing madness spin.

Torture is such a subjective word...murder is not.

If you were to torture a clinically dead person it would be one thing, but these are living breathing sentient human beings. A fetus pre week 25 is as sentient as a sack of potatoes and if you torture a sack of potatoes, fine by me.

Don't be this fucking retarded if you don't even have the first clue about what you are saying, there is no such thing as an unborn child, they are not even fucking children when they are born.

This was actually the best bullsheit your retarded fucking mind could come up with to justify torture?

There is something seriously wrong with your brain, son.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Fern
BTW: Anybody who believed the guy was waterboarded 183 times is loony, it's patently absurd on the face of it. I'll also note that we've seen several journalists etc get waterboarded, not even they themslves considered each time water was poured on them a seperate instance of waterboarding. That would be like taking a beating, but calling it seven beatings because that's how many times you got punched.

It's like someone being subjected to several beatings, totaling 183 punches, and you've got to be far off your rocker to miscomprehend that.

I don't see how I've "miscomprehended" anything (if you're referring to me).

It's like being waterboarded 5 times, all totaling 183 water pours. Or, to be consistent, getting 5 beating totaling 183 punches, which is what I said in the 1st place. I.e., not 183 beatings.

Fern

It doesn't MATTER, torture is what the enemy subject our boys to, it's NOT what we do, we're suppsed to be civilised people, not a god damn bunch of barbarians.

I don't care if it has saved a million lives or even if that includes mine, what is right is right BECAUSE it is right and what is wrong is wrong BECAUSE it is wrong, it doesn't suddenly become right because it benefits someone.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

Just for the record...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...ves/2009/04/023451.php

"It turns out that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not waterboarded 183 times in one month by CIA interrogators, as the liberal MSM widely reported. Instead, according to Joseph Abrams of Fox News, 183 represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed's face -- not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on him. Abrams cites a 2007 Red Cross report which states that the terror mastermind was subjected to a total of "five sessions of ill-treatment."

Thanks for that crock of BULLSHIT! from an obvious right wingnut site. You're arguing semantics if you distinguish between " the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed's face" and the number of waterboarding sessions. EACH time water is poured over him after he regains breathing can be viewed as another waterboarding event, regardless of the number of days over which the TORTURE took place.

Anyone who condones such treatment is a disgrace to every human value our nation has held sacred for over 230 years. They dishonor our nation, our history and our people. They demean the value of every American life sacrificed in the name of defending our nation against the very evil they would have us become.

Unfortunately, readers of the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. now have a vastly distorted picture of what the CIA did to KSM. However, I doubt that the public as a whole much cares how many times, or in what manner, we doused this killer in order to cause him to tell us what he knew. "

You can't provide ONE verifiable piece of evidence that he gave us ANY useful information, but you're right. Even if he had, we don't care "how many times, or in what manner, we doused this killer" because ONCE is ONCE too many times, and most of us are not the evil you would have us become. Obviously, you already are. :|

Yet you condone the butchering of unborn babies.... how hypocritcal.

Yet you condone killing people, how hypocritical.

There is a difference between the innocent and the guilty.

I'd say its a question of the living versus the not yet alive in this case.

Pick up a fifth grade biology book, read it, understand.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey
-snip-

I'll also note that we've seen several journalists etc get waterboarded, not even they themslves considered each time water was poured on them a seperate instance of waterboarding. That would be like taking a beating, but calling it seven beatings because that's how many times you got punched.

You should note the difference between the situation wher a journalist or anyone else is subjected to the physical act of waterboarding, knowing it is as an instructional example of the physical experience by friends and continued torture of a captive supposed enemy who has no such assurances that it will ever end short of their death.

And of course, you conveniently ignore the case where the captive happens to be innocent, which has happened. Then, what happens to all of your pissant excuses? :shocked:

I've not heard of any innocent person being waterboarded, not that it has anything to do with my remarks anyway.

I'm quite familiar with the difference between getting waterboarded as an "instructional example' versus the 'real deal'.

In fact it's my contention that most here aren't. To consider that difference of total import is to acknowledge that waterboarding is about creating fear, not physical pain (contrary to what many argue).

Originally posted by: Harvey
-snip-

If you care to, and have time please reprint that definition of torture you have (I only ask because I suspect you keep these in a macro). I've seen many here claim that torture is NEVER ok, I think your definition etc will surprise you.

You're at odds with U.S. international law and the Geneva Conventions against torture. I believe them. I believe you're a pathetic, immoral Bushwhacko apologist.

Oh I suppose I may be at odds with it, at least as far as agreeing to their 'rule', but then as far as that goes so are the rest of you. If you would've reprinted it I was gonna point it out, demonstrate why and how you guys don't agree with it either. It's a faulty rule on several levels.

If my being 'at odds' with the rule makes a me " pathetic, immoral Bushwhacko apologist" consider yourself in that group as well because the position you've stated is at odds with it too.

Fern

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

You can't provide ONE verifiable piece of evidence that he gave us ANY useful information, but you're right. Even if he had, we don't care "how many times, or in what manner, we doused this killer" because ONCE is ONCE too many times, and most of us are not the evil you would have us become. Obviously, you already are. :|

Yet you condone the butchering of unborn babies.... how hypocritcal.

There's nothing hypcritical about it.

1. I don't "condone" any such thing. There are any number of valid reasons why a woman would chose to terminate a pregnancy. I'm not going to judge each and every one of them, and you're not qualified to do so, either.

2. A woman't right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term is not the subject of this Thread. Thanks for the straw man bullshit.

However, if YOU don't support a woman's freedom to choose what happens to her own body and life, but you condone torture in any form, that would make YOU the hypocrite... TROLL!

So a woman can commit murder of an innocent unborn child... thats ok in your book.

But a mass murder gets slapped around a bit for information and you move on into left wing madness spin.

Torture is such a subjective word...murder is not.

If you were to torture a clinically dead person it would be one thing, but these are living breathing sentient human beings. A fetus pre week 25 is as sentient as a sack of potatoes and if you torture a sack of potatoes, fine by me.

Don't be this fucking retarded if you don't even have the first clue about what you are saying, there is no such thing as an unborn child, they are not even fucking children when they are born.

This was actually the best bullsheit your retarded fucking mind could come up with to justify torture?

There is something seriously wrong with your brain, son.

Ummm most fetus aren't born at 25 weeks...usually 36 or 37 weeks...thats an 11 to 12 week window that many pro-abortion rights people have no problem with terminating a fetus at.

in fact it could be at term and as long as its still in there its fair game to kill

 

[Lemon law]

All this is total BS crapola, even if you can convince me that the person in question was not in fact waterboarded 183 times in a given month, and that some how 183 is a distortion, its still a bogus argument.

Unless immediate and crucial intel is gained in basically the first few waterboardings, any subsequent use of torture gains nothing, because Al-Quida has already repaired the damage, and the person being tortured is totally out of the loop, in terms of current intel regarding AL-Quida.

Making any but a few waterboardings as nothing but pure 100% sadism by morally bankrupt members of GWB&co.

 

[Budmantom]

"(CNSNews.com) ? Though water boarding is banned as an interrogation technique for members of al Qaeda and other terror suspects, the Defense Department will not say whether U.S. military soldiers undergo water boarding in their training, as discussed in a 2002 government memo made public last week."

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
All this is total BS crapola, even if you can convince me that the person in question was not in fact waterboarded 183 times in a given month, and that some how 183 is a distortion, its still a bogus argument.

Unless immediate and crucial intel is gained in basically the first few waterboardings, any subsequent use of torture gains nothing, because Al-Quida has already repaired the damage, and the person being tortured is totally out of the loop, in terms of current intel regarding AL-Quida.

Making any but a few waterboardings as nothing but pure 100% sadism by morally bankrupt members of GWB&co.

I take it you are pro abortion and anti death penalty?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey

You can't provide ONE verifiable piece of evidence that he gave us ANY useful information, but you're right. Even if he had, we don't care "how many times, or in what manner, we doused this killer" because ONCE is ONCE too many times, and most of us are not the evil you would have us become. Obviously, you already are. :|

Yet you condone the butchering of unborn babies.... how hypocritcal.

There's nothing hypcritical about it.

1. I don't "condone" any such thing. There are any number of valid reasons why a woman would chose to terminate a pregnancy. I'm not going to judge each and every one of them, and you're not qualified to do so, either.

2. A woman't right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term is not the subject of this Thread. Thanks for the straw man bullshit.

However, if YOU don't support a woman's freedom to choose what happens to her own body and life, but you condone torture in any form, that would make YOU the hypocrite... TROLL!

So a woman can commit murder of an innocent unborn child... thats ok in your book.

But a mass murder gets slapped around a bit for information and you move on into left wing madness spin.

Torture is such a subjective word...murder is not.

If you were to torture a clinically dead person it would be one thing, but these are living breathing sentient human beings. A fetus pre week 25 is as sentient as a sack of potatoes and if you torture a sack of potatoes, fine by me.

Don't be this fucking retarded if you don't even have the first clue about what you are saying, there is no such thing as an unborn child, they are not even fucking children when they are born.

This was actually the best bullsheit your retarded fucking mind could come up with to justify torture?

There is something seriously wrong with your brain, son.

Ummm most fetus aren't born at 25 weeks...usually 36 or 37 weeks...thats an 11 to 12 week window that many pro-abortion rights people have no problem with terminating a fetus at.

in fact it could be at term and as long as its still in there its fair game to kill

Pre week 25 is where the limit should be, unless you want to change the whole definition of clinically dead.

See, without an active cerebral cortex you're fucking dead if you are born but you want to claim that if you're not born you are alive? How the fuck do fetuses get special priveliges regarding life? There isn't anything in the Bible on the matter, there isn't anything in biology that could lead to that conclusion, so what the fuck are you basing your conclusions on son? Absolutely nothing?

And no, there needs to be medical reasons to terminate any fetus post week 20 where i am from, i believe it's the same in the US.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Harvey
-snip-

I'll also note that we've seen several journalists etc get waterboarded, not even they themslves considered each time water was poured on them a seperate instance of waterboarding. That would be like taking a beating, but calling it seven beatings because that's how many times you got punched.

You should note the difference between the situation wher a journalist or anyone else is subjected to the physical act of waterboarding, knowing it is as an instructional example of the physical experience by friends and continued torture of a captive supposed enemy who has no such assurances that it will ever end short of their death.

And of course, you conveniently ignore the case where the captive happens to be innocent, which has happened. Then, what happens to all of your pissant excuses? :shocked:

I've not heard of any innocent person being waterboarded, not that it has anything to do with my remarks anyway.

I'm quite familiar with the difference between getting waterboarded as an "instructional example' versus the 'real deal'.

In fact it's my contention that most here aren't. To consider that difference of total import is to acknowledge that waterboarding is about creating fear, not physical pain (contrary to what many argue).

Originally posted by: Harvey
-snip-

If you care to, and have time please reprint that definition of torture you have (I only ask because I suspect you keep these in a macro). I've seen many here claim that torture is NEVER ok, I think your definition etc will surprise you.

You're at odds with U.S. international law and the Geneva Conventions against torture. I believe them. I believe you're a pathetic, immoral Bushwhacko apologist.

Oh I suppose I may be at odds with it, at least as far as agreeing to their 'rule', but then as far as that goes so are the rest of you. If you would've reprinted it I was gonna point it out, demonstrate why and how you guys don't agree with it either. It's a faulty rule on several levels.

If my being 'at odds' with the rule makes a me " pathetic, immoral Bushwhacko apologist" consider yourself in that group as well because the position you've stated is at odds with it too.

Fern

It makes you less of a man in all good mens eyes.

97% of all imprisoned men that were held without charges and tortured or killed have been released or buried.

These are not actions worthy of a nation that prides itself on freedom.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

You're at odds with U.S. international law and the Geneva Conventions against torture. I believe them. I believe you're a pathetic, immoral Bushwhacko apologist.

No, YOU are. Explain please why the Senate and The Hague are not prosecuting? Please xplain why the USA *and* the world are protecting Bush?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

You're at odds with U.S. international law and the Geneva Conventions against torture. I believe them. I believe you're a pathetic, immoral Bushwhacko apologist.

No, YOU are. Explain please why the Senate and The Hague are not prosecuting? Please xplain why the USA *and* the world are protecting Bush?

Lol

If Obama has his way he would prosecute the men that kept this country safe for the last eight years.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

You're at odds with U.S. international law and the Geneva Conventions against torture. I believe them. I believe you're a pathetic, immoral Bushwhacko apologist.

No, YOU are. Explain please why the Senate and The Hague are not prosecuting? Please xplain why the USA *and* the world are protecting Bush?

You do realize Spain has initiated criminal proceedings for 6 Bush Administration members over this, right?

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

Just for the record...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...ves/2009/04/023451.php

"It turns out that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not waterboarded 183 times in one month by CIA interrogators, as the liberal MSM widely reported. Instead, according to Joseph Abrams of Fox News, 183 represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed's face -- not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on him. Abrams cites a 2007 Red Cross report which states that the terror mastermind was subjected to a total of "five sessions of ill-treatment."

Thanks for that crock of BULLSHIT! from an obvious right wingnut site. You're arguing semantics if you distinguish between " the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed's face" and the number of waterboarding sessions. EACH time water is poured over him after he regains breathing can be viewed as another waterboarding event, regardless of the number of days over which the TORTURE took place.

Anyone who condones such treatment is a disgrace to every human value our nation has held sacred for over 230 years. They dishonor our nation, our history and our people. They demean the value of every American life sacrificed in the name of defending our nation against the very evil they would have us become.

Unfortunately, readers of the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. now have a vastly distorted picture of what the CIA did to KSM. However, I doubt that the public as a whole much cares how many times, or in what manner, we doused this killer in order to cause him to tell us what he knew. "

You can't provide ONE verifiable piece of evidence that he gave us ANY useful information, but you're right. Even if he had, we don't care "how many times, or in what manner, we doused this killer" because ONCE is ONCE too many times, and most of us are not the evil you would have us become. Obviously, you already are. :|

Lol, I love ATP&N; where even the moderators can get angry.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Yet you condone the butchering of unborn babies.... how hypocritcal.

Yet you condone killing people, how hypocritical.

To not recognize the difference between murderers and the innocent, is in itself a very evil state of mind which should not be tolerated. Your view is abhorrent and vile.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

I've not heard of any innocent person being waterboarded, not that it has anything to do with my remarks anyway.

Then you're catistrophically uninformed, and it has EVERYTHING to do with your remarks.

Ex-Bush admin official: Many at Guantanamo are innocent

Former chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell says some have been there six or seven years and are innocent.

Associated Press Writer

Thursday, March 19, 2009

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said Thursday.

"There are still innocent people there," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press. "Some have been there six or seven years."

Wilkerson, who first made the assertions in an Internet posting on Tuesday, told the AP he learned from briefings and by communicating with military commanders that the U.S. soon realized many Guantanamo detainees were innocent but nevertheless held them in hopes they could provide information for a "mosaic" of intelligence.

"It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance," Wilkerson wrote in the blog. He said intelligence analysts hoped to gather "sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified."

Claims vetting incompetent
Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel, said vetting on the battlefield during the early stages of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan was incompetent with no meaningful attempt to determine "who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation."
.
.
In his posting for The Washington Note blog, Wilkerson wrote that "U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released."

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney fought efforts to address the situation, Wilkerson said, because "to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership."

Wilkerson told the AP in a telephone interview that many detainees "clearly had no connection to al-Qaida and the Taliban and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Pakistanis turned many over for $5,000 a head."
.
.
(continues)

We KNOW the Bushwhackos lied and denied they torturered anyone... until they were caught... and caught again...and again. We have the video and the already released memos. If you do no more than accept the idea that some innocent... make that ONE innocent person has been held at Guantanamo, you have no way of knowing which of those innocent detainees was also tortured.

The fact is that any TORTURE of anyone is illegal under U.S. and international law. The over-riding imparative is that any TORTURE of anyone is unethical, immoral and beyond consideration as acceptible by civil human beings.

Skipping those niceties, if you think you can live with yourself knowing you are willing to accept the torturing of even one INNOCENT person, you are not someone I would want to know, let alone respect.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

You're at odds with U.S. international law and the Geneva Conventions against torture. I believe them. I believe you're a pathetic, immoral Bushwhacko apologist.

No, YOU are.

Pray tell, how?

Explain please why the Senate and The Hague are not prosecuting? Please xplain why the USA *and* the world are protecting Bush?

ASCII and you shall RECEIVII

Democrats urge torture probe by special counsel

AP foreign, Tuesday April 28 2009

Congressional Democrats turned up the pressure on the Obama administration Tuesday to start a criminal investigation by a special counsel into harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects.

It would be a conflict of interest for President Barack Obama's Justice Department to investigate lawyers from the Bush administration, even though they no longer work for the government, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee said.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the Democrats wrote, "It is impossible to determine at this stage, and before conclusion of the necessary investigation, whether additional conflicts of interest might exist or arise."

The letter said a special counsel's investigation would insulate the department from accusations that the investigation was politically inspired.
.
.
(continues)

Unfortunately, it will take time, and justice delayed is justice denied, but there will be no putting this toothpaste back in the tube.

As to the hauling the Bushwhacko torturers and war criminals to the Hague:

Spanish Court To Investigate Bush's 'Torture Team'

Fresh Air from WHYY, April 29, 2009 · In his book, Torture Team, British attorney Philippe Sands makes a case that high-ranking members of the Bush administration were responsible for instituting harsh interrogation tactics against detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Sands' book played a role in the Spanish court's recent decision to investigate the role six Bush Administration officials played in creating the legal framework for harsh tactics. The officials under investigation are: former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, chief of staff and the principal legal adviser to Vice-President Dick Cheney; John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer; Douglas Feith, former Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy; and lawyers Jim Haynes and Jay Bybee.

Sands is an international lawyer at the firm Matrix Chambers, and a professor and director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals at University College London.

I'm glad you want to see the Bushwhacko torturers prosecuted. I know patience is difficult in the face of such horrific crimes, but keep the faith, write your senators and Congressional Representative to encourage them, and with luck, it will happen. :thumbsup:

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

You're at odds with U.S. international law and the Geneva Conventions against torture. I believe them. I believe you're a pathetic, immoral Bushwhacko apologist.

No, YOU are. Explain please why the Senate and The Hague are not prosecuting? Please xplain why the USA *and* the world are protecting Bush?

Lol

If Obama has his way he would deport my hillbilly ass into Moldovia.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Lol

If Obama has his way he would prosecute the men that kept this country safe for the last eight years.

If I had it my way, they'd already be hanging from light posts.

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
To not recognize the difference between murderers and the innocent, is in itself a very evil state of mind which should not be tolerated. Your view is abhorrent and vile.

From Mr "Kill all muslims", I think I'll take my view as being abhorrent and vile as a compliment.

 

[rudder]

hmmm happened to watch ABC news tonight and they repeated the 184 times figure.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Fern
BTW: Anybody who believed the guy was waterboarded 183 times is loony, it's patently absurd on the face of it. I'll also note that we've seen several journalists etc get waterboarded, not even they themslves considered each time water was poured on them a seperate instance of waterboarding. That would be like taking a beating, but calling it seven beatings because that's how many times you got punched.

It's like someone being subjected to several beatings, totaling 183 punches, and you've got to be far off your rocker to miscomprehend that.

I don't see how I've "miscomprehended" anything (if you're referring to me).

It's like being waterboarded 5 times, all totaling 183 water pours. Or, to be consistent, getting 5 beating totaling 183 punches, which is what I said in the 1st place. I.e., not 183 beatings.

Fern

It doesn't MATTER, torture is what the enemy subject our boys to, it's NOT what we do, we're suppsed to be civilised people, not a god damn bunch of barbarians.

I don't care if it has saved a million lives or even if that includes mine, what is right is right BECAUSE it is right and what is wrong is wrong BECAUSE it is wrong, it doesn't suddenly become right because it benefits someone.

Be glad you're a liberal, because if you were a conservative you'd have been called a bigot, homophobe, sexist, and racist by now.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Fern
BTW: Anybody who believed the guy was waterboarded 183 times is loony, it's patently absurd on the face of it. I'll also note that we've seen several journalists etc get waterboarded, not even they themslves considered each time water was poured on them a seperate instance of waterboarding. That would be like taking a beating, but calling it seven beatings because that's how many times you got punched.

It's like someone being subjected to several beatings, totaling 183 punches, and you've got to be far off your rocker to miscomprehend that.

I don't see how I've "miscomprehended" anything (if you're referring to me).

It's like being waterboarded 5 times, all totaling 183 water pours. Or, to be consistent, getting 5 beating totaling 183 punches, which is what I said in the 1st place. I.e., not 183 beatings.

Fern

It doesn't MATTER, torture is what the enemy subject our boys to, it's NOT what we do, we're suppsed to be civilised people, not a god damn bunch of barbarians.

I don't care if it has saved a million lives or even if that includes mine, what is right is right BECAUSE it is right and what is wrong is wrong BECAUSE it is wrong, it doesn't suddenly become right because it benefits someone.

Be glad you're a liberal, because if you were a conservative you'd have been called a bigot, homophobe, sexist, and racist by now.

What?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Harvey

We KNOW the Bushwhackos lied and denied they torturered anyone... until they were caught... and caught again...and again. We have the video and the already released memos. If you do no more than accept the idea that some innocent... make that ONE innocent person has been held at Guantanamo, you have no way of knowing which of those innocent detainees was also tortured.

The fact is that any TORTURE of anyone is illegal under U.S. and international law. The over-riding imparative is that any TORTURE of anyone is unethical, immoral and beyond consideration as acceptible by civil human beings.

Skipping those niceties, if you think you can live with yourself knowing you are willing to accept the torturing of even one INNOCENT person, you are not someone I would want to know, let alone respect.

How is it liberals here suddenly have moral high ground? These are the atheists, the people with zero standards about decency, morality, or faith. These are people who defend mass-murderers on the basis they might've been denied lemon in their iced tea.

The fact of the matter is this: This is about your ego, not morals. That's it. You guys wanna see Bush burn, plain and simple, because he's a republican. This righteous crusade would be curiously absent from the left if this had happened to Obama. Give me a break. The republicans were no better with Clinton. I disagreed with the whole Lewinsky thing until he lied under oath.

I'm tired of this "we are AMERICA. We do what is right because it's right" from liberals. You guys mostly believe that notions of right and wrong are just excuses to force ideology on people (unless it's your ideology, of course.) Jesus. Get some perspective.