Obama says torturers may face prosecution - Page 2 - Cannabis Forums Message Boards - Medical Marijuana, Cannabis Club, Dispensary, News

gypski · #26 (**permalink**) Apr-24-2009, 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by justanotherbozo

and when they're done laughing at the stupid Americans and their stupid rules,
they'll just behead our troops.

Although there may be a glimmer of reality in that, and looking at what occurred at Falluja with the Blackwater people, and David Burg, it could be possible. Does that mean we have to stoop to that level of barbarity? Could you behead a person without tossing your guts? If your into torture, you better lay off the medication. Its taking you in the wrong direction.

Take this personal torture test and see if you approve. Get some pepper spray and spray it on your ass, or have a friend do it and record your reaction. Or have a friend tie your hands and feet, put you on your stomach, then take a rope and tie your feet and hand together. Hog tie you up tight and see how long you last.

Record this too for Youtube, then come back and tell us how you still support torture of underlings and other low levels with no actionable intelligence but what ever you want them to admit to.

JaggedEdge · #27 (**permalink**) Apr-24-2009, 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by epxroot

How do you know it has?

I don't, my main point here is that Obama hurt our national security by releasing the documents. If he wanted to end it fine, he doesn't need to make a publicity stunt and release secrets to the entire world and our enemies.

Quote:

So, if our own soldiers are war prisoners, or enemies of the state, then it would be OK to torture American Soldiers?

Our soldiers are protected under the Geneva Convention. When we start strapping bombs to our chests, than we can compare us to them.

Quote:

Because you lead by example. Do you not remember what our Government did to it's own citizens? The tuskegee experiment, ruby ridge, waco, rainbow farms, japanese during ww2, war on drugs, and the list goes on and on. Do you think our "Leaders" give a shit about us?

Of course our government has done some shitty things to Americans as well. Simply because we allow torture of foreign terrorists doesn't mean it will be used against us, when that happens than I will change my stance, I feel that is unlikely though.

higher4hockey · #28 (**permalink**) Apr-24-2009, 15:28

So I guess obamas plan is to close down gitmo, pull the troops out of Iraq, and prosecute Americans for fighting the war on terror ? goodness.

JaggedEdge · #29 (**permalink**) Apr-24-2009, 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by higher4hockey

So I guess obamas plan is to close down gitmo, pull the troops out of Iraq, and prosecute Americans for fighting the war on terror ? goodness.

I read an article several days ago about American soldiers who were lost and separated from their unit. They came across an Iraqi teen, they became worried for their safety, and deliberated as to if they should kill the Iraqi. They decided not to kill him out of fear of a shit storm being started and them being prosecuted. As it turned out, the kid gave their position to the enemy.

Why do we not protect our citizens and soldiers first and than worry about the rest of the world?

higher4hockey · #30 (**permalink**) Apr-24-2009, 15:54

same thing happened in afghanistan. the book lone survivor tells all about it.

i just got back from iraq, and believe me, its ridiculous. there's a saying over there. "its better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six"

JaggedEdge · #31 (**permalink**) Apr-24-2009, 16:10

While we are on this subject, let's clarify what these techniques entailed. They way people are talking you would think we are using medieval tactics.

Set the Record Straight: Publish All Key Memos on CIA Interrogations

Quote:

What the Memos Reveal

Quote:

While many media accounts portrayed the memos as evidence that interrogation practices were both illegal and ineffective and therefore an indictment of Bush policies, others disagree.

For example, after analyzing the memos, David Rivkin and Lee Casey concluded in The Wall Street Journal, "The four memos on CIA interrogation released by the White House last week reveal a cautious and conservative Justice Department advising a CIA that cared deeply about staying within the law. Far from 'green lighting' torture--or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees--the memos detail the actual techniques used and the many measures taken to ensure that interrogations did not cause severe pain or degradation."[2]

Quote:

What has not been released, however, is all the other relevant information about the program that would help Americans better understand both how it worked and how effective it was.

While The Washington Post reported that "Justice Department documents released yesterday offer the fullest account to date of Bush administration interrogation tactics, including previously unacknowledged strategies,"[3] it failed to note that many key details about the program, including those that might put interrogation policies in a more favorable light, were not disclosed.

For example, former Vice President Cheney noted in an interview, "One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort."[4] The Vice President stated that he had previously asked for the declassification of additional memos. In recent press interviews, he renewed his request.

Here is an article pointing out the misinformation about Walling.

The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture - WSJ.com

Quote:

The four memos on CIA interrogation released by the White House last week reveal a cautious and conservative Justice Department advising a CIA that cared deeply about staying within the law. Far from "green lighting" torture -- or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees -- the memos detail the actual techniques used and the many measures taken to ensure that interrogations did not cause severe pain or degradation.

Interrogations were to be "continuously monitored" and "the interrogation team will stop the use of particular techniques or the interrogation altogether if the detainee's medical or psychological conditions indicates that the detainee might suffer significant physical or mental harm."
An Aug. 1, 2002, memo describes the practice of "walling" -- recently revealed in a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which suggested that detainees wore a "collar" used to "forcefully bang the head and body against the wall" before and during interrogation. In fact, detainees were placed with their backs to a "flexible false wall," designed to avoid inflicting painful injury. Their shoulder blades -- not head -- were the point of contact, and the "collar" was used not to give additional force to a blow, but further to protect the neck.

The memo says the point was to inflict psychological uncertainty, not physical pain: "the idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and that will be far worse than any injury that might result from the action."

Shackling and confinement in a small space (generally used to create discomfort and muscle fatigue) were also part of the CIA program, but they were subject to stringent time and manner limitations. Abu Zubaydah (a top bin Laden lieutenant) had a fear of insects. He was, therefore, to be put in a "cramped confinement box" and told a stinging insect would be put in the box with him. In fact, the CIA proposed to use a harmless caterpillar. Confinement was limited to two hours.

The memos are also revealing about the practice of "waterboarding," about which there has been so much speculative rage from the program's opponents. The practice, used on only three individuals, involved covering the nose and mouth with a cloth and pouring water over the cloth to create a drowning sensation.

This technique could be used for up to 40 seconds -- although the CIA orally informed Justice Department lawyers that it would likely not be used for more than 20 seconds at a time. Unlike the exaggerated claims of so many Bush critics, the memos make clear that water was not actually expected to enter the detainee's lungs, and that measures were put in place to prevent complications if this did happen and to ensure that the individual did not develop respiratory distress.

All of these interrogation methods have been adapted from the U.S. military's own Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (or SERE) training program, and have been used for years on thousands of American service members with the full knowledge of Congress. This has created a large body of information about the effect of these techniques, on which the CIA was able to draw in assessing the likely impact on the detainees and ensuring that no severe pain or long term psychological impact would result.

The actual intelligence benefits of the CIA program are also detailed in these memos. The CIA believed, evidently with good reason, that the enhanced interrogation program had indeed produced actionable intelligence about al Qaeda's plans. First among the resulting successes was the prevention of a "second wave" of al Qaeda attacks, to be carried out by an "east Asian" affiliate, which would have involved the crashing of another airplane into a building in Los Angeles.

The interrogation techniques described in these memos are indisputably harsh, but they fall well short of "torture." They were developed and deployed at a time of supreme peril, as a means of preventing future attacks on innocent civilians both in the U.S. and abroad.
The dedicated public servants at the CIA and Justice Department -- who even the Obama administration has concluded should not be prosecuted -- clearly cared intensely about staying within the law as well as protecting the American homeland. These memos suggest that they achieved both goals in a manner fully consistent with American values.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, who served in the Justice Department under George H.W. Bush, were U.S. delegates to the U.N. Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

We are talking about psychological tactics not physical and barbaric torture here.

JaggedEdge · #32 (**permalink**) Apr-24-2009, 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by higher4hockey

same thing happened in afghanistan. the book lone survivor tells all about it.

i just got back from iraq, and believe me, its ridiculous. there's a saying over there. "its better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six"

That's what it was actually, an article about that book.

gypski · #33 (**permalink**) Apr-24-2009, 19:00

Well, since some approve of torture, you in the military, if you happen to get captured look forward to this and even more drastic measures. Remember the old adage, what goes around, comes around. And I'm not defending any one just denouncing torture in any form as a wasted form of gaining information.

Try this at home on yourself and let us all know how it is not torture but just a little extreme stress.

The Raw Story | Suit: Torture began before Bush administration sanctioned it

justanotherbozo · #34 (**permalink**) Apr-24-2009, 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by gypski

Well, since some approve of torture, you in the military, if you happen to get captured look forward to this and even more drastic measures. Remember the old adage, what goes around, comes around. And I'm not defending any one just denouncing torture in any form as a wasted form of gaining information.

Try this at home on yourself and let us all know how it is not torture but just a little extreme stress.

The Raw Story | Suit: Torture began before Bush administration sanctioned it

shit man! they're already cuttin' off our fuckin' heads man, what worse could they do?
by your own argument, we're just givin' back what they gave us, only not nearly as brutally.

you should think long and hard and try to understand that freedom isn't free,
sometimes it takes harsh action. it's easy to 'do unto others as you would have
them do unto you' when you're dealing with reasonable people but when you are
talking about people willing to blow themselves up to get you, well then you have
to 'do unto others before they do unto you', or you're dead.

like it says in higher4hockey's sig, this is the land of the free because of the brave.

maybe you should listen to veterans like higher4hockey and the family's of
those that died on 9\11 rather than Nancy Pelosi.

or not, that's the beauty of America, you're entitled to any opinion you want,
as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else for you to have it. just remember though,
the Kool-Aid is to the left.

apocolips31 · #35 (**permalink**) Apr-25-2009, 09:01

Well just look at that! Obama done did it again......

epxroot · #36 (**permalink**) Apr-25-2009, 09:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

I don't, my main point here is that Obama hurt our national security by releasing the documents. If he wanted to end it fine, he doesn't need to make a publicity stunt and release secrets to the entire world and our enemies.

In what way has our "national security" been hurt?

Quote:

Our soldiers are protected under the Geneva Convention. When we start strapping bombs to our chests, than we can compare us to them.

If you were in a third world country with no military, or billions to spend on weapons to kill, how would you fight an empire?

Quote:

Of course our government has done some shitty things to Americans as well. Simply because we allow torture of foreign terrorists doesn't mean it will be used against us, when that happens than I will change my stance, I feel that is unlikely though.

So, you want to wait until it happens?

epxroot · #37 (**permalink**) Apr-25-2009, 09:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

While we are on this subject, let's clarify what these techniques entailed. They way people are talking you would think we are using medieval tactics.

Set the Record Straight: Publish All Key Memos on CIA Interrogations

Here is an article pointing out the misinformation about Walling.

The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture - WSJ.com

We are talking about psychological tactics not physical and barbaric torture here.

Well, I will not attack the source, but you do understand that WSJ is a right wing paper correct? Anyway, back to "Torture". Are you saying that just because this is not about physical, or barbaric tactics, and it is just psychological, that it is OK? I would rather have physical torture performed on me, than psychological.

gypski · #38 (**permalink**) Apr-25-2009, 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by justanotherbozo

shit man! they're already cuttin' off our fuckin' heads man, what worse could they do?
by your own argument, we're just givin' back what they gave us, only not nearly as brutally.

you should think long and hard and try to understand that freedom isn't free,
sometimes it takes harsh action. it's easy to 'do unto others as you would have
them do unto you' when you're dealing with reasonable people but when you are
talking about people willing to blow themselves up to get you, well then you have
to 'do unto others before they do unto you', or you're dead.

like it says in higher4hockey's sig, this is the land of the free because of the brave.

maybe you should listen to veterans like higher4hockey and the family's of
those that died on 9\11 rather than Nancy Pelosi.

or not, that's the beauty of America, you're entitled to any opinion you want,
as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else for you to have it. just remember though,
the Kool-Aid is to the left.

Before you give me the patriotic speech, I'm an ex-Marine and I know all about war and its results. We didn't start cutting off heads and won't make it part of our rules of engagement. Sorry, but if you had been a troop under me and tried some attrocites, I have you up on charges. Discipline is needed on the battle field, not a bunch of maniacs.

I'm more concerned about our own troops killing themselves after they've come back home. Quit drinking the righty kool-aid on Fox. Its hazardous for one's health.

psychocat · #39 (**permalink**) Apr-25-2009, 16:23

The main problem with the "look what they're doing to our boys" argument is the simple fact that "our boys" shouldn't have been there in the first place.

JaggedEdge · #40 (**permalink**) Apr-26-2009, 01:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychocat

The main problem with the "look what they're doing to our boys" argument is the simple fact that "our boys" shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Which place are you referring to? Afghanistan or Iraq?

Seeing as an organization responsible for attacking Americans on American soil is located in Afghanistan, our army had every right to retaliate and try to eliminate the enemy. I am afraid Afghanistan will turn into our modern day Vietnam though.

Now if you are referring to Iraq. We overthrew a dictator who was responsible for ordering the murder of 148 Shiites. So, although I don't exactly agree with this war, it is certainly justifiable on a moral level. It is also hard to blame Bush for the intelligence he acted on. Many reports from several different nations all said Iraq had WMD's, not to mention, historically they have had them.

boaz · #41 (**permalink**) Apr-26-2009, 11:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by higher4hockey

..."its better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six"

words of wisdom, eh? we didn't invent democracy and the rule of law but its working out pretty well for us here in the US. i'm glad to see it starting to take root in Iraq, too.

boaz · #42 (**permalink**) Apr-26-2009, 11:20

"We are America, we don't fucking torture". Fox News Network

psychocat · #43 (**permalink**) Apr-26-2009, 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

Which place are you referring to? Afghanistan or Iraq?

Seeing as an organization responsible for attacking Americans on American soil is located in Afghanistan, our army had every right to retaliate and try to eliminate the enemy. I am afraid Afghanistan will turn into our modern day Vietnam though.

Now if you are referring to Iraq. We overthrew a dictator who was responsible for ordering the murder of 148 Shiites. So, although I don't exactly agree with this war, it is certainly justifiable on a moral level. It is also hard to blame Bush for the intelligence he acted on. Many reports from several different nations all said Iraq had WMD's, not to mention, historically they have had them.

The reasons you give are complete bollocks.
The nationalities of those who attacked America had absolutely nothing to do with any one country and since the majority were Saudis I would say we are well off our target area.
WMDs is the biggest joke around, it was always a bullshit excuse.
The support for Saddam when he was doing what the US wished is so easily forgotten isn't it.

However this is all off topic since the question is a very simple one.

Can any country that denounces torture then uses it themselves be considered as any better than those they denounce ?

The only logical answer is NO.

yokinazu · #44 (**permalink**) Apr-27-2009, 08:06

its all propaganda.

we aint endin dick but we are goin to make it huge news that we are goin to. we'll close gitmo but we'll open another facility in someother shitty part of the world and waterboard the fuck outa these prisoners far away from the press. but we are goin to make a big show of closing the prisons, prosicuting the torturers and the like.

dossantos · #45 (**permalink**) Apr-27-2009, 10:04

Im not going to slate america..
America has contributed so much to the world..
Without the US we would not have all the beautiful strains of weed..

But ye guys over react.. The strange thing about 9/11 was the hysterical reaction..
On websites tv etc.. it was like watching the nazis in the 30's.. All chanting USA USA.. Crazy for revenge.. Baying for blood... And with a lunatic at the helm..(GWB)..
A couple of thousand people got killed...
In europe and the middle east people have got used of war and bombs...

Was it that much of a shock that after years of doing what u wanted around the world somebody kicked back..
The big suprise for me is that this has not happenned more often..
2 times.. Pearl Harbour and 9/11..

I think Obama has to be good for the world..
He has improved the image of the US...
He has got a real positive image in Europe and i think it really is time for change...
The world wants to love the US..
Its where most of us look to for clothes, tv, movies, music etc..

Peace and Love all...

Cannabis 2012 "The year of the Leaf"...

justanotherbozo · #46 (**permalink**) Apr-27-2009, 10:09

kool-aid to the left

JaggedEdge · #47 (**permalink**) Apr-27-2009, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by dossantos

But ye guys over react.. The strange thing about 9/11 was the hysterical reaction..
On websites tv etc.. it was like watching the nazis in the 30's.. All chanting USA USA.. Crazy for revenge.. Baying for blood... And with a lunatic at the helm..(GWB)..
A couple of thousand people got killed...
In europe and the middle east people have got used of war and bombs...

Simply because other countries are to pussified to retaliate doesn't mean America should follow Europe's lead.

Quote:

Was it that much of a shock that after years of doing what u wanted around the world somebody kicked back..

And European countries haven't done the same throughout history?

Quote:

The big suprise for me is that this has not happenned more often..
2 times.. Pearl Harbour and 9/11..

And both times America was quick to respond. It sends the message to enemies that if they are going to bomb American soil, they better deliver a crushing blow in that initial attack or face the wrath of our armed forces. I have been very interested in American history, and I'm certain our founders would support our retaliatory actions.

Quote:

I think Obama has to be good for the world..
He has improved the image of the US...
He has got a real positive image in Europe and i think it really is time for change...

Why the fuck should we care what Europe thinks of us? And why the hell is he apologizing for the U.S. over there? We have given a lot of great things to the world community in our short reign as a nation. Yet we are apologizing. WTF? What exactly do we have to apologize for? I didn't realize these European nations had such a respectable track record.

Obama needs to be good for America, not the world. He is our goddamn leader, so he better start acting in our best fucking interest before we have 1776 part II.

Quote:

world wants to love the US..
Its where most of us look to for clothes, tv, movies, music etc..

No they don't. We donate more money to other nations than any other country, but nobody gives a shit. People love hating America. Our President sure as hell shouldn't be apologizing to the rest of the world on our behalf. We have nothing to apologize for! Our history certainly isn't completely clean, but nobodies is!

And the rest of the world doesn't seem to like him that much. They didn't seem to appreciate him pushing for them to give massive stimulus packages to their people. I know for a fact German and French leaders have publicly expressed their anger and annoyance at him in the past month or so.

higher4hockey · #48 (**permalink**) Apr-27-2009, 17:31

^yeah!!

justanotherbozo · #49 (**permalink**) Apr-27-2009, 17:46

what he said !

psychocat · #50 (**permalink**) Apr-27-2009, 17:47

A simple question of logic dictates that if torture is wrong for others to commit (this is something all civilised societies agree) then it is wrong no matter who is doing it.

Twist and whine all you want but the truth is you can't take the moral highground as a hypocrite.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode