"The men and women in our armed forces want to know that the American people and government stand behind them and support them in their fight for freedom and national security. Right now, they don't appear especially impressed with the conduct of our public discourse."
This sounds a lot like, "it's a soldier talkin', son. Sit down and shut up." Nevermind that he refuses to give specifics -- while mindful of the need for secrecy, it also means that an objective observer cannot judge for himself whether such behavior amounts to torture. Dishonest people can abuse this privilege, as we've seen too often.
I don't like to be told, "just trust me." This only works well to a point. It's their job, not mine, and I don't presume to know how to do it better. What I do know is that a lot of objective observers have shown how abusive, ineffective, and yes, systemic the problems with interrogating suspects were, not just in Abu Grahib, but Guantanamo Bay, Bagram AFB in Afghanistan, and a range of other classified sites not subject to disclose.
Further, your source repeats the same argument that have failed to convince so many other times: "al-Qeada is far worse, so what are you complaining about?" This is very slippery, dangerous logic -- since they decapitate people, what's wrong with a thumbscrew? electric shock? A few punches to the jaw?
We're Americans. We're supposed to be better -- much better. Not by some small degree, but by leaps and bounds. We're defending a way of life -- a rule of law, not violence. I don't give a s**t what al-Qeada does, we're supposed to be the good guys. They're not the rubric for what we do.
Finally, your source mentions that word I see so often on blogs supporting the war -- "traitor." Its not found in the "PC dictionary," he said, but I've never seen the word used to easily, so boldly, and so recklessly to shut down serious discussion. When detractors are labeled "traitors," its all too easy to shut off one's brain and march on without a second thought. Such "resolve" ends only in one mistake after another, as we've seen from such bright thinkers in the White House.
Sloppy, defensive, emotional -- this is a weak defense waterboarding, no matter the source.
DU
SGT Dave
· 2 years ago
DU, Let me give you a dispassionate rebuttal. I have been a Human Intelligence professional for the Army for over 17 years now. The bottom line is that waterboarding is not, has not, and never will be a common (or in fact even rare) situation. The Army doesn't do it, except to train our people how to resist. We do that because our foes used it on our troops in Vietnam and other places. Three cases since the War on Terror began - here's a number for you, nice and objective. OVER 1,000,000. Total prisoners and detainees during the course of the conflict; bet you didn't know that. So that makes the percentage a bit less than .00003% for use of this technique. I know one of the only Army people to participate in this activity; he was not allowed to actually do so - an individual from another, unnamed agency did so under supervision from a doctor. The bottom line is that you are making a lot of noise about something that happened very seldom, is no longer done except by direction of the theater commander (that is - three or four starts) after advising the SecDef and NCA. The sloppy, defensive, and emotional side of the argument is "no torture". My fellow professionals and I were painted with a broad brush as sadists and outlaws or worse. News to you - interrogators weren't the ones responsible for Abu Ghuraib. We just took the blame (and still do) because people started screaming and following emotions instead of talking about the facts. The long and short of it is that you are not following the facts and are being sloppy and emotional in your actions. By the way, the Captain's source is quite accurate when talking about treason and sedition. Look up the law. By definition in the dictionary a person committing treason is a traitor. We're not talking about people protesting or challenging the President on his actions; we're talking about people releasing classified information about counter-terror activities, violating orders concerning protecting means, and keeping sources safe. We in the DOD and most of the government sign agreements to not release information, take training on procedures, and are advised of the penalties for compromising classified information. Willfully doing so, even to U.S. nationals (say, the NY Times) is covered under laws on treason and sedition. The people doing so are, by definition, traitors. That, my friend, is not emotion; it is the law. Another point, by the rule of law, if I catch an illegal combatant (spy, saboteur, or insurgent) I can ask my first commissioned officer for a summary judgement and we, under the rule of law, can execute him. Or we can torture him for information about his activities. He (or she) has no rights under the law (Geneva and Hague Conventions, Law of Land Warfare). None. The only restrictions on treatment are those imposed by the U.S. government on our military. Congress has the authority to codify law for the military under the UCMJ; not the President. The President can issue orders as NCA; he can't change the law. You're yelling at the wrong person to outlaw waterboarding and define what "torture" actually is. I know the classic definition, but having a woman bare her breasts at me is hardly extreme duress in my book, unlike the current illegal combatants detained in Gitmo. Bottom line - Congress needs to codify their concerns or shut up. The Justice Department needs to prosecute S. Berger and those who leaked classified information (including the "expert" on waterboarding) who violated his agreement to keep training secret, and others (including current Administration personnel) shown to have improperly released classified information. That solves a lot of issues; it also prevents three-in-a-million special exceptions to policy from becoming the focus of a nation that has other problems like earmark reform, politicians taking thousands of dollars from fugitive felons, and the above-mentioned felons, properly termed "traitors", who insist on using snippets of classified information to evoke an emotional response from the underinformed knowing that the ability of law-abiding members of the community to rebut these snippets is stopped by their adherence to the rules. "Livin' the dream"
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Richard Armitage? Robert Novak? Hello? Hello?
DwightKSchrute
· 2 years ago
Why is it that the only legislators willing to make a stand are standing up for the non-existent civil rights of terrorists who are considered spies, saboteurs or guerillas and therefore not even covered under any Geneva Convention? So how about the American Citizens that are in Guantanamo are their civil rights non-existent? Should they be tortured just on the accusation of being "spies, saboteurs or guerrillas"? And what should we do if the accused turns out to be innocent like Abdallah Higazy?
Where are the patriotic attorneys who will put their party plans aside to prosecute those who give away classified information during a time of war? His name is Patrick Fitzgerald.
these left wing whackos Clearly this guy has no political agenda.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Are you sure that Templeton was telling the truth to Higazy? From the sealed document quoted by your link it sounds like Templeton doesn't have the contacts or the intention to make that happen. It seems far more likely he was bluffing. I don't know what the legalities of that situation are, but that point should have been brought up and wasn't.
Also, Abdallah was thrown in jail in the US for a month. He was NOT taken to Guantanamo, nor was he tortured. Then it eventually came out that the hotel security guard had lied about where the radio was found. So what's your point? That a mistake was made and questioning was overly harsh? http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Higazy,Abdallah...
Muffler
· 2 years ago
I am mystified. In WWII (which is considered the baseline) the Nazi's shot, tortured, used meat hooks, performed experiments and did all sorts of ghastly stuff to people. Officially the allies didn't torture and we took the high road maintaining our moral ground. Why all of a sudden if the other side tortures and does other nasty things do we have to announce that we will also do it. At what point have you actually sacrificed the thing you are trying to protect?
The US has always done some questionable things, but we were smart enough to manage the perception. I'm sorry to say this administration lacks the intellectual subtlety and finesse to maintain world perceptions and accomplish the necessary goals. If they had just done this as we always have then we would still have the moral authority in the world and a much better diplomatic and influential position. They just throw decades of goodwill out the window to look tough. It was unnecessary and short sighted.
Also, if you consider WWII a baseline, then why haven't we bombed Baghdad the way we bombed Dresden? It's perfectly ok since we did it then, right? How is 3 waterboardings comparable to all that?
I'll bet when the Nazis shot, tortured, used meathooks, performed experiments and so on, we got p****d and ready to fight. When there's a similar gap today between what the insurgents are doing and what we're doing, the reaction is scolding the US. That's the point this guy is making.
One last thing. In WWII soldiers caught out of uniform would be shot as spies. These guys, having no uniform, have the same rights under Geneva and the like as those guys - a cigarette and a blindfold, to borrow a phrase. Are you advocating that as a standard too? You don't seem to see the difference between POWs and nonuniformed foes.
unclsmrgol - I'd tell you to stop imitating Carol Herman, but I started laughing around the second paragraph. But you forgot the bad punctuation and lack of complete sentences
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
We haven't bombed Bagdhad like Dresden because Iraq did not attack us. If a nation attacks you, you can bomb them flat (although even the military had qualms about toasting all those civilians and debated whether it made a strategic difference).But you don't bomb a city flat to get a few terrorists. That would be oh what's the word I'm looking for - genocide.
navyman
· 2 years ago
On what date and place did the Germans attck us??
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Hitler and Mussolini declared war against the US on 11 December 1941 to aid the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, even though Hitler was not obligated by treaty.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Ok, so the Dresden example is not itself a good comparison, but you bring up another reason WWII is not a good comparison to Iraq so that balances out.
Anyway, the main thrust of my argument was certainly not in that paragraph.
muffler
· 2 years ago
You kill me. What are you an English teacher? You certainly are not a History teacher. Stick to your expertise.
I like the Dresden argument and the "only" three water boardings comment. I fail to see how this idea works on so many levels. I have a feeling we forgot the kidnappings and suspension of Habeas Corpus. Iraq was a war of choice and not defense. The facts stand as they are and we were lied to as a country by our leadership. If they attacked we would have bombed Baghdad to dust. I have no doubt about that. It would have been an all out invasion and the end would have happened already.
The scolding of the US should be expected since for generations we have held ourselves out as the moral authority. We supported the test ban treaty, the Geneva convention, held the Nuremberg trials, upheld human rights and used all that to further our countries standing in the world. Now when to going gets a bit tough we are willing to just throw all that out the window.
You can't fight evil with evil. You have to set the bar so that people can choose the way they want to live. The excuse that it's OK for us to torture since they do worse is one that stopped working in Kindergarten. Just wait until China and the new Russia get ready to engage us... you have no idea how misplaced our priorities are and how badly we have destroyed our goodwill and moral authority in the world.
It's like the Pope coming out of the closet.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Uh, if the Geneva Conventions applied to the people being held in Gitmo (i.e. they were wearing a uniform and the like) then we'd be far more in the wrong. Again, conflation of POWs with nonuniformed combatants ftl...
It's a lot of reading, but well worth the time IMHO (feel free to sue for your time back afterwards, of course). Pay special attention to the passages regarding the breaking of Sanctuaries by the insurgents and the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.
One hopes you don't call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot...especially since you only read two of Surber's articles to begin with.
And you know, the reason there haven't been any waterboardings in the past 4 years (and only three total) is because the CIA removed it from their list of permissible interrogation techniques. Don't sneer at the history of taking a few steps down slippery slopes in wartime and climbing back afterwards.
muffler
· 2 years ago
I read your link to Don Surbar. Never read him before. He's an idiot.
Tom Hilton
· 2 years ago
However, Mike has serious concerns about this nation's perspective in this war, and whether it indicates an inability to defeat our enemies. "It's just blows me away that we're talking about the frickin' waterboard over here, when they're cutting off people's heads over there."
I have serious concerns with anyone who considers unwillingness to torture a weakness, rather than a strength, of our nation. All due respect to Mike the SEAL, but he has it exactly backwards.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
The methods have been widely discussed on interviews on Al Jazeera by former detainees. It's always a legal gray area when classified material has become common knowledge, but the "aid and comfort" arguments regards the enemy rarely holds water, and the most common examples (Osama's cell phone etc etc etc etc etc etc) are urban legends.
There's our intelligence professionals testifying that these torture policies are dismantling our intelligence gathering abilities.
OK, why is that? What's motivating these guys? It's not helping their careers. They aren't going to be able to write tell-all books.
What's motivating these guys?
Bueller?
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
I used to listen to AM talk radio on long drives in 2005. It was "traitors...hang them...lock them up....teach them a lesson....traitors...."
These are the same people that are so enthusiastic about torture, who couldn't be trusted with anything sharper than a tennis ball, but get into these circle jerks about purging America of its "traitors." And by God they'd use torture to do it, and if that door opens even a crack, we'll be back to the days when mutilated bodies get dumped in the swamps of America.
Tom Hilton
· 2 years ago
“If you Googled SERE [before the column], you would see nothing out there.”
Except for maybe a couple of New Yorker articles (7/11/05 and 8/13/05). And a Wikipedia entry with media references going back to 1995.
He found it inexplicable that another former instructor would choose to make the training public.
Inexplicable that someone felt compelled to report war crimes? Huh...not so inexplicable to me, but YMMV.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
gosere.com is not an official website. Check the whois.
Tom Hilton
· 2 years ago
Dang--I actually meant to delete the word 'official' before posting, but obviously I didn't. My mistake.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
that's ok -- you made your point anyway. The airdales have shoulder patches to show the enemy how tough they are? I like it. If I were active duty, i'm not sure I'd sew it on anything I'd wear on a mission.
AW1 Tim
· 2 years ago
Shipmate,
You'll find that actual aircrew don't sew anything on thier zoom bags or jackets. It's all attched with velcro, and removed before missions, except for blood-type patches.
The only ID you fly with is your dog tags.
AW1 Tim
· 2 years ago
Heh,
You tickle my funny bones. War crimes. That's a killer...
What a miserable life you must lead, unfettered by knowleadge or contact with reality.
Our enemies have NO RIGHTS under the Geneva convention. NONE. ZIPPO. NADA.
A cursory reading of the Geneva Convention rules will allow even the most poorly-educated of persons to understand that terrorists, like all guerillas and those outside the laws of war may be shot on sight. they are not even allowed the status and protections of POW's. They are outside the pale and thus may be treated howsoever their captors wish.
Whatever positive treatment our captives receive should be counted by them as blessings from a civilized host, and NOT as a sign of weakness, or of anything they have earned.
You really need to put down the rose-tinted glasses and grow up a little.
lexhamfox
· 2 years ago
That isn't really true. The Geneva Conventions do have rules for the occupying army and any army with regards to operations involving civilians. Many of those who are 'processed' happen to innocent civilians caught up in sweeps or often, turned in for cash or because of a grudge. Terrorist hide among the civilian population. They are cowards and it makes fighting them difficult slow going. It does not mean entire populations suddenly loose all recourse to the law and become terrorist suspects.
If you are innocent and kept awake, isolated from your life, family, and work.... there aren't going to be any count your blessings moments.
AW1 Tim
· 2 years ago
Emmm,
Wromg, wrong, and wrong. It's called thanks for being kept alive.
Our folks are pretty darned good at seperating the wheat from the chaff. The talk of innocent civilians being caught up in thr affairs is pretty much overblown urban legend, although the democrats who so strongly want to see us defeated are apt to keep that myth alive.
Do civilians get caught up in the war? Yeah.. they do, and it's a damned shame. But the fault lies with our enemies and not with us. It's no different tham im WWII where the German government placed armament factories in cities, knowing full well that allied bombs would fall amongst the innocents.
Any talk of war crimes, of mistakes or faults needs to first begin with the islamofacists we are fighting, and their enablers such as CAIR, Representative Sestak, etc. Only aftewards should we consider shouldering any blame for civilian casualties.
The United States did not start this war. We do need, however, to finish it.
Respects,
Al
· 2 years ago
Torture should be one of those laws that the executive branch breaks occasionally. Waterboarding is probably not torture, but even cutting off fingers and such should be one of those things that we do if we absolutely must. Even Al Gore understood that this is the entire point behind covert operations. You're doing things you can't get away with under the light of day.
SERE probably teaches all sorts of things that can be done to help escape and resist and communicate, and to let our enemies in on these secrets is one hell of a betrayal, and yeah, it's treason. It's too bad our political atmosphere and leaders aren't such that traitors are prosecuted.
We've got a CIA full of Valerie Plames who go to cocktail parties and plot to screw with the democratically elected president because they were appointed by Carter or Clinton and therefore Republicans are the only real enemy.
We've got media that hides the truth and inflates everything that could demoralize our war... so badly that any anti-war speech is hopelessly diluted and a huge number of Americans still support the war.
we're fighting a huge sick group of petty and vicious criminals who enslave and rape and kill millions. It's time we realized that as a nation. We need to get real. We're the good guys even if we waterboard. To say otherwise is bullshit propaganda.
John
· 2 years ago
Captain
It appears you are attracting a better class of moonbat than in years past.
Congratulations.
John
cynical joe
· 2 years ago
"And if the interrogators think they could be charged with some kind of crime because the subject could file a case against them for carrying out their duties on a known terrorist who is withholding vital information, there is one likely fate for that individual at the end of his interrogation…death"
Here's my concern: I'm willing to budge on coercive methods for the ticking clock scenario, BUT there has to be an INDIVIDUAL who is LEGALLY responsible. If a detainee dies during interrogation somebody better be in big trouble (court martial). There should be no 'ghosts' in the system. Every enemy captured should be accounted for even if its only for Military eyes only. Finally here's a thought experiment: If you were an innocent non-combatant but detained by American Forces what would you say to avoid 'coercive interrogation'? If you said you were an innocent, who'd believe you? How would American (or coalition) interrogators know if you were truthful? If they tortured you a little, would your refusal to 'confess' be proof of innocence or obstinacy that needed just a little more coercion?
SGT Dave
· 2 years ago
Cynical Joe, They are all accounted for. A warrant officer I know just underwent an investigation (which could, but did not, lead to a trial) for the death of a prisoner during questioning. The prisoner was an older man and had a heart attack. The warrant officer was cleared, if I remember right, after three months of checking. There are no "ghosts" in the system. Even CIA has tracking. By the way, I did work with detainees in Baghdad. I have the training and can tell when most people are lying (my wife hates this; she can't keep secrets). If they say they're innocent, we check out their story. We never start with coercive techniques; if I or one of my team thought the detainee was "dirty" or lying we'd keep him an extra day and use certain methods to see if he was lying. Oh, and we'd take fingerprints and photos and run them in the database with name and ID information. Bottom line - There is always, ALWAYS someone responsible for the prisoner. The senior interrogator is responsible for everything that happens during questioning - the warrant above wasn't the one asking questions. Coercive techniques - pardon me, I must correct, - ALL questioning beyond the basic identifiers requires approval of the senior interrogator and is largely based on evasiveness, known falsehoods, or behavioral cues. If the ID and the name given don't match, we ask the prisoner (usually starting with nice). Most of these guys have the emotional control of a three year old; you can tell when they lie by just listening to their voice even if you don't speak the language. You'd be amazed. And by the way, if the warrant had been found guilty of prisoner mistreatment leading to death, he'd face the equivalent of murder one under the UCMJ; a capital crime. "We haff vays uff making you talk, Mr. Jones"
Essucht
· 2 years ago
I strongly believe that it is high time that people in our country who give solace to the enemy and the secrets of our country to the press are charged with treason and given the strictest of penalties under the law
Until treason is punished, people will continue to commit treason for partisan advantage. Does anyone really think Joseph Wilson and his wife would have pulled their little stunt if prison time, or more, was a real possibility? And how on Earth can Rockefeller admit to discussing America's war plans with, among others, the Syrians, at no price?!?
I'd also like a permanent ban on federal employees ever working for foreign governments. As it is now there is a conveyer belt from the State Dept to Saudi funded think tanks, though I admit that the actual text of the ban would be tough to develop since the Saudis can funnel money through various layers.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
>I'd also like a permanent ban on federal employees ever working for foreign >governments. As it is now there is a conveyer belt from the State Dept to Saudi funded >think tanks, though I admit that the actual text of the ban would be tough to develop >since the Saudis can funnel money through various layers.
Like Bush41 working for Canadian mining company Barrick Goldstrike? They scooped up a big chunk of America under the 1872 mining law. One of the leading financiers? Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi.
He's also gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from self-proclaimed Messiah and convicted felon Rev Sun Myung Moon.
Essucht
· 2 years ago
As I said, all federal employees.
The Saudis own the State Dept and are the cause* of some of the anti-American activities within the federal bureacracy over the last few years.
*Obviously the Left's partisan agenda is the primary cause, but too many people discount Saudi lucre.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
They also own big chunks of the media.
The GOP is anxious to sell them our roads, electrical grid, and water systems. They have all our money and want something more stable than oil, so they are want to be out landlords.
one-eye
· 2 years ago
Ed, Your first post on the subject had me gritting my teeth about how quickly you pretty much agreed with the libs on how terrible it is to use waterboarding. However, after you got a bit of info from someone who knows a bit about the subject, you turned around quickly. I was disappointed in the fact that you took a position which you later had to vacate.
JNB
· 2 years ago
"Finally, your source mentions that word I see so often on blogs supporting the war -- "traitor."
The reason he used this word is because the behavior of many individuals discussing interrogation techniques is....treasonous. It doesn't matter if CBS News broadcasts live from the SERE - it doesn't relieve anyone of their responsibility to keep classified information...classified.
As a former USAF intelligence officer, who left the Air Force over 15 years ago....I still cannot comment on what I did or how I did it. It doesn't matter if books have been published with details, magazine articles, etc. I took an OATH to keep that information confidential - as did every person associated with SERE.
Violating that oath by discussing information that aids and comforts the enemy...is treason. It just is. You don't have to like the fact that people use that term - it doesn't take away from the fact that there is a reason that word is used. It is what it is - treasonous behavior.
I know - I'm making a 'value judgment' and 'being judgmental' about these people. Naughty me. I've violated the highest principle in liberal society - passing judgment on someone's behavior. Tisk, tisk.
Since I quite clearly know the caliber of people involved in conducting military operations, I have every confidence that "Mike" and others involved in interrogating terrorists are very competent and effective at their jobs, and I don't frankly care if they go over some line at times. "Objective observers" my foot. Since Islamic terrorists themselves understand how to exploit our naive and biased news media, it is clear that the enemy is easily benefiting from our misguided attempts to discuss this topic in open media.
You don't like not knowing all the details? Too bad, buddy. That's what "need to know" means. You don't need to know, I don't need to know, Katie Couric doesn't need to know....classified is classified for a reason. Tough crackers.
Frankly, I hope all this overwrought angst about water boarding is just a smokescreen to hide whatever else we're doing and how well we're doing it.
coldwarrior415
· 2 years ago
Mike and Jon's insight into waterboarding and the subject of interrogation are spot on.
Nothing further to add, really. I've already contributed too much verbiage on the subject, here at CQ, to include the descriptions and hyperbole of Malcolm Nance, and details on the various measures, incentives, and levels and controls of proper interrogation.
But what I will add is that in operational matters, on matters of warfare and intelligence, I am amazed, snd still find it a bit much that our policies and our methods are being shaped by persons [Congress] who not only haven't the slightest bit of understanding of the actual measures and methods, but these same persons [Congress] are more than wiling to allow shills, charlatans and others likewise ignorant of fact and knowledge of the operational arts to be the basis for establishing law and regulations that affect the lives of our military and intelligence personel.
Running a war by polling is dumb. Establishing limits and definitions of the necessary operational arts by the consensus of the ignorant is stupid.
Kudos to Mike and Jon...for their insigth, and for their service.
Dannic
· 2 years ago
I still cannot believe the amount of information that is classified that is reaching the Media. There is absolutely no excuse to be handing out classified information or discussing it with someone who does not have a need to know.
The person who has that access signed a piece of paper stating they understood they could be prosecuted for leaking that information.
I'm with Mike on this. I'm sure there is more to it that he can't discuss.
rjschwarz
· 2 years ago
If what Malcolm Nance says is true we waterboard our own troops. We don't electricute genitals of our troops to prepare them I assume so clearly if it is "torture" it is one we find acceptable at times as preperation and our military has more experience with the procedure than the journalists, politicians and commentators bloviating on about it. I think Nance turned the discussion into nonsense.
tolkein
· 2 years ago
I'm very sorry, but 'coercive techniques' means torture. We shouldn't do it. It's wrong. It's what al Qaeda in Iraq does, or the Nazis did or the Stalinists or Maoists did or the North Koreans or Iranians do, it's not what the West does or should do. END.OF. STORY.
And although sometimes torture will elicit useful information, how will you tell it from the dross given out by people who will say anything to please the interrogator. And not all torture works anyway. During Stalin's purges, Preobrazhensky (a Left opponent of Stalin) never came to trial because he never confessed, even under torture. Nor did Ryutin. So why defile our values by permitting coercive interrogation?
docjim505
· 2 years ago
Because not everybody is a Preobrazhensky. Apparently, KSM sang like a bird when he was waterboarded, and it was useful information.
I'm not especially keen on the idea of torturing people, but I'm even less keen on the idea of losing lots of American lives because we not only are too squeamish to play hardball in extreme cases but also because we're actively telling the enemy that they've got nothing to fear if they are captured. "No, I WON'T tell you where the Bomb is, infidel pig. Whadda ya gonna do to me? Waterboard me? I DON'T THINK SO! Haw-haw!"
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
we'll never know if that's true because they aren't going to take KSM to trial, even though convicting him would be a slam dunk from appearing AQ videos
Swede
· 2 years ago
Great. Armed with all of this information about waterboarding, Congress should be able to act on it. You know, pass a law making it illegal.
But they don't.
I wonder why that is?
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Four reasons off the top of my head:
1) it would suggest that there is some validity to pro-torture arguments. Refusing to argue whether or not the earth is flat does not concede that the earth is flat, although nothing will stop flat earthers from interpreting it that way. 2) It would validate the Gonzales/Addington version of Constitutional law, which uses the most twisted and arcane interpretations to prove that the Bill of Rights exists primarily to NEGATE rights like habeas corpus 3) It would also suggest that all forms of torture not enumerated are legal. 4) It would give immunity to people that have used water boarding.
I hope you found this helpful.
crossdotcurve
· 2 years ago
"Mike" isn't a very impressive "expert". The quote, "I can't believe we're talking about the waterboard when they're cutting off people's heads" reveals a complete lack of understanding of what makes America great. Back to basic training and civics 101 for Mr. Mike.
Here is President Teddy Roosevelt, discussing waterboarding:
“The president desires to know in the fullest and most circumstantial manner all the facts, ... for the very reason that the president intends to back up the Army in the heartiest fashion in every lawful and legitimate method of doing its work; he also intends to see that the most vigorous care is exercised to detect and prevent any cruelty or brutality and that men who are guilty thereof are punished. Great as the provocation has been in dealing with foes who habitually resort to treachery, murder and torture against our men, nothing can justify or will be held to justify the use of torture or inhuman conduct of any kind on the part of the American Army.”
All members of the WingNuttoSphere who are bending their ethics into pretzels to justify American torture, should perhaps be writing to the government of Cambodia. In their museum there about the torture techniques of the Khmer Rouge, they have an entire room dedicated to waterboarding. Clearly, that exhibit needs to go. Right?
Pathetic.
Scrapiron
· 2 years ago
Drowning, near drowning and dry drowning. All well know in the world of EMS. Evidently none of these were ever experienced by the terrorists but the liberal (aka Communist) democrats should drown on the slime they spew every day to the American public. They are either the most stupid or the biggest liars in the world. Take your pick.
crossdotcurve
· 2 years ago
What a high level of discourse on the blog!
Ray in MPLS
· 2 years ago
"Mike also repeated his belief that anyone including politicians who disclose classified information during a time of war should be charged with treason."
This is true whether the disclosure happens during a time of war or not. Anyone who has access to classified material must have a security clearance and they must read and sign a non-discloser agreement to obtain that clearance so they are fully aware that they can not release classified information to anyone who is not authorized to receive it.
As a Cobra mechanic in the Army, I had to sign a security clearance just to work on the helicopter and that document included a description of the possible criminal charges I would have faced if I released confidential information to any unauthorized personal, like a reporter. My signature was the legal proof that I had read and understood the responsibility and restrictions this clearance placed upon myself and my actions. If I had violated that non-disclosure agreement by releasing classified information to those who are not authorized to receive it, I would have been subject to criminal prosecution under both the UCMJ and federal law (a double whammy!).
I have no doubt that I would have been imprisoned for revealing classified information, and rightfully so. This makes me wonder why others are not punished for violating their security clearance and non-discloser agreements and why they are not held to the same standard as everyone else who holds a security clearance? They should be punished for violating federal law or that law will have no meaning.
tmac
· 2 years ago
It appears that the majority of posters to this thread believe that it is better to be "ethical" and dead than to coerce an enemy and save lives. It also appears from that majority's comments that the closest they have been to military service has been to drive by a recruiting station. It is fitting to say as the holidays near that Mr Nance is as full of $hit as a Thanksgiving turkey. Retired AF Chief.
SoldiersMom (Kelly)
· 2 years ago
From JNB - "Frankly, I hope all this overwrought angst about water boarding is just a smokescreen to hide whatever else we're doing and how well we're doing it."
I second this wholeheartedly.
My son went through SERE school ~3 yrs ago. His only comment was it was the best, but toughest, school he'd been through.
The sanctimonious drivel being posted here has/will get people killed. But I'm sure they don't care. It's not their sons, daughters, brothers, etc., facing this deadly enemy everyday.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
Cap'n Ed: The men and women in our armed forces want to know that the American people and government stand behind them and support them in their fight for freedom and national security. Right now, they don't appear especially impressed with the conduct of our public discourse.
Why should they be? They've been publicly compared to the Gestapo and Stalin's goons, called murderers and terrorists, infantilized and / or made out to be ignorant losers who were tricked into joining the armed forces. Now they can rest assured that there are lines we just won't cross in our efforts to foil enemy attacks on them or try to find out where they're being held if they are captured because we don't want to get our hands dirty. Oh, and they can also count on the media and our politicians to gleefully publicize any and all classified information that might be exploited by the enemy against them and the country they fight (and die) to protect.
"Sorry you got your head sawed off on al Jazeera and everything. I mean, we had some terrorists who might have been able to tell us where you were so we could have tried to rescue you, but - gosh darnit! - they wouldn't talk even when we said 'pretty please'. But I'm sure you're glad to know that your death, horrible though it was, allowed us to demonstrate our moral superiority."
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
>They've been publicly compared to the Gestapo and Stalin's >goons, called murderers and terrorists, infantilized and / or made >out to be ignorant losers
You're confusing the troops with the administration, which is a mistake he administration also makes.
Also propagandizing the troops with this around the clock "America hates you" stuff is as nasty as a divorced parents playing out their grudges through the kids.I i don't mean to "infantilize" them, but to say that manipulating them that way is on the same moral level as child abuse.
Moneyrunner
· 2 years ago
Ah, that’s what Dick Durban was referring to when he called what was being done in Gitmo was indistinguishable from the Gestapo and what Pol Pot was doing. He was talking about what Bush and Cheney were doing personally. Because we know he was not talking about the military personnel there.
Thanks BF. It always amazes me how much an “administration” can do if we don’t have to get specific about actual people. It was the disembodied “administration” that was doing the Pol Pot bit.
And the bit about “America Hates You?” Why no, America “loves” its Gestapo and Pol Pot torturers, right? When I recount Dick Durban’s love song to the American troops I get a warm and gushy feeling inside. Same as the feeling I get when Dingy Harry calls them losers and The New Republic recounts how they make fun of women who have been disfigured by IEDs and how they use their tanks to run over dogs.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
You know you can always find someone somewhere that said something stupid. And Fox can run those same clips year in and year out because it's cheaper than like, I don't know, reporting stuff.
So I guess you make that better when you repeat it a thousand times? It's like if your mom said "On the 4th of July 1973, your father said he wished you were never born." and if she told you that every day of your life, that would make her a good person? No that would be her taking something stupid and turning it into child abuse. That's why I compare your actions to child abuse.
And eventually people say "OK, let me get this straight, Durbin said something dumb in 2005 and you get to stay in power forever? Really? Forever? And nobody gets to ask you a question without you accusing them them of hating the troops? Pretty slick!"
Of course, we don't get to actually hear from the troops because they are held hostage to extended tours and repeated call ups.
Eventually, Media Matters, Daily Howler, and others simply took up on the GOP strategy, but they don't have to go back years and years for material because they can count of the GOP and conservative commentators providing fresh material every day.
Swede
· 2 years ago
"You know you can always find someone somewhere that said something stupid. And Fox can run those same clips year in and year out because it's cheaper than like, I don't know, reporting stuff"
Do you even try to make sense when you post something?
When a Senator, such as Durbin, compares American Soldiers at Gitmo to Nazis, that's not just "someone somewhere".
Some people even think that's news.
When a Senator, such as Kerry, says American Soldiers aren't smart enough to get into skewl and have no other option than to join the military, that's not just "someone somewhere" .
Some people even think that's news.
Swede
· 2 years ago
"Also propagandizing the troops with this around the clock "America hates you" stuff is as nasty as a divorced parents playing out their grudges through the kids.I i don't mean to "infantilize" them, but to say that manipulating them that way is on the same moral level as child abuse"
He says, infantilizing them.
'Cuz we're not schmart enuff, we get tricked ez. Schumtimze we get confuzed when guv'mint peeple call us namez. But I gess they really DEW luv us.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
If you'd like to meet your soul mate, I can hook you up with my drunken ex-wife. Or is that you Loretta?
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
What I don't understand is that if BurfordHolly doesn't like that people are saying the troops are being hated on, why doesn't he come out against the people hating on the troops instead of the people calling them on it?
But then, he comes out against the US for waterboarding (you know, the thing that the CIA removed from the list of approved techniques four years ago) when AQI is not nearly so nice. So it figures. And BurfordHolly, feel free to ask for sources. Unlike you, I've got 'em.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Well because the number of people yammering about how "America hates the troops" are about 1000 times more abundant than people who actually say "I hate the troops." You yourself have said it over and over and over and over again. ANd I'm guessing you'll say it a few more times before you're done because you just can't help yourself.
These aren't other people, these are the voices in your head.
Although you may find someone saying "I disagree with the government, therefore I guess I hate the troops because it's mandatory," and that's just sarcasm directed at the right.
Claiming that America hates the troops is practically an industry. And notice how similar this is to CULT indoctrination.
But of course, you can always find some guy living in a cardboard box who will say something and you can make him a celebrity.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
WOW. Now you're equating "the troops are being hated on" with "America hates the troops." And I'M the one with voices in my head? Gimme a freakin' break...and learn to read English. Oh, and I'm not leaving out context either, so don't bring that s*** up.
The only person on this thread who has EVER said "America hates the troops" is YOU. Oh, and Swede, quoting you so he can refute you. Tool.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Oh, and now me, quoting you so I can refute you. Guess I'd better not leave open any nitpicky points of stupidity...from experience I know you use them a lot.
Swede
· 2 years ago
"Of course, we don't get to actually hear from the troops because they are held hostage to extended tours and repeated call ups"
Hi there.
I'm a "troop".
I've done 2 tours in Iraq. I just got back from my second one on 28 September. I wasn't extended either time.
I'm in Michigan. I'm not a "hostage". I had access to the internet during both my tours. I've posted on this blog, and others, while serving in Iraq.
BurfordHolly is full of shit. Like that needed to be said.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Well I hope you aren't sent back and I hope things go well for you.
America does not hate you, and anyone that tells you that is a bad influence and pulling you down.
Some of the stuff you may have seen on the military blogs about America "hating the troops" is so twisted. Like Rev. Phelps who pickets military funerals (www.godhatesfags.com) gets called an "antiwar protestor."
That "America hates the troops" stuff is abusive crap directed at our soldiers meant to keep their families loyal to the government.
Try to stay away from that stuff. It's a sick mindf#ck.
Swede
· 2 years ago
If I do go back, it will be because I volunteer. Again. Just like every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine over there.
America doesn't hate me. Every Soldier knows that. My fellow Americans let me know that almost every day. The Dems and MSM? Yeah, not so much.
Rev. Phelps was a big Al Gore supporter. He is an "antiwar protestor". That's fairly obvious.
"America hates the troops" stuff? Who's saying that? I don't equate what certain Democrat politicians and the MSM say as "America hates the troops". I equate that with certain Democrat politicians and the MSM hating Bush so badly that they are more than willing to have America fail, and if they have to step on the troops, oh well. Keeping our families loyal to the government? We work in the private sector, we have real jobs. We're not government employees who belong to unions that can't seem to unlock their lips from the posterior of the Democrat party.
You're a sick mindf#ck.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
Um, to the extent that ANYBODY tells the troops that, "America hates you", it's the left.
Others have done a thorough job replying to your posts on this subject (I believe the colloquial term is "bitch slap"), so I'll leave it at that.
SoldiersMom (Kelly)
· 2 years ago
BTW, CE, Great follow-up post. Thanks.
I like the new and improved comments section also.
Swede
· 2 years ago
"I hope you found this helpful".
No. It wasn't.
Let me summarize: Members of Congress have been bitching about waterboarding as a use of torture. They can change that into a fact if they had the courage. The points you bring up are nothing but reminders of the fact that they don't have any. "It might do this or it might do that" blah blah blah.
If it's torture, start prosecuting. If you're not going to do that then STFU. Congressman Blowhard and Senator Foghorn think it's torture? Do something about it. Something that is within your Constitutional power to do.
The fact that they do absolutely nothing is extremely telling.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Be patient. Putting people on trial now would just earn them a get out of jail free card. This will be catching up with people for the next 10 years.
Swede
· 2 years ago
How and why?
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Well Alberto Gonzales will be doing other things than returning to run the Texas juvenile system where the guards used the kids for sex parties.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Point 1: we are signatories to a UN protocol on torture. If you note the definition of torture in the protocol, it includes a mental definition as well as a physical one. We serve on the committee overseeing that protocol. This is a very strange place for us to be if we are going to do anything after the last claimed waterboarding incident in 2003.
Point 2: prosecuting torture is in the realm of the executive branch. It isn't in the realms of either of the two other branches of our government. So Congressman Blowhard and Senator Foghorn have no say other than to make sure the person they confirm as the deputy officer in charge of prosecuting cases of torture has the same opinion as they do on the matter.
That said, enabling legislation would be required to prosecute anyone in the US found to be torturing. We are required to have such legislation per the protocol, but we don't. As a result, Burford Holly's comment is incorrect -- ex-post-facto laws are per se unconstitutional.
Swede
· 2 years ago
It would certainly make their point much clearer if they could just point to the law that says waterboarding is illegal, it says so right here, and what are you folks going to do about it. The problem they're having is that there is nothing clear in any law that waterboarding is illegal. But there could be. If Congress wants to say "Waterboarding is illegal" then make the law state that. If there is any ambiguity about the legality of this act, it is entirely the fault of those people who write the law. Fix it and take away the argument. Fairly straight forward.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Congress doesn't have to go even that far. They just have to pass implementing legislation for the Protocol to which we already supposedly adhere. Waterboarding is illegal under the protocol, because it constitutes a mental form of duress. So a whole range of "torture methods" -- almost anything other than humane treatment -- become illegal. Even threatening to torture is torture under the protocol.
Of course, that's the high road, and, as the Captain has posited, it is a very hard road to follow because our enemies will exploit the fact that we are doing so to their own ends.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
>As a result, Burford Holly's comment is incorrect -- >ex-post-facto laws are per se unconstitutional.
That's my point. To say that is illegal in 2008 would be to admit that it had been legal in 2007. We are agree on this. Making it illegal would be the same as amnesty for prior abuses.
It would not protect anyone from subsequent civil suits, which is what the telco amnesty is about..
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
In other words, even if it's wrong, you don't want to make it right because then you wouldn't get a chance to hate on the Bush Administration? Or is it that you don't want to make it right because that would mean admitting that they screwed up before? Please tell me I've got your argument wrong here, BH...
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
You're wrong.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Gee, thanks for being helpful. [/sarc]
Why not try telling me what your point actually was, instead of being snarky?
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Torture's illegal now, and to pass a law in 2008 saying water boarding is illegal is to say (or to imply) that it was legal in 2007. It would *increase* ambiguity about the legality of what has happened rather than reduce it. DOJ screwed up right off the bat and then spent several years trying to kick over the chess board.
SGT Dave
· 2 years ago
BurfordHolly, Sorry, I have to disagree. The bottom line is that under UCMJ torture is not defined clearly and the agreement on torture is not codified. If it isn't codified, then the question continues unending. According to the UCMJ a clarification of existing law (an appendix, if you will) can and should be used retroactively. Since the majority of your complaints concern the military, that would be your starting point. Common law (precedent-based, civilian) could then use the UCMJ/military hearings as a start point for their own issues. By the way; if such a thing passed it would probably be followed by a blanket pardon - as Lincoln issued for soldiers who "conducted ordinary duties" while in service to the Confederate Army. "Just the facts"
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
It was well enough defined for previous convictions for water boarding as recently as Texas in 1983 (sheriff got 10 years). And that is PRECEDENT. There's the law as written and precedent as the courts interpret it.
Unless you buy the "no activist judges" thing. The "constructionist" judges ignore precedent and make it up as they go.
Swede
· 2 years ago
"You're confusing the troops with the administration, which is a mistake he administration also makes"
Senators Durbin and Kerry are part of the Bush Administration?
No?
Oh, I guess you're wrong. Again.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
That's it? the whole thing is Durbin's fault?
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
No, there's also comments like the "General BetrayUs" ad. He's just not bothering to quote them all at you. Does that mean that there's nothing else out there? No.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Moveon.org pissing you off doesn't justify torture.
But if they'll attack Democrats, I'LL give them money because someone needs to put a boot up Harry Reids ass.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Wow. We're talking about the troops being annoyed that people are hating on them here, not the torture issue. Get your topics straight.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
No rules against hijacking here?
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
We're talking about something the SEAL said. That's not off-topic. Stop trying to divert the conversation, especially when some 75% of your posts on this thread have been on just this topic (albeit your slant is that "America hates the troops" is untrue; I agree, but don't see how the heck you got that from any of the comments thus far).
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Did you actually watch the Judiciary Committee Hearings ? It wasn't on CSPAN but I caught about half of it on the House web site (which I had never even seen before), but maybe you can catch it there.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Sorry, you lost me with this one. Care to explain?
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
You should try to catch the hearings of Nance and other professionals testifying under oath last week. Unfortunately the focus has been on this he said/she said/he said/she said someone-said-something-stupid.
AQ relies on bleeding hearts to win. Several comments seem to have bleeding hearts. We are in a war. AQ must be defeated like Hitler and Tojo, or there will be no peace. Kim's father, Mao, and Ho were not defeated. Problems still exist with North Korea, Red China, and North Vietnam. To add AQ to the list will mean more problems.
david
· 2 years ago
Everything is presented as a false binary -- either A or B. No middle ground. It's an element in our discourse that fuels a lot of needless division.
"They" chop off heads and "we" hold them underwater a little bit. What could be clearer? If only it were that simple.
I have yet to see anyone make an argument that torture actually works. Maybe for Keifer Sutherland, if the script writers feel a need to advance the plot. Wringing information from a "terrorist" in a "time critical situation" isn't as simple or as obviously beneficial as it sounds. "Time critical" means person A decides person B knows something worth beating out of them -- and the very real odds of person A being mistaken holds two real dangers. First, there is the danger that Person B is entirely innocent. Worse, there is the danger Person B tells the interrogators exactly what they want to hear -- which then justifies allocating precious time critical resources to chase bad information.
I understand the argument that "our side" needs to preserve a plausible "bad cop" card. I also appreciate the position that "bad cop" tactics don't really work. Frankly, it seems to me that one side is fighting to preserve the possible use of a tactic that no one claims has a success rate worth fighting over. It's the "maybe" that keeps this one from being obvious -- maybe waterboarding might result in snagging the rogue nuke on it's way to Manhattan. And maybe spending $1 trillion will create an interstellar shield that might redirect a comet that could be heading towards Earth.
I understand our enemies are out there, and their intentions are clear. But let's be clear with ourselves -- torture does have a cost. Witness Abu Grhaib - a pointless provocation that has only made our servicemen and women's mission in Iraq more difficult, not less. People who oppose tortute are not necessarily ninnies, traitors, or idiots. Most of them have this country's best interests as close to their heart as do torture's proponents.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
david, your description of waterboarding is not really accurate. The basics are that the victim is laid on a table with his head angled down (to prevent actual drowning) and a cloth put over his nose, then some water is poured in to create a simulated experience of drowning. It's not "holding them underwater."
So I come down largely on the side of those who don't think it's a big issue.
tmac
· 2 years ago
Torture works, Ask John McCain.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
The VC used torture for the same reasons as the Russians - to force people to give silly propaganda statements. Confessions are used to create propaganda. Nobody cares about truth.
Terry Gain
· 2 years ago
All this fuss because three terrorists were made uncomfortable? What bloody, weak-kneed, partisan, BDS nonsense.
In real life I am as humane and compassionate as anyone and I say without hesitation that the infliction of gratuitous pain is never right but if someone is in possession of information which, if disclosed, will save even one innocent life there is a moral duty to use whatever it takes to extract that information, including using an interrogation aide that causes awesome fright but no lasting physical or mental damage.
exhelodrvr
· 2 years ago
Just curious for those who are so opposed to using "torture", however that is defined.
If your child had been kidnapped, and one of the perpetrators had been captured, but wasn't talking. Knowing that most people in those circumstances are killed within the first few hours, would you want the police to use whatever means possible to get information from the prisoner? Or would you condemn your child to death?
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Frankly, in that case, I don't see that you have the choice to legally torture the guy. The big reason torture is allowed in the case of the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq is because they're nonuniformed combatants who aren't guaranteed ANY legal rights, by anybody. That kidnapper, on the other hand, has the rights of a criminal in the US. So if you did torture him, you might be in the right, but you'd still have to do the time.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Well played sir.
exhelodrvr
· 2 years ago
So you wouldn't want the cops to "rough up" the perpetrator?
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
What I said is that you (or the cops) would most likely be in the right to do it if you're that certain, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't accept the consequences for that act. I hope you're not trying to use this scenario to justify torture in the US justice system, no matter how limited the scenario; the potential for abuse is too great.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
OK, so my child is kidnapped by a gang (there has to be more than one), and then one of them has to step out to buy a pack of smokes because he doesn't know it's bad for him, and the cops have to catch him for some other reason like running a red light, and it can't be because they had him under surveillance, because obviously they would already know where my kid is at, nevertheless they have to know its him, probably because he's wearing a shirt that says "I kidnapped a kid and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."
We know that DNA testing has exonerated about 1/3 of the people CONVICTED, and we know from this experience that the odds are that this guy isn't even involved unless he's actually wearing the shirt that says "I did it!"
Now even with the t-shirt, the cops have a really crappy case against the guy, since he's not with the kid.
So the DA would do what they always do - offer him a light sentence in exchange for ratting out his partner and saving the kid. If he refuses, the odds are pretty overwhelming he's a bystander.
exhelodrvr
· 2 years ago
Nice job of evading the question. Yes or no - if your child's life was at stake, would you want the police to use force to try and save your child's life.
Rod
· 2 years ago
Mr. Holly, you neatly avoided the moral conundrum. Change the scenario.
Three guys break into your house and grab your five-year old daughter. You manage to catch one of the "gang" on the way out. He says he is from the XYZ Gang and tells you they will cut off your daughter's head at noon tomorrow. They will send a videotape of the execution to the local news station to terrorize America.
In the last week, a staged murder of a child has occurred in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. The XYZ Gang claimed credit in all three cases, and the authorities have confirmed that the murder in fact took place.
The guy you catch has a separate car. In it, you find plans for the next murder to take place in a nearby city on a schedule that indicates he must leave immediately for the next "job". The two guys with your daughter will not know that you have captured their third gang member.
You and your wife are the only people (other than the gang) with knowledge of the event at this point. I am pretty sure in my heart that I would not have any qualms about torturing the guy. They have broken the social compact by taking an innocent child for their evil purpose. They set the rules of the encounter at the "no rules" level, and torturing the guy I have is the only realistic chance I see for saving my daughter.
I posed this question to my father. He said he would not torture in that situation. I said his daughter would then die. He waffled and said she might not. I said I'm pretty sure she would die in that situation. He continued to waffle and could not mentally justify his position in any manner and finally said to just drop it.
I am genuinely interested in your answer since it appears that you have the opposite perspective to my own. I would like to better understand this perspective.
Rod (If post is anonymous, it is because I did not login properly.)
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Rod: I absolutely agree in that situation. However, I find it slightly unlikely that the other two gang members wouldn't know the third one's been captured - you did your best to make the scenario fit that, but it's a little stiff.
Just one question. I find it highly unlikely you'd get charged with assault or whatever in this case, but if you were would you accept it as just?
exhelodrvr
· 2 years ago
Rod, thank you, your example leaves him less room to squirm around the question.
It seems to me to be a very cut-and-dried situation, which should be the case with the use of torture. It should be permissible under certain, extreme circumstances. Yes, that is a slippery slope, but what isn't in wartime? And yes, the public relations aspects need to be considered, as there is potential for more harm being done via the MSM and the PC crowd than good that would be gained from the information. But to say that it is unacceptable under any circumstances is folly, plain and simple.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
*confused* are you talking to BurfordHolly?
Anyway, thank you for pointing out the wartime thing; I've talked (and asked) about it before.
All these "what-if" scenarios about catching someone toilet papering my tree and torturing him in my garage.....not only is this guy equipped with all the shackles and what not, but man can he accessorize.
Speaking of Boy George (and heroin), WS Burroughs probably had the best idea decades ago - you simply addict your prisoners to heroin by putting it in their food and water. You can question them by withholding their smack, and when you turn them loose their usefulness is over because they are addicts.
SGT Dave
· 2 years ago
Rod, As an Interrogator I'd have about three seconds of moral qualms. As a father, immediately following those three seconds would be actions I won't describe here, most illegal, immoral, and expressly forbidden by law. (I studied medieval torture and the Inquisition for a college history paper - scored a 96). No waffles here; I'd start with an IV from the emergency bag to keep him hydrated and blood expanders (he'd need them). And no, my Army training would not help me with the wet part, though it would help me ask all the right questions concerning his friends and the situation. "Not on my watch."
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
OK, I'm lost, the example cited was absurd and the follow up was more absurd. I'm supposed to subdue a criminal, hog tie him, and drag him out to garage to torture him?
Is this some sort of metaphor or am I supposed to order shackles from some bondage catalog and be prepared to torture someone in the garage? Because there doesn't seem to be any dividing line between fantasy and reality.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Well like the ticking time bomb scenario, you're already practically in TEOTWAWKI scenarios. Maybe as long as we are piling up the "what ifs," maybe we should just say say. "The government collapsed from incompetence and corruption, and someone kidnaps your kid......"
Jeff86
· 2 years ago
Ed said: "This puts Nance's assertions in a much different light. He seems to have exaggerated the actual specifics of waterboarding, as well as the risk to the life of the detainee subjected to it."
Ed, I believe that to say Nance exaggerated the actual specifics is not accurate: it seems he completely missed the boat on the specifics. How could this guy get the story so wrong? As your SEAL friend implied, any rational person should know that someone with quarts of water in their lungs will be very dead indeed.
From all the accounts I've seen, waterboarding leaves no physical damage whatsoever, therefore I have a very hard time defining the procedure as torture. In light of this, and the (fairly established) fact that the use of waterboarding is a rare occurrence anyway, I categorically reject the right of anyone to sacrifice an innocent person for the sake of their overly sensitive conscience.
mefolkes
· 2 years ago
Burford Holly makes the interesting claim that DNA testing has exonerated a third of all persons convicted of crimes. This would be earthshaking, headline news, if true. Unfortunately, what Burford knows either has something to do with what he smokes or what his friendly Martian tells him. The rest of us would link to have some links, valid ones, to prove that contention.
mefolkes
· 2 years ago
I meant, of course, that the rest of us would LIKE to have some links. Burford's buddies are invited to submit such proof as well.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Cases where the forensic evidence exists and they believe that have a chance of contesting the sentence and the authorities don't refuse to cooperate. That's why capital punishment has been virtually suspended even in conservative states.
."..............FALSE CONFESSIONS play a role in nearly 25% of wrongful convictions overturned with DNA. More than 500 jurisdictions now record interrogations (nine states mandate the recording), and legislation to require such recording was introduced in 20 states this year..............."
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
gj, but since we don't allow torture domestically I don't see why you included that last bit.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Add torture and the false confession rate skyrockets. Remember the Salem Witch Trials? They hung a couple dozen "witches." Once torture started, it became factory scale even in a tiny town and the false confession rate was was 100%.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Math_Mage, I'll toss this in because you may read it . This is a bit better than LGF, but this has been really sad. I know some people that are still backing Bush, and the one thing they have in common is a family history of alcoholism and addiction. Rush, Beck, W - all untreated addicts. But all I hear here is stupid drunk talk, the sort of thing you usually hear in bars at 1:00 AM. It's the stuff you believe when you're 7, like that if a flag fall down you have to burn it. Then they ge older and believe that it's worth amending the constitution to ban flag burning.
The exoneration rate for murder is pretty hush-hush because well, the government does not cooperate in cases where people have already been executed because the government does not want families to have legal proof someone innocent fried.
However, this is the reason that capital punishment has come to a virtual standstill across the US because the system is clu#sterf#ck.
rahul
· 2 years ago
Water boarding, surf boarding , who cares . They have no qualms about beheading people and stoning women to death and yet we should worry about dunking a terrorist in a controlled atmospherech to extract information which might eventually save countless innocent lives. Duh.
Fred not that Fred
· 2 years ago
It's real simple.
If Abdul knows the location of a bomb about to go off, or the location of captured American servicemen or civilians...
.... and the only way to get him to tell us is to hook up a DieHard to his little cojones...
Red is positive.
J
· 2 years ago
What I find most interesting is that the self appointed experts out there continue to appear in the press and make erroneous and unqualified statements, yet appear to be unchallenged by the elected officials who choose to quote them without completely vetting their backgrounds. I know, I know, how could the truth possibly matter in this discourse? All of you gents in this blog should turn outwards and address this issue with your district's elected officials. If Mr. Nance is violating agreements not to disclose classified information, then he should be reported for doing so... Clearly, the Senatorial panel and everyone else who's read his article didn't do anything about it... I clearly remember signing a non-disclosure agreement when I went to SERE in 1983, and although the overall classification was low, it was still classified. I also remember the whole SERE experience as a positive and extremely useful course, not one that scarred me or during which I feared for my own well being. As a Naval Aircrewman, I knew that the training I received at SERE would help me tolerate and endure enemy mistreatment, and that I had the Code of Honor as a compass to help me through the situation at hand. Mr. Nance taught the course, but never flew as as an Aircrewman, he provided an outstanding service to the many Sailors and Marines that he trained, but he certainly didn't torture anyone, he provided a simulation of a potential form of torture that an enemy may inflict on us. So, thank You Senior Chief, but stick to what you actually have done, not some overblown personal fantasy.
Neil
· 2 years ago
This post is almost funny in a sick sort of way. Why is it that professional murderers always want to be treated as moral and intellectual authorities? If laws based on soldiers' wisdom was what sane people wanted, we wouldn't have bothered starting civilian governments in the first place. Why is it so hard to understand that the voters of this country might want to have a say in what our military will be allowed to do? You know, US, your employers. Not all of us are pathetic enough to base our lives on sick fantasies of eternal martial law. Don't go accusing me of wearing rose-tinited glasses; I've listened to enough conservatives to know how truly awful people can be. Case in point: We have already murdered 2/3 of a million people so that a few Americans can make billions while bringing on a state of permanent warfare to take care of all our inconvenient liberties. As for treason: conservatives would be wise to shut up about it. If we all took treason seriously, there wouldn't be a Republican politician left alive. The funniest (and sickest) part of the comments is the attitude of righteousness and superiority espoused by so many here. The only difference between you folks and the "terrorists" is that you actually had a reasonable shot at joining the human race, but chose not to anyway.
Carol_Herman
· 2 years ago
Let's see? How many years have we been "at war" now? Quite a couple. And, all we have to discuss is "water ... bubbling ... boarding?" Without this, we'd be discussing the secrets of using underpants on top of the heads of terrorists?
Go ahead. Tell me this isn't a cruel joke.
That with all the investments, where I read $3-trillion ... But now the headlines are trying to shave this down to $1.6-trillion ... so far ...
Leads me to believe that our "war" is in worse shape that hollywood! And, they haven't had a hit in a long time.
Where did all the real news ... "go?"
By the way, the CIvil War was so poorly done ... and victory over Lee was within the grasp of grant ... at least ten months before he finally achieved this. (And, the slow-downs were due to ineptitudes on such a grand scale. That if you knew what they were ... Your jaw would drop.)
Yeah. So many times when things erupt in chaos ... they take longer to solve than they should.
And, we haven't solved very much ... Having removed Saddam's head. But not the head saudi's. While we know who gave us 9/11!
You don't think things about this "wrong turn" have nothing to do with water boarding? But everything to do with a twist and a tie between two families. One in DC. And, one in Riydh. Owning the world's fortunes between them.
And, you don't expect that there's gonna be severe fighting, ahead, that has to do with oil reserves. And, people living over these reserves ...who just happen to have grown into really hating our guts.
By the way, what is truly sad is that the Bonkeys are no closer to the truth ... than anything you've been told by those who work for Baker, Botts & Moneybags.
It's a sad day.
Sad years.
And, probably more to come.
Next time, out, though. When we get into a fight. I hope we push the namby-pamby swivel chair turkeys in the pentagon ... to hell and gone. FIRST. And, then? Oh, we have the power to get very, very serious. No one terroristat a time, either.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Actually, if you want to talk in terms of making Saudi Arabia into radioactive slag, you'd find a lot of support on America's "left." They might even be willing to give all the Bush cousins 24 hours to pack their golf clubs and clear out.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
The sea urchin has spikes that point in all directions except inward. Oh, and they don't point to the ground either. That's because the sea urchin needs to have feet on the ground in order to move around, but it doesn't -- it's got teeth and a stomach on the ground. Truly the case of an army traveling on its stomach. Except, it's a sea urchin, not an army. Next time out, whoever designs a sea urchin should take off the feet. It would make the urchin more defensible.
Even during the Civil War, turkeys existed. That's why, even like now, there was Thanksgiving. You'd be amazed to know that. Everyone ate turkey in those days, not just the Generals or the President.
People with oil do indeed hate our guts. Just look at the Greeks and Italians. They think we are Bluto, just like Popeye did. And I'm not sure we torture terrorists because the Saudis want us to. I think it's because it disses John McCain and helps John Kerry should he decide to run against McCain again.
Yes, it is a sad day. Sad years. And more to come. But look, there's a new sun on the horizon, and it's winking at you. A sun that cost a bargain at $3 trillion dollars, even though our defense contractors claim to have built it for a bit more than half that.
And the Bonkeys of Irak --- are they related to the Donkeys of America? If so, are the Donkeys all illegal immigrants, or is there some other twist or tie betwixt them?
This isn't a cruel joke.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Gee, what happened to the parent post here? Who took it away? Oh, it came back -- good.
All Comments
This sounds a lot like, "it's a soldier talkin', son. Sit down and shut up." Nevermind that he refuses to give specifics -- while mindful of the need for secrecy, it also means that an objective observer cannot judge for himself whether such behavior amounts to torture. Dishonest people can abuse this privilege, as we've seen too often.
I don't like to be told, "just trust me." This only works well to a point. It's their job, not mine, and I don't presume to know how to do it better. What I do know is that a lot of objective observers have shown how abusive, ineffective, and yes, systemic the problems with interrogating suspects were, not just in Abu Grahib, but Guantanamo Bay, Bagram AFB in Afghanistan, and a range of other classified sites not subject to disclose.
Further, your source repeats the same argument that have failed to convince so many other times: "al-Qeada is far worse, so what are you complaining about?" This is very slippery, dangerous logic -- since they decapitate people, what's wrong with a thumbscrew? electric shock? A few punches to the jaw?
We're Americans. We're supposed to be better -- much better. Not by some small degree, but by leaps and bounds. We're defending a way of life -- a rule of law, not violence. I don't give a s**t what al-Qeada does, we're supposed to be the good guys. They're not the rubric for what we do.
Finally, your source mentions that word I see so often on blogs supporting the war -- "traitor." Its not found in the "PC dictionary," he said, but I've never seen the word used to easily, so boldly, and so recklessly to shut down serious discussion. When detractors are labeled "traitors," its all too easy to shut off one's brain and march on without a second thought. Such "resolve" ends only in one mistake after another, as we've seen from such bright thinkers in the White House.
Sloppy, defensive, emotional -- this is a weak defense waterboarding, no matter the source.
DU
Let me give you a dispassionate rebuttal. I have been a Human Intelligence professional for the Army for over 17 years now. The bottom line is that waterboarding is not, has not, and never will be a common (or in fact even rare) situation. The Army doesn't do it, except to train our people how to resist. We do that because our foes used it on our troops in Vietnam and other places. Three cases since the War on Terror began - here's a number for you, nice and objective. OVER 1,000,000. Total prisoners and detainees during the course of the conflict; bet you didn't know that. So that makes the percentage a bit less than .00003% for use of this technique. I know one of the only Army people to participate in this activity; he was not allowed to actually do so - an individual from another, unnamed agency did so under supervision from a doctor.
The bottom line is that you are making a lot of noise about something that happened very seldom, is no longer done except by direction of the theater commander (that is - three or four starts) after advising the SecDef and NCA. The sloppy, defensive, and emotional side of the argument is "no torture". My fellow professionals and I were painted with a broad brush as sadists and outlaws or worse. News to you - interrogators weren't the ones responsible for Abu Ghuraib. We just took the blame (and still do) because people started screaming and following emotions instead of talking about the facts.
The long and short of it is that you are not following the facts and are being sloppy and emotional in your actions.
By the way, the Captain's source is quite accurate when talking about treason and sedition. Look up the law. By definition in the dictionary a person committing treason is a traitor. We're not talking about people protesting or challenging the President on his actions; we're talking about people releasing classified information about counter-terror activities, violating orders concerning protecting means, and keeping sources safe. We in the DOD and most of the government sign agreements to not release information, take training on procedures, and are advised of the penalties for compromising classified information. Willfully doing so, even to U.S. nationals (say, the NY Times) is covered under laws on treason and sedition. The people doing so are, by definition, traitors.
That, my friend, is not emotion; it is the law.
Another point, by the rule of law, if I catch an illegal combatant (spy, saboteur, or insurgent) I can ask my first commissioned officer for a summary judgement and we, under the rule of law, can execute him. Or we can torture him for information about his activities. He (or she) has no rights under the law (Geneva and Hague Conventions, Law of Land Warfare). None. The only restrictions on treatment are those imposed by the U.S. government on our military. Congress has the authority to codify law for the military under the UCMJ; not the President. The President can issue orders as NCA; he can't change the law. You're yelling at the wrong person to outlaw waterboarding and define what "torture" actually is. I know the classic definition, but having a woman bare her breasts at me is hardly extreme duress in my book, unlike the current illegal combatants detained in Gitmo.
Bottom line - Congress needs to codify their concerns or shut up. The Justice Department needs to prosecute S. Berger and those who leaked classified information (including the "expert" on waterboarding) who violated his agreement to keep training secret, and others (including current Administration personnel) shown to have improperly released classified information. That solves a lot of issues; it also prevents three-in-a-million special exceptions to policy from becoming the focus of a nation that has other problems like earmark reform, politicians taking thousands of dollars from fugitive felons, and the above-mentioned felons, properly termed "traitors", who insist on using snippets of classified information to evoke an emotional response from the underinformed knowing that the ability of law-abiding members of the community to rebut these snippets is stopped by their adherence to the rules.
"Livin' the dream"
So how about the American Citizens that are in Guantanamo are their civil rights non-existent? Should they be tortured just on the accusation of being "spies, saboteurs or guerrillas"? And what should we do if the accused turns out to be innocent like Abdallah Higazy?
Where are the patriotic attorneys who will put their party plans aside to prosecute those who give away classified information during a time of war?
His name is Patrick Fitzgerald.
these left wing whackos
Clearly this guy has no political agenda.
Also, Abdallah was thrown in jail in the US for a month. He was NOT taken to Guantanamo, nor was he tortured. Then it eventually came out that the hotel security guard had lied about where the radio was found. So what's your point? That a mistake was made and questioning was overly harsh?
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Higazy,Abdallah...
The US has always done some questionable things, but we were smart enough to manage the perception. I'm sorry to say this administration lacks the intellectual subtlety and finesse to maintain world perceptions and accomplish the necessary goals. If they had just done this as we always have then we would still have the moral authority in the world and a much better diplomatic and influential position. They just throw decades of goodwill out the window to look tough. It was unnecessary and short sighted.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/11/06...
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/11/10...
We haven't thrown our goodwill out the window.
Also, if you consider WWII a baseline, then why haven't we bombed Baghdad the way we bombed Dresden? It's perfectly ok since we did it then, right? How is 3 waterboardings comparable to all that?
I'll bet when the Nazis shot, tortured, used meathooks, performed experiments and so on, we got p****d and ready to fight. When there's a similar gap today between what the insurgents are doing and what we're doing, the reaction is scolding the US. That's the point this guy is making.
One last thing. In WWII soldiers caught out of uniform would be shot as spies. These guys, having no uniform, have the same rights under Geneva and the like as those guys - a cigarette and a blindfold, to borrow a phrase. Are you advocating that as a standard too? You don't seem to see the difference between POWs and nonuniformed foes.
unclsmrgol - I'd tell you to stop imitating Carol Herman, but I started laughing around the second paragraph. But you forgot the bad punctuation and lack of complete sentences
Anyway, the main thrust of my argument was certainly not in that paragraph.
I like the Dresden argument and the "only" three water boardings comment. I fail to see how this idea works on so many levels. I have a feeling we forgot the kidnappings and suspension of Habeas Corpus. Iraq was a war of choice and not defense. The facts stand as they are and we were lied to as a country by our leadership. If they attacked we would have bombed Baghdad to dust. I have no doubt about that. It would have been an all out invasion and the end would have happened already.
The scolding of the US should be expected since for generations we have held ourselves out as the moral authority. We supported the test ban treaty, the Geneva convention, held the Nuremberg trials, upheld human rights and used all that to further our countries standing in the world. Now when to going gets a bit tough we are willing to just throw all that out the window.
You can't fight evil with evil. You have to set the bar so that people can choose the way they want to live. The excuse that it's OK for us to torture since they do worse is one that stopped working in Kindergarten. Just wait until China and the new Russia get ready to engage us... you have no idea how misplaced our priorities are and how badly we have destroyed our goodwill and moral authority in the world.
It's like the Pope coming out of the closet.
More reading material, two two-part essays:
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125....
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000126....
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000157....
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000158....
It's a lot of reading, but well worth the time IMHO (feel free to sue for your time back afterwards, of course). Pay special attention to the passages regarding the breaking of Sanctuaries by the insurgents and the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.
One hopes you don't call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot...especially since you only read two of Surber's articles to begin with.
And you know, the reason there haven't been any waterboardings in the past 4 years (and only three total) is because the CIA removed it from their list of permissible interrogation techniques. Don't sneer at the history of taking a few steps down slippery slopes in wartime and climbing back afterwards.
I have serious concerns with anyone who considers unwillingness to torture a weakness, rather than a strength, of our nation. All due respect to Mike the SEAL, but he has it exactly backwards.
Excerpts from the hearings can be seen here:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/torture/
There's our intelligence professionals testifying that these torture policies are dismantling our intelligence gathering abilities.
OK, why is that? What's motivating these guys? It's not helping their careers. They aren't going to be able to write tell-all books.
What's motivating these guys?
Bueller?
These are the same people that are so enthusiastic about torture, who couldn't be trusted with anything sharper than a tennis ball, but get into these circle jerks about purging America of its "traitors." And by God they'd use torture to do it, and if that door opens even a crack, we'll be back to the days when mutilated bodies get dumped in the swamps of America.
Except for maybe a couple of New Yorker articles (7/11/05 and 8/13/05). And a Wikipedia entry with media references going back to 1995.
Oh, and the official SERE website.
Otherwise, hardly anything.
He found it inexplicable that another former instructor would choose to make the training public.
Inexplicable that someone felt compelled to report war crimes? Huh...not so inexplicable to me, but YMMV.
You'll find that actual aircrew don't sew anything on thier zoom bags or jackets. It's all attched with velcro, and removed before missions, except for blood-type patches.
The only ID you fly with is your dog tags.
You tickle my funny bones. War crimes. That's a killer...
What a miserable life you must lead, unfettered by knowleadge or contact with reality.
Our enemies have NO RIGHTS under the Geneva convention. NONE. ZIPPO. NADA.
A cursory reading of the Geneva Convention rules will allow even the most poorly-educated of persons to understand that terrorists, like all guerillas and those outside the laws of war may be shot on sight. they are not even allowed the status and protections of POW's. They are outside the pale and thus may be treated howsoever their captors wish.
Whatever positive treatment our captives receive should be counted by them as blessings from a civilized host, and NOT as a sign of weakness, or of anything they have earned.
You really need to put down the rose-tinted glasses and grow up a little.
If you are innocent and kept awake, isolated from your life, family, and work.... there aren't going to be any count your blessings moments.
Wromg, wrong, and wrong. It's called thanks for being kept alive.
Our folks are pretty darned good at seperating the wheat from the chaff. The talk of innocent civilians being caught up in thr affairs is pretty much overblown urban legend, although the democrats who so strongly want to see us defeated are apt to keep that myth alive.
Do civilians get caught up in the war? Yeah.. they do, and it's a damned shame. But the fault lies with our enemies and not with us. It's no different tham im WWII where the German government placed armament factories in cities, knowing full well that allied bombs would fall amongst the innocents.
Any talk of war crimes, of mistakes or faults needs to first begin with the islamofacists we are fighting, and their enablers such as CAIR, Representative Sestak, etc. Only aftewards should we consider shouldering any blame for civilian casualties.
The United States did not start this war. We do need, however, to finish it.
Respects,
SERE probably teaches all sorts of things that can be done to help escape and resist and communicate, and to let our enemies in on these secrets is one hell of a betrayal, and yeah, it's treason. It's too bad our political atmosphere and leaders aren't such that traitors are prosecuted.
We've got a CIA full of Valerie Plames who go to cocktail parties and plot to screw with the democratically elected president because they were appointed by Carter or Clinton and therefore Republicans are the only real enemy.
We've got media that hides the truth and inflates everything that could demoralize our war... so badly that any anti-war speech is hopelessly diluted and a huge number of Americans still support the war.
we're fighting a huge sick group of petty and vicious criminals who enslave and rape and kill millions. It's time we realized that as a nation. We need to get real. We're the good guys even if we waterboard. To say otherwise is bullshit propaganda.
It appears you are attracting a better class of moonbat than in years past.
Congratulations.
John
Here's my concern: I'm willing to budge on coercive methods for the ticking clock scenario, BUT there has to be an INDIVIDUAL who is LEGALLY responsible. If a detainee dies during interrogation somebody better be in big trouble (court martial). There should be no 'ghosts' in the system. Every enemy captured should be accounted for even if its only for Military eyes only. Finally here's a thought experiment: If you were an innocent non-combatant but detained by American Forces what would you say to avoid 'coercive interrogation'? If you said you were an innocent, who'd believe you? How would American (or coalition) interrogators know if you were truthful? If they tortured you a little, would your refusal to 'confess' be proof of innocence or obstinacy that needed just a little more coercion?
They are all accounted for. A warrant officer I know just underwent an investigation (which could, but did not, lead to a trial) for the death of a prisoner during questioning. The prisoner was an older man and had a heart attack. The warrant officer was cleared, if I remember right, after three months of checking. There are no "ghosts" in the system. Even CIA has tracking.
By the way, I did work with detainees in Baghdad. I have the training and can tell when most people are lying (my wife hates this; she can't keep secrets). If they say they're innocent, we check out their story. We never start with coercive techniques; if I or one of my team thought the detainee was "dirty" or lying we'd keep him an extra day and use certain methods to see if he was lying. Oh, and we'd take fingerprints and photos and run them in the database with name and ID information.
Bottom line - There is always, ALWAYS someone responsible for the prisoner. The senior interrogator is responsible for everything that happens during questioning - the warrant above wasn't the one asking questions. Coercive techniques - pardon me, I must correct, - ALL questioning beyond the basic identifiers requires approval of the senior interrogator and is largely based on evasiveness, known falsehoods, or behavioral cues. If the ID and the name given don't match, we ask the prisoner (usually starting with nice).
Most of these guys have the emotional control of a three year old; you can tell when they lie by just listening to their voice even if you don't speak the language. You'd be amazed.
And by the way, if the warrant had been found guilty of prisoner mistreatment leading to death, he'd face the equivalent of murder one under the UCMJ; a capital crime.
"We haff vays uff making you talk, Mr. Jones"
Until treason is punished, people will continue to commit treason for partisan advantage. Does anyone really think Joseph Wilson and his wife would have pulled their little stunt if prison time, or more, was a real possibility? And how on Earth can Rockefeller admit to discussing America's war plans with, among others, the Syrians, at no price?!?
I'd also like a permanent ban on federal employees ever working for foreign governments. As it is now there is a conveyer belt from the State Dept to Saudi funded think tanks, though I admit that the actual text of the ban would be tough to develop since the Saudis can funnel money through various layers.
>governments. As it is now there is a conveyer belt from the State Dept to Saudi funded
>think tanks, though I admit that the actual text of the ban would be tough to develop
>since the Saudis can funnel money through various layers.
Like Bush41 working for Canadian mining company Barrick Goldstrike? They scooped up a big chunk of America under the 1872 mining law. One of the leading financiers? Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi.
He's also gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from self-proclaimed Messiah and convicted felon Rev Sun Myung Moon.
The Saudis own the State Dept and are the cause* of some of the anti-American activities within the federal bureacracy over the last few years.
*Obviously the Left's partisan agenda is the primary cause, but too many people discount Saudi lucre.
The GOP is anxious to sell them our roads, electrical grid, and water systems. They have all our money and want something more stable than oil, so they are want to be out landlords.
Your first post on the subject had me gritting my teeth about how quickly you pretty much agreed with the libs on how terrible it is to use waterboarding. However, after you got a bit of info from someone who knows a bit about the subject, you turned around quickly. I was disappointed in the fact that you took a position which you later had to vacate.
The reason he used this word is because the behavior of many individuals discussing interrogation techniques is....treasonous. It doesn't matter if CBS News broadcasts live from the SERE - it doesn't relieve anyone of their responsibility to keep classified information...classified.
As a former USAF intelligence officer, who left the Air Force over 15 years ago....I still cannot comment on what I did or how I did it. It doesn't matter if books have been published with details, magazine articles, etc. I took an OATH to keep that information confidential - as did every person associated with SERE.
Violating that oath by discussing information that aids and comforts the enemy...is treason. It just is. You don't have to like the fact that people use that term - it doesn't take away from the fact that there is a reason that word is used. It is what it is - treasonous behavior.
I know - I'm making a 'value judgment' and 'being judgmental' about these people. Naughty me. I've violated the highest principle in liberal society - passing judgment on someone's behavior. Tisk, tisk.
Since I quite clearly know the caliber of people involved in conducting military operations, I have every confidence that "Mike" and others involved in interrogating terrorists are very competent and effective at their jobs, and I don't frankly care if they go over some line at times. "Objective observers" my foot. Since Islamic terrorists themselves understand how to exploit our naive and biased news media, it is clear that the enemy is easily benefiting from our misguided attempts to discuss this topic in open media.
You don't like not knowing all the details? Too bad, buddy. That's what "need to know" means. You don't need to know, I don't need to know, Katie Couric doesn't need to know....classified is classified for a reason. Tough crackers.
Frankly, I hope all this overwrought angst about water boarding is just a smokescreen to hide whatever else we're doing and how well we're doing it.
Nothing further to add, really. I've already contributed too much verbiage on the subject, here at CQ, to include the descriptions and hyperbole of Malcolm Nance, and details on the various measures, incentives, and levels and controls of proper interrogation.
But what I will add is that in operational matters, on matters of warfare and intelligence, I am amazed, snd still find it a bit much that our policies and our methods are being shaped by persons [Congress] who not only haven't the slightest bit of understanding of the actual measures and methods, but these same persons [Congress] are more than wiling to allow shills, charlatans and others likewise ignorant of fact and knowledge of the operational arts to be the basis for establishing law and regulations that affect the lives of our military and intelligence personel.
Running a war by polling is dumb. Establishing limits and definitions of the necessary operational arts by the consensus of the ignorant is stupid.
Kudos to Mike and Jon...for their insigth, and for their service.
The person who has that access signed a piece of paper stating they understood they could be prosecuted for leaking that information.
I'm with Mike on this. I'm sure there is more to it that he can't discuss.
And although sometimes torture will elicit useful information, how will you tell it from the dross given out by people who will say anything to please the interrogator. And not all torture works anyway. During Stalin's purges, Preobrazhensky (a Left opponent of Stalin) never came to trial because he never confessed, even under torture. Nor did Ryutin. So why defile our values by permitting coercive interrogation?
I'm not especially keen on the idea of torturing people, but I'm even less keen on the idea of losing lots of American lives because we not only are too squeamish to play hardball in extreme cases but also because we're actively telling the enemy that they've got nothing to fear if they are captured. "No, I WON'T tell you where the Bomb is, infidel pig. Whadda ya gonna do to me? Waterboard me? I DON'T THINK SO! Haw-haw!"
But they don't.
I wonder why that is?
1) it would suggest that there is some validity to pro-torture arguments. Refusing to argue whether or not the earth is flat does not concede that the earth is flat, although nothing will stop flat earthers from interpreting it that way.
2) It would validate the Gonzales/Addington version of Constitutional law, which uses the most twisted and arcane interpretations to prove that the Bill of Rights exists primarily to NEGATE rights like habeas corpus
3) It would also suggest that all forms of torture not enumerated are legal.
4) It would give immunity to people that have used water boarding.
I hope you found this helpful.
Here is President Teddy Roosevelt, discussing waterboarding:
“The president desires to know in the fullest and most circumstantial manner all the facts, ... for the very reason that the president intends to back up the Army in the heartiest fashion in every lawful and legitimate method of doing its work; he also intends to see that the most vigorous care is exercised to detect and prevent any cruelty or brutality and that men who are guilty thereof are punished. Great as the provocation has been in dealing with foes who habitually resort to treachery, murder and torture against our men, nothing can justify or will be held to justify the use of torture or inhuman conduct of any kind on the part of the American Army.”
All members of the WingNuttoSphere who are bending their ethics into pretzels to justify American torture, should perhaps be writing to the government of Cambodia. In their museum there about the torture techniques of the Khmer Rouge, they have an entire room dedicated to waterboarding. Clearly, that exhibit needs to go. Right?
Pathetic.
This is true whether the disclosure happens during a time of war or not. Anyone who has access to classified material must have a security clearance and they must read and sign a non-discloser agreement to obtain that clearance so they are fully aware that they can not release classified information to anyone who is not authorized to receive it.
As a Cobra mechanic in the Army, I had to sign a security clearance just to work on the helicopter and that document included a description of the possible criminal charges I would have faced if I released confidential information to any unauthorized personal, like a reporter. My signature was the legal proof that I had read and understood the responsibility and restrictions this clearance placed upon myself and my actions. If I had violated that non-disclosure agreement by releasing classified information to those who are not authorized to receive it, I would have been subject to criminal prosecution under both the UCMJ and federal law (a double whammy!).
I have no doubt that I would have been imprisoned for revealing classified information, and rightfully so. This makes me wonder why others are not punished for violating their security clearance and non-discloser agreements and why they are not held to the same standard as everyone else who holds a security clearance? They should be punished for violating federal law or that law will have no meaning.
Retired AF Chief.
I second this wholeheartedly.
My son went through SERE school ~3 yrs ago. His only comment was it was the best, but toughest, school he'd been through.
The sanctimonious drivel being posted here has/will get people killed. But I'm sure they don't care. It's not their sons, daughters, brothers, etc., facing this deadly enemy everyday.
Why should they be? They've been publicly compared to the Gestapo and Stalin's goons, called murderers and terrorists, infantilized and / or made out to be ignorant losers who were tricked into joining the armed forces. Now they can rest assured that there are lines we just won't cross in our efforts to foil enemy attacks on them or try to find out where they're being held if they are captured because we don't want to get our hands dirty. Oh, and they can also count on the media and our politicians to gleefully publicize any and all classified information that might be exploited by the enemy against them and the country they fight (and die) to protect.
"Sorry you got your head sawed off on al Jazeera and everything. I mean, we had some terrorists who might have been able to tell us where you were so we could have tried to rescue you, but - gosh darnit! - they wouldn't talk even when we said 'pretty please'. But I'm sure you're glad to know that your death, horrible though it was, allowed us to demonstrate our moral superiority."
>goons, called murderers and terrorists, infantilized and / or made
>out to be ignorant losers
You're confusing the troops with the administration, which is a mistake he administration also makes.
Also propagandizing the troops with this around the clock "America hates you" stuff is as nasty as a divorced parents playing out their grudges through the kids.I i don't mean to "infantilize" them, but to say that manipulating them that way is on the same moral level as child abuse.
Thanks BF. It always amazes me how much an “administration” can do if we don’t have to get specific about actual people. It was the disembodied “administration” that was doing the Pol Pot bit.
And the bit about “America Hates You?” Why no, America “loves” its Gestapo and Pol Pot torturers, right? When I recount Dick Durban’s love song to the American troops I get a warm and gushy feeling inside. Same as the feeling I get when Dingy Harry calls them losers and The New Republic recounts how they make fun of women who have been disfigured by IEDs and how they use their tanks to run over dogs.
So I guess you make that better when you repeat it a thousand times? It's like if your mom said "On the 4th of July 1973, your father said he wished you were never born." and if she told you that every day of your life, that would make her a good person? No that would be her taking something stupid and turning it into child abuse. That's why I compare your actions to child abuse.
And eventually people say "OK, let me get this straight, Durbin said something dumb in 2005 and you get to stay in power forever? Really? Forever? And nobody gets to ask you a question without you accusing them them of hating the troops? Pretty slick!"
Of course, we don't get to actually hear from the troops because they are held hostage to extended tours and repeated call ups.
Eventually, Media Matters, Daily Howler, and others simply took up on the GOP strategy, but they don't have to go back years and years for material because they can count of the GOP and conservative commentators providing fresh material every day.
Do you even try to make sense when you post something?
When a Senator, such as Durbin, compares American Soldiers at Gitmo to Nazis, that's not just "someone somewhere".
Some people even think that's news.
When a Senator, such as Kerry, says American Soldiers aren't smart enough to get into skewl and have no other option than to join the military, that's not just "someone somewhere" .
Some people even think that's news.
He says, infantilizing them.
'Cuz we're not schmart enuff, we get tricked ez. Schumtimze we get confuzed when guv'mint peeple call us namez. But I gess they really DEW luv us.
But then, he comes out against the US for waterboarding (you know, the thing that the CIA removed from the list of approved techniques four years ago) when AQI is not nearly so nice. So it figures. And BurfordHolly, feel free to ask for sources. Unlike you, I've got 'em.
These aren't other people, these are the voices in your head.
Although you may find someone saying "I disagree with the government, therefore I guess I hate the troops because it's mandatory," and that's just sarcasm directed at the right.
Claiming that America hates the troops is practically an industry. And notice how similar this is to CULT indoctrination.
But of course, you can always find some guy living in a cardboard box who will say something and you can make him a celebrity.
The only person on this thread who has EVER said "America hates the troops" is YOU. Oh, and Swede, quoting you so he can refute you. Tool.
Hi there.
I'm a "troop".
I've done 2 tours in Iraq. I just got back from my second one on 28 September. I wasn't extended either time.
I'm in Michigan. I'm not a "hostage". I had access to the internet during both my tours. I've posted on this blog, and others, while serving in Iraq.
BurfordHolly is full of shit. Like that needed to be said.
America does not hate you, and anyone that tells you that is a bad influence and pulling you down.
Some of the stuff you may have seen on the military blogs about America "hating the troops" is so twisted. Like Rev. Phelps who pickets military funerals (www.godhatesfags.com) gets called an "antiwar protestor."
That "America hates the troops" stuff is abusive crap directed at our soldiers meant to keep their families loyal to the government.
Try to stay away from that stuff. It's a sick mindf#ck.
America doesn't hate me. Every Soldier knows that. My fellow Americans let me know that almost every day. The Dems and MSM? Yeah, not so much.
Rev. Phelps was a big Al Gore supporter. He is an "antiwar protestor". That's fairly obvious.
"America hates the troops" stuff? Who's saying that? I don't equate what certain Democrat politicians and the MSM say as "America hates the troops". I equate that with certain Democrat politicians and the MSM hating Bush so badly that they are more than willing to have America fail, and if they have to step on the troops, oh well. Keeping our families loyal to the government? We work in the private sector, we have real jobs. We're not government employees who belong to unions that can't seem to unlock their lips from the posterior of the Democrat party.
You're a sick mindf#ck.
Others have done a thorough job replying to your posts on this subject (I believe the colloquial term is "bitch slap"), so I'll leave it at that.
I like the new and improved comments section also.
No. It wasn't.
Let me summarize: Members of Congress have been bitching about waterboarding as a use of torture. They can change that into a fact if they had the courage. The points you bring up are nothing but reminders of the fact that they don't have any. "It might do this or it might do that" blah blah blah.
If it's torture, start prosecuting. If you're not going to do that then STFU. Congressman Blowhard and Senator Foghorn think it's torture? Do something about it. Something that is within your Constitutional power to do.
The fact that they do absolutely nothing is extremely telling.
Point 2: prosecuting torture is in the realm of the executive branch. It isn't in the realms of either of the two other branches of our government. So Congressman Blowhard and Senator Foghorn have no say other than to make sure the person they confirm as the deputy officer in charge of prosecuting cases of torture has the same opinion as they do on the matter.
That said, enabling legislation would be required to prosecute anyone in the US found to be torturing. We are required to have such legislation per the protocol, but we don't. As a result, Burford Holly's comment is incorrect -- ex-post-facto laws are per se unconstitutional.
Of course, that's the high road, and, as the Captain has posited, it is a very hard road to follow because our enemies will exploit the fact that we are doing so to their own ends.
>ex-post-facto laws are per se unconstitutional.
That's my point. To say that is illegal in 2008 would be to admit that it had been legal in 2007. We are agree on this. Making it illegal would be the same as amnesty for prior abuses.
It would not protect anyone from subsequent civil suits, which is what the telco amnesty is about..
Why not try telling me what your point actually was, instead of being snarky?
Sorry, I have to disagree. The bottom line is that under UCMJ torture is not defined clearly and the agreement on torture is not codified. If it isn't codified, then the question continues unending. According to the UCMJ a clarification of existing law (an appendix, if you will) can and should be used retroactively. Since the majority of your complaints concern the military, that would be your starting point. Common law (precedent-based, civilian) could then use the UCMJ/military hearings as a start point for their own issues. By the way; if such a thing passed it would probably be followed by a blanket pardon - as Lincoln issued for soldiers who "conducted ordinary duties" while in service to the Confederate Army.
"Just the facts"
Unless you buy the "no activist judges" thing. The "constructionist" judges ignore precedent and make it up as they go.
Senators Durbin and Kerry are part of the Bush Administration?
No?
Oh, I guess you're wrong. Again.
But if they'll attack Democrats, I'LL give them money because someone needs to put a boot up Harry Reids ass.
Nighty night
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/torture/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9caq0ap_2tg
"They" chop off heads and "we" hold them underwater a little bit. What could be clearer? If only it were that simple.
I have yet to see anyone make an argument that torture actually works. Maybe for Keifer Sutherland, if the script writers feel a need to advance the plot. Wringing information from a "terrorist" in a "time critical situation" isn't as simple or as obviously beneficial as it sounds. "Time critical" means person A decides person B knows something worth beating out of them -- and the very real odds of person A being mistaken holds two real dangers. First, there is the danger that Person B is entirely innocent. Worse, there is the danger Person B tells the interrogators exactly what they want to hear -- which then justifies allocating precious time critical resources to chase bad information.
I understand the argument that "our side" needs to preserve a plausible "bad cop" card. I also appreciate the position that "bad cop" tactics don't really work. Frankly, it seems to me that one side is fighting to preserve the possible use of a tactic that no one claims has a success rate worth fighting over. It's the "maybe" that keeps this one from being obvious -- maybe waterboarding might result in snagging the rogue nuke on it's way to Manhattan. And maybe spending $1 trillion will create an interstellar shield that might redirect a comet that could be heading towards Earth.
I understand our enemies are out there, and their intentions are clear. But let's be clear with ourselves -- torture does have a cost. Witness Abu Grhaib - a pointless provocation that has only made our servicemen and women's mission in Iraq more difficult, not less. People who oppose tortute are not necessarily ninnies, traitors, or idiots. Most of them have this country's best interests as close to their heart as do torture's proponents.
That said, I understand the dilemma you're in. Does torture work? Should it be taken off the table despite the wartime situation? These are perfectly valid questions. But on the specific issue of waterboarding, it hasn't been used in a while, and it worked the last time:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId...
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/01/...
So I come down largely on the side of those who don't think it's a big issue.
In real life I am as humane and compassionate as anyone and I say without hesitation that the infliction of gratuitous pain is never right but if someone is in possession of information which, if disclosed, will save even one innocent life there is a moral duty to use whatever it takes to extract that information, including using an interrogation aide that causes awesome fright but no lasting physical or mental damage.
If your child had been kidnapped, and one of the perpetrators had been captured, but wasn't talking. Knowing that most people in those circumstances are killed within the first few hours, would you want the police to use whatever means possible to get information from the prisoner? Or would you condemn your child to death?
We know that DNA testing has exonerated about 1/3 of the people CONVICTED, and we know from this experience that the odds are that this guy isn't even involved unless he's actually wearing the shirt that says "I did it!"
Now even with the t-shirt, the cops have a really crappy case against the guy, since he's not with the kid.
So the DA would do what they always do - offer him a light sentence in exchange for ratting out his partner and saving the kid. If he refuses, the odds are pretty overwhelming he's a bystander.
the police to use force to try and save your child's life.
Three guys break into your house and grab your five-year old daughter. You manage to catch one of the "gang" on the way out. He says he is from the XYZ Gang and tells you they will cut off your daughter's head at noon tomorrow. They will send a videotape of the execution to the local news station to terrorize America.
In the last week, a staged murder of a child has occurred in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. The XYZ Gang claimed credit in all three cases, and the authorities have confirmed that the murder in fact took place.
The guy you catch has a separate car. In it, you find plans for the next murder to take place in a nearby city on a schedule that indicates he must leave immediately for the next "job". The two guys with your daughter will not know that you have captured their third gang member.
You and your wife are the only people (other than the gang) with knowledge of the event at this point. I am pretty sure in my heart that I would not have any qualms about torturing the guy. They have broken the social compact by taking an innocent child for their evil purpose. They set the rules of the encounter at the "no rules" level, and torturing the guy I have is the only realistic chance I see for saving my daughter.
I posed this question to my father. He said he would not torture in that situation. I said his daughter would then die. He waffled and said she might not. I said I'm pretty sure she would die in that situation. He continued to waffle and could not mentally justify his position in any manner and finally said to just drop it.
I am genuinely interested in your answer since it appears that you have the opposite perspective to my own. I would like to better understand this perspective.
Rod
(If post is anonymous, it is because I did not login properly.)
I absolutely agree in that situation. However, I find it slightly unlikely that the other two gang members wouldn't know the third one's been captured - you did your best to make the scenario fit that, but it's a little stiff.
Just one question. I find it highly unlikely you'd get charged with assault or whatever in this case, but if you were would you accept it as just?
It seems to me to be a very cut-and-dried situation, which should be the case with the use of torture. It should be permissible under certain, extreme circumstances. Yes, that is a slippery slope, but what isn't in wartime? And yes, the public relations aspects need to be considered, as there is potential for more harm being done via the MSM and the PC crowd than good that would be gained from the information. But to say that it is unacceptable under any circumstances is folly, plain and simple.
Anyway, thank you for pointing out the wartime thing; I've talked (and asked) about it before.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/...
Speaking of Boy George (and heroin), WS Burroughs probably had the best idea decades ago - you simply addict your prisoners to heroin by putting it in their food and water. You can question them by withholding their smack, and when you turn them loose their usefulness is over because they are addicts.
As an Interrogator I'd have about three seconds of moral qualms.
As a father, immediately following those three seconds would be actions I won't describe here, most illegal, immoral, and expressly forbidden by law. (I studied medieval torture and the Inquisition for a college history paper - scored a 96).
No waffles here; I'd start with an IV from the emergency bag to keep him hydrated and blood expanders (he'd need them).
And no, my Army training would not help me with the wet part, though it would help me ask all the right questions concerning his friends and the situation.
"Not on my watch."
Is this some sort of metaphor or am I supposed to order shackles from some bondage catalog and be prepared to torture someone in the garage? Because there doesn't seem to be any dividing line between fantasy and reality.
Ed, I believe that to say Nance exaggerated the actual specifics is not accurate: it seems he completely missed the boat on the specifics. How could this guy get the story so wrong? As your SEAL friend implied, any rational person should know that someone with quarts of water in their lungs will be very dead indeed.
From all the accounts I've seen, waterboarding leaves no physical damage whatsoever, therefore I have a very hard time defining the procedure as torture. In light of this, and the (fairly established) fact that the use of waterboarding is a rare occurrence anyway, I categorically reject the right of anyone to sacrifice an innocent person for the sake of their overly sensitive conscience.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/530.php
And this is for you torture buffs
."..............FALSE CONFESSIONS play a role in nearly 25% of wrongful convictions overturned with DNA. More than 500 jurisdictions now record interrogations (nine states mandate the recording), and legislation to require such recording was introduced in 20 states this year..............."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/...
Anecdotes about the people you know are amusing, but don't add much to the discussion.
The President's DNA Initiative:
http://www.dna.gov/uses/postconviction/
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/314.php
In this discussion, they put the exoneration rate for rape in the 20-25% range.
http://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2006/0...
The exoneration rate for murder is pretty hush-hush because well, the government does not cooperate in cases where people have already been executed because the government does not want families to have legal proof someone innocent fried.
However, this is the reason that capital punishment has come to a virtual standstill across the US because the system is clu#sterf#ck.
If Abdul knows the location of a bomb about to go off, or the location of captured American servicemen or civilians...
.... and the only way to get him to tell us is to hook up a DieHard to his little cojones...
Red is positive.
Why is it so hard to understand that the voters of this country might want to have a say in what our military will be allowed to do? You know, US, your employers. Not all of us are pathetic enough to base our lives on sick fantasies of eternal martial law. Don't go accusing me of wearing rose-tinited glasses; I've listened to enough conservatives to know how truly awful people can be. Case in point: We have already murdered 2/3 of a million people so that a few Americans can make billions while bringing on a state of permanent warfare to take care of all our inconvenient liberties.
As for treason: conservatives would be wise to shut up about it. If we all took treason seriously, there wouldn't be a Republican politician left alive.
The funniest (and sickest) part of the comments is the attitude of righteousness and superiority espoused by so many here. The only difference between you folks and the "terrorists" is that you actually had a reasonable shot at joining the human race, but chose not to anyway.
Go ahead. Tell me this isn't a cruel joke.
That with all the investments, where I read $3-trillion ... But now the headlines are trying to shave this down to $1.6-trillion ... so far ...
Leads me to believe that our "war" is in worse shape that hollywood! And, they haven't had a hit in a long time.
Where did all the real news ... "go?"
By the way, the CIvil War was so poorly done ... and victory over Lee was within the grasp of grant ... at least ten months before he finally achieved this. (And, the slow-downs were due to ineptitudes on such a grand scale. That if you knew what they were ... Your jaw would drop.)
Yeah. So many times when things erupt in chaos ... they take longer to solve than they should.
And, we haven't solved very much ... Having removed Saddam's head. But not the head saudi's. While we know who gave us 9/11!
You don't think things about this "wrong turn" have nothing to do with water boarding? But everything to do with a twist and a tie between two families. One in DC. And, one in Riydh. Owning the world's fortunes between them.
And, you don't expect that there's gonna be severe fighting, ahead, that has to do with oil reserves. And, people living over these reserves ...who just happen to have grown into really hating our guts.
By the way, what is truly sad is that the Bonkeys are no closer to the truth ... than anything you've been told by those who work for Baker, Botts & Moneybags.
It's a sad day.
Sad years.
And, probably more to come.
Next time, out, though. When we get into a fight. I hope we push the namby-pamby swivel chair turkeys in the pentagon ... to hell and gone. FIRST. And, then? Oh, we have the power to get very, very serious. No one terroristat a time, either.
Even during the Civil War, turkeys existed. That's why, even like now, there was Thanksgiving. You'd be amazed to know that. Everyone ate turkey in those days, not just the Generals or the President.
People with oil do indeed hate our guts. Just look at the Greeks and Italians. They think we are Bluto, just like Popeye did. And I'm not sure we torture terrorists because the Saudis want us to. I think it's because it disses John McCain and helps John Kerry should he decide to run against McCain again.
Yes, it is a sad day. Sad years. And more to come. But look, there's a new sun on the horizon, and it's winking at you. A sun that cost a bargain at $3 trillion dollars, even though our defense contractors claim to have built it for a bit more than half that.
And the Bonkeys of Irak --- are they related to the Donkeys of America? If so, are the Donkeys all illegal immigrants, or is there some other twist or tie betwixt them?
This isn't a cruel joke.