Lies, Damned Lies, and Cheney's Lies

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In choosing to torture, Dick Cheney is no better or no worse than your average international war criminal. Its possible to invent all kinds of elaborate intellectual justifications for calling black white, but in the end, all Dick Cheney fools is Dick Cheney.

...

As for the longer sweep of history, Cheney may live to see himself ranked right up there with Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein.

Cheney is not insane. Very cruel, but not insane. He knows what he's doing.

still, nice to see people telling some truth about Cheney, as opposed to the
"Rah Rah War on Terror - America is spreading freedom & democracy" delusions.

Cheney's position on torture is minor, compared to the suffering the Bush/
Cheney administration created in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Not to mention the several dozen warnings the US had about 9-11 and ignorred.
some from their own FBI agents.

 

[Lanyap]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Yawn.. Obama will be doing most of the same things Bush and Cheney have done. If he's as smart as people claim he is, he will just keep it from the public and I doubt the press will do much digging for it. The right may point it out, the left will dismiss it as somehow being different.. rinse.. repeat..

I suspect that this is what has happened in past administrations, they just would not admit it and it was kept secret enough that the general public was not aware and did not want to be aware. Only when people began hating the Bush administration did this information hit the spotlight. It does surpise me that some people here believe this type of activity has not happened in the past. I don't condone it or agree with it but I do think it is a reality and has happened before. I wonder how many secret GITMOs were out there before 9/11?

 

[squirrel dog]

pointless internet forum

How true .

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Lanyap

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Yawn.. Obama will be doing most of the same things Bush and Cheney have done. If he's as smart as people claim he is, he will just keep it from the public and I doubt the press will do much digging for it. The right may point it out, the left will dismiss it as somehow being different.. rinse.. repeat..

I suspect that this is what has happened in past administrations, they just would not admit it and it was kept secret enough that the general public was not aware and did not want to be aware. Only when people began hating the Bush administration did this information hit the spotlight. It does surpise me that some people here believe this type of activity has not happened in the past. I don't condone it or agree with it but I do think it is a reality and has happened before. I wonder how many secret GITMOs were out there before 9/11?

Who said this hasn't happened in the past, but more importantly, what evidence do you have that it HAS happened in the past in America, excepting the internment of the Japanese.

Furthermore, one of the reasons we hate Bush is precisely because of this kind of activity. LOL, to try to downplay this criminal activity because we may already dislike Bush is not only absurd, it shouldn't be done.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: squirrel dog

pointless internet forum

How true .

Which makes your post, what, the square root of zero?

-Robert

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Public Hanging of a VP and president? Yeah that will send the right msg!

Exactly!!!

Torturing people is not effective, but hanging people is...

Perhaps we should hang a few low level terrorists then, that should teach the others a lesson right?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: cubby1223
All the nutjobs are popping up their heads

Originally posted by: ironwing
We don't kill politicians for building roads we don't like or banning cell phones while driving. We do have a history (a very short history true) of hanging politicians convicted of war crimes. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Brenner appear to have committed war crimes. Bringing them to trial, and if found guilty, hanging them is appropriate. To do less is an insult to their victims and an insult to the memory of our forebearers who were wise enough to hang past war criminals.

Name me the last U.S. politician who was hanged by Americans.

That's a good question. I'd have to think about it and get back to you. Nathan Hale was hanged by the British of course for spying, though he was an officer of the Continental Army. Although I deeply regret America winning that war, I'd say Hale was definitely one of the heroes of the American Revolution.

-Robert

So you wish that the British has won the revolutionary war??

Doesn't that make you a traitor? Should we be hanging you?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jonks
I'm still confused how we sent Japanese officers to prison after WWII for waterboarding pows, yet our gov't admits doing it to at least 3 prisoners, and no one's getting charged, let alone sent to prison. When did the law change exactly?

Different time, different standards. Remember FDR suspended Habeas Corpus, instituted a military tribunal and hung an American citizen for helping German sabateurs. Summary executions also happened on occassion. After the war in Germany there were a few incidents of summary execution of civilians suspected of helping resistence groups. We also at least on one occasion bombarded a village with artillery for 24 hours to send a msg to lay down and stop fighting, this was in 1946 I believe.

What are you referring to here? I'm not even sure what resistance groups you are talking about. You do know that not a single solitary US soldier was killed in either Germany or Japan by resistance groups after the war, right? I've never heard of the US bombarding a village after the war, and certainly not as late as 1946.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: cubby1223
All the nutjobs are popping up their heads

Originally posted by: ironwing
We don't kill politicians for building roads we don't like or banning cell phones while driving. We do have a history (a very short history true) of hanging politicians convicted of war crimes. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Brenner appear to have committed war crimes. Bringing them to trial, and if found guilty, hanging them is appropriate. To do less is an insult to their victims and an insult to the memory of our forebearers who were wise enough to hang past war criminals.

Name me the last U.S. politician who was hanged by Americans.

That's a good question. I'd have to think about it and get back to you. Nathan Hale was hanged by the British of course for spying, though he was an officer of the Continental Army. Although I deeply regret America winning that war, I'd say Hale was definitely one of the heroes of the American Revolution.

-Robert

So you wish that the British has won the revolutionary war??

Doesn't that make you a traitor? Should we be hanging you?

LOL. Can you be a traitor more than 200 years after the war? Hmm.... Nice try, John.

But, if we had stayed a colony we would have developed as Canada and Australia have developed, probably, and I'd be able to go to England whenever I damned pleased. Right now I can only go for 6 months at a time. We only let the Brits in for 3 months, seeing as they are a subversive lot.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Genx87
Public Hanging of a VP and president? Yeah that will send the right msg!

Exactly!!!

Torturing people is not effective, but hanging people is...

Perhaps we should hang a few low level terrorists then, that should teach the others a lesson right?

Sounds good to me. You pick the terrorists, I'll pick the Republicans.

-Robert

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Genx87
Public Hanging of a VP and president? Yeah that will send the right msg!

Exactly!!!

Torturing people is not effective, but hanging people is...

Perhaps we should hang a few low level terrorists then, that should teach the others a lesson right?

Sounds good to me. You pick the terrorists, I'll pick the Republicans.

-Robert

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly do not disagree with Chess9, but we are getting off the real bottom line message, while torture may be debatable marginally effective as a tactic, things like Abu Ghrab, Gitmo, and torture bankrupt us in the eyes of the world.

But when we drag in the specter of Nathan Hale and the events leading up to the American revolution against the British divine right of Kings, coincidentally a fellow who acquired the moniker of Mad King George, the parallels become almost unmistakable.

Initially, almost all of prior American grievances were focused on reform, while the Brits ignored that logic and basically said might makes right. By 1776, after decades of the British ignoring of American appeals asking for reforms, a small group of Americans rebelled. Regardless if we want to call them freedom fighters, terrorists, or patriots, any cause attracts its hero's like Nathan Hale.

But end bottom line, if the Brits had addressed the American grievances before 1776, we in the USA might be still singing God save the queen.

As it is, the main damage we must now deal with is world wide anger over
addressing real concerns as we delight in our military hegemony. Maybe short time
it may deter something, but longer terms dumb ass play, its inspired level dumbness stupidity of the century.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Genx87
Public Hanging of a VP and president? Yeah that will send the right msg!

Exactly!!!

Torturing people is not effective, but hanging people is...

Perhaps we should hang a few low level terrorists then, that should teach the others a lesson right?

Well in Iraq they hung SH even though he was far better for most of the people than the US and that didn't help that much.

In fact, it's going to be a new hellhole now that Afghanistan is "the place to be" for all the fashionable politicians.

GW screwed up so bad that 100 years from now, our grandchildren will still be taling about it, there is no hope of peace in Iraq and 20k troops to make it 60k+ is too little and six years late.

When it comes to the warfare, GW could just as well have asked Bin Laden what he wanted him to do, because that is exactly what he did, that people still believe in this STILL believe in it, it's not surprising, i know about blind belief, but to have Bush as your God?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
^ God I hope you're kidding. Or is that you Dick?

Cheney is simply not capable of a plan such as mine. That is why he is hated by so many. The key is to fool everyone into liking and trusting you while secretly doing whatever it is you want. Every good politician must master this skill. Bush and Cheney have not, and that is why they are failures.

Look, Machiavelli, a little bit of cynicism is all very well and good, but moral standards do not stop simply because you have power. It just means that no one but yourself can force you to follow them. They are still above you.

Bush haters: it could be worse, ^THIS guy could be president.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What are you referring to here? I'm not even sure what resistance groups you are talking about. You do know that not a single solitary US soldier was killed in either Germany or Japan by resistance groups after the war, right? I've never heard of the US bombarding a village after the war, and certainly not as late as 1946.

He's probably thinking of the bombing of Dresden, which occurred shortly before the end of the war, but was widely considered to be unnecessary and brutal.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Genx87
Public Hanging of a VP and president? Yeah that will send the right msg!

Exactly!!!

Torturing people is not effective, but hanging people is...

Perhaps we should hang a few low level terrorists then, that should teach the others a lesson right?

Sounds good to me. You pick the terrorists, I'll pick the Republicans.

-Robert

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly do not disagree with Chess9, but we are getting off the real bottom line message, while torture may be debatable marginally effective as a tactic, things like Abu Ghrab, Gitmo, and torture bankrupt us in the eyes of the world.

But when we drag in the specter of Nathan Hale and the events leading up to the American revolution against the British divine right of Kings, coincidentally a fellow who acquired the moniker of Mad King George, the parallels become almost unmistakable.

Initially, almost all of prior American grievances were focused on reform, while the Brits ignored that logic and basically said might makes right. By 1776, after decades of the British ignoring of American appeals asking for reforms, a small group of Americans rebelled. Regardless if we want to call them freedom fighters, terrorists, or patriots, any cause attracts its hero's like Nathan Hale.

But end bottom line, if the Brits had addressed the American grievances before 1776, we in the USA might be still singing God save the queen.

As it is, the main damage we must now deal with is world wide anger over
addressing real concerns as we delight in our military hegemony. Maybe short time
it may deter something, but longer terms dumb ass play, its inspired level dumbness stupidity of the century.

Yes, George turned out to be a bloody idiot, but he had a few idiots advising him too. Oh, yes, and King George too! I was only joking about America losing to the British of course. The men who fought for this country and formed this country were exceptional men for exceptional times. We've only been lucky a few times since to have such leadership. Lincoln and FDR come to mind. Reagan doesn't....

At any rate, Bush is bad enough. If I lived under Gordon Brown I'd be suicidal!

-Robert

 

[Zebo]

The efficacy of torture is not a close question anywhere outside of Fox television anymore. Darius Rejali has definitively studied the question and showed that torture does not elicit truthful confessions

PC hogwash so we, as a society, need not face the end-justifying-the-means moral questions. Torture works just fine and is used to great effect overseas. And has for centuries. Better yet the terror of having the torture option on the table will bring confessionals w/o even torturing. Most societies that engage in torture also have the threat of death out there to avoid false or misleading confessions. I doubt we'd go there so in effect our methods of torture lite are dubious at best.

It's really insulting to ones intelligence when guys like McCain say torture does not work but in his books he talks about breaking under torture and his whole squad broke.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Zebo
PC hogwash so we, as a society, need not face the end-justifying-the-means moral questions. Torture works just fine and is used to great effect overseas. And has for centuries. Better yet the terror of having the torture option on the table will bring confessionals w/o even torturing. Most societies that engage in torture also have the threat of death out there to avoid false or misleading confessions. I doubt we'd go there so in effect our methods of torture lite are dubious at best.

Bullshit

From the TFA:

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

I guess you just know more about torture then him, huh? Plenty of articles are out from real interrogators that all say the same thing, torture doesn't work.

It's really insulting to ones intelligence when guys like McCain say torture does not work but in his books he talks about breaking under torture and his whole squad broke.

And it's even more embarrassing to have our citizens like you actively promote and cheer on the illegal practice of torture on people. Glad to see we have fallen so far so fast.

It used to be that we convicted people that tortured. Funny how people like you and Bush now promote torture as a good thing and supporting this as "patriotic".

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: Zebo
PC hogwash so we, as a society, need not face the end-justifying-the-means moral questions. Torture works just fine and is used to great effect overseas. And has for centuries. Better yet the terror of having the torture option on the table will bring confessionals w/o even torturing. Most societies that engage in torture also have the threat of death out there to avoid false or misleading confessions. I doubt we'd go there so in effect our methods of torture lite are dubious at best.

Bullshit

From the TFA:

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

I guess you just know more about torture then him, huh? Plenty of articles are out from real interrogators that all say the same thing, torture doesn't work.

It's really insulting to ones intelligence when guys like McCain say torture does not work but in his books he talks about breaking under torture and his whole squad broke.

And it's even more embarrassing to have our citizens like you actively promote and cheer on the illegal practice of torture on people. Glad to see we have fallen so far so fast.

It used to be that we convicted people that tortured. Funny how people like you and Bush now promote torture as a good thing and supporting this as "patriotic".

Irrelevant. There was no threat of death or killing his family in his torture lite description..

Thats called double speak you moron. Then privately we have a whole black ops teams devoted to the science of torture. Wonder why.., Just a bunch of sadists I guess. .And I never advocated anything other than seeking the truth and questioning politicians statements as prima facie evidence that torture does not work when everything I see from books from POWs to Talibans methods say just the opposite..

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Thats called double speak you moron. Then privately we have a whole black ops teams devoted to the science of torture. Wonder why.., Just a bunch of sadists I guess. .And I never advocated anything other than seeking the truth and questioning politicians statements as prima facie evidence that torture does not work when everything I see from books from POWs to Talibans methods say just the opposite..

Can you point to instances in which torture has provided reliable, timely, and effective information that could not otherwise be obtained without crimes against humanity? I'm guessing you can't. What's most telling about that is that even the primary apologists for torture have never been able to point to such a situation... and I haven't the slightest doubt that if they could point out such an occasion and end this debate once and for all they would do so in an instant. Their silence speaks volumes.

The Taliban, the Viet Cong, whoever tortured people for a lot more reasons than information, they get other things out of it too. Do we?

 

[Zebo]

This guys seems to think so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04...ast/22detain.html?_r=1

Same here:
http://in.ibtimes.com/articles...rture-cia-al-qaeda.htm


I agree when it comes to social control, nothing works quite as well as torture. I read a story about a Taliban come back to Humanity who talked about cutting off limbs and heads of people for violating something as seemingly innocuous as pictures on walls of a house. When he came back next week all pictures were removed from homes in village.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Zebo
This guys seems to think so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04...ast/22detain.html?_r=1

Same here:
http://in.ibtimes.com/articles...rture-cia-al-qaeda.htm


I agree when it comes to social control, nothing works quite as well as torture. I read a story about a Taliban come back to Humanity who talked about cutting off limbs and heads of people for violating something as seemingly innocuous as pictures on walls of a house. When he came back next week all pictures were removed from homes in village.

The Iraqi army and police are widely considered to be incompetent and unable to function as a fighting force. What they think about the efficacy of techniques leaves a lot open to question.

And again, my question was not if you could get information from someone by torturing them, but if you could get timely, effective, and reliable information that you could not otherwise get. Remember, every time you do this you are committing a crime against humanity. Are you getting commensurate benefits? The answer seems to be incredibly obviously no.

 

[Lemon law]

The only real moral justification for torture maybe the argument advanced by Dersowitz. In which we suddenly have someone under our custody who has the knowledge to avert a very soon to occur disaster.

And if we do not torture the knowledge out of said individual, a bomb will go off in the next 10 minutes that will kill millions. Such events occur at least twice a day in totally fictional TV shows, but in the real world, such events occur almost never.

Once we snag a Al-Quida agent, their knowledge becomes almost instantly obsolete, and then torture becomes only torture for torture sake.

I seem to recall some figures in history taking delight in digging up the graves of long dead political opponents, and then drawing and quartered the corpse, and then burned the remains. And on such foolishness is much of GWB&co torture policy based.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Public Hanging of a VP and president? Yeah that will send the right msg!

Just like the message of hanging Saddam right?

 

[squirrel dog]

-Robert "Reagan doesn't.... "

I think history will find you .... corrected ....

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Thats called double speak you moron. Then privately we have a whole black ops teams devoted to the science of torture. Wonder why.., Just a bunch of sadists I guess. .And I never advocated anything other than seeking the truth and questioning politicians statements as prima facie evidence that torture does not work when everything I see from books from POWs to Talibans methods say just the opposite..

Well certainly a personal attack on me really bolsters your argument. Do you feel empowered now from insulting me? :roll: Because that's why we torture, really. It's the "you hurt some of my friends/citizens, so now I will inflict pain on you, and it makes me feel better". That's what torture really comes down to.

What "black ops" teams? And yes, if you read articles about people that torture, they do get affected mentally. Go read back to the old USSR days from the people that tortured their prisoners.

What is irrelevant is if torture "works" or not. Torture is *ILLEGAL*. So it doesn't matter if it works (which it doesn't). Again, it's *ILLEGAL*. Do you understand that part?

Should we torture all kiddie rapists to make sure we get the right person? How about torturing all suspected murderers? Oh, yeah, that's right, it's ILLEGAL, we can't, so it doesn't matter if we would get confressions from them (real or made up).

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I agree when it comes to social control, nothing works quite as well as torture. I read a story about a Taliban come back to Humanity who talked about cutting off limbs and heads of people for violating something as seemingly innocuous as pictures on walls of a house. When he came back next week all pictures were removed from homes in village.

So you want to take advice from the Taliban now? :roll: I thought they were all evil people that needed to be killed. Why would anyone want to copy what they do?