Listen to the terrorists themselves. They want a worldwide caliphate (all taliban-like theistic governments) and have posted a 100 year plan to carry this out. This is spiritual to those who follow it. While we debate the line where talk ends and torture starts they're plotting to destroy us and/or our near decendants and that's no myth. Next time we may not fare as well as post 911. They watch us bicker and infight and remain persistent. There is no issue larger than this war.
These are a tiny group of thugs that caught Bush with his pants down. They are about as big a threat as American skinheads. They are about as hard to catch as the Mafia. It's amazing how you are so scared of them that you would let them dictate all your morals. You just be a really weak person to sell out your national values so easily.
Bush was talking about the Geneva Convention while his admin. were already torturing people. Murderers in US jails cannot be tortured legally. You can't even torture an animal by law. It's not just about the victim, it's also about being part of a civilised, ethical nation.
---
My comment regarding the Geneva Convention was that terrorists don't abide by it so legally they are not protected by it either. I don't condone the maiming and killing of them and do condone trials first.
As for President Bush's "already torturing people." Sexual deviants at Abu Graib humiliated known terrorists and was considered a perverted scandal and prosecutions were made. The terrorists cut heads off live victims and we have heard as much as a single apology. If I were a prisoner I would take a bit of humiliation over maiming and killing any day! Oh, and our government has even released some prisoners, trying to be politically correct, and they killed again! Now that's smart.
You have no idea what you are talking about. There were no sexual deviants at Aby Ghraib. There were soldiers following orders based on a policy. You have no information to claim that all prisoners abused there were "known terrorists." You are pulling that out of your ass.
Casually talking about being humiliated and abused because it's better than being maimed of killed? This is obviously all so abstract to you that it's revolting. You would rather win an argument than be human.
Sir you are wrong. The Red Cross is in fact the world athority on the definition of torture. Study more , preach less. You are a pompous ass. Japan waterboarded American POWs and it was branded torture. By our own definition we tortured.
Terrorists are real, but the fear of terrorists is the boogey man because it creates a myth like sense of urgency and willingness to compromise. There are at least a million things you will die from before a terrorist attack. . . even if we didn't do anything in this war on terror. You have a better chance of choking to death on a pickle.. . but terrorists make people more panicked and willing to give up everything to be safe.
---- Nope. If it were we would not be having this debate over the dividing line where asking questions (interrogation) ends and torture begins. My personal dividing line is that torture surely begins with maiming and ends with death (murder). This is not just a matter of word play or symantics. Interrogators in war need answers to save innocent lives. How many attacks have been thwarted? Lives saved? My guess...numerous.
Waterboarding was defined as tortrure by the USA when convicting Japanese interrogators from WW2. It has now been established that we waterboarded one guy 183 times in a month and another 80 times.
We tortured by our own standards.
How can we trust that any information we were told about a guy they tortured 183 times is true? I bet if I could waterboard you 183 times you would be the mastermind of 9/11 by the 20th time.
Just because a lawyer thinks you might be able to loophole this and bend that in the law doesn't meant they are right. Legal advice can be motivated by politics and it can be wrong.
--
I agree. Legal advice is motivated by politics (ref party platforms for their worldviews). What then, should we not have consulted with legal? Nope, that's irresponsible too. Let's not try to oversimplify a complex issue through emotion. Emotional decisions are usually wrong headed ones.
Why am I being accused of acting on my emotions when the only excuse anyone in this thread can come up with for torturing people is revenge? Nobody has proven yet that ANY information they got from torture stopped anything.. . so without that what's left? Revenge. Emotion, that's what. The law protects us from emotional reactions. That's why we follow it.
What? Did you read what you just wrote? That's license to do just about anything.
If information doesn't prove to be true there is no safety for that sacrifice of liberty is there? You don't sacrifice liberty "just in case" it might make us safer. You could do that all day long to thousands of people. It's insane logic. If they torture a guy 183 times and the only good information came out before the torture began. . . that's not a fair trade is it?
they aren't relying on the argument having to be true... they're erring on the side of safety in hopes that safety is coming out of what they're doing. so, yes, they are sacrificing liberty "just in case" it makes them safer.
how is it insane logic? taken to the extreme, it definitely does have dangerous implications- but how is it insane? it could very possibly be helping the US' objectives
Torture has been very clearly defined and it has nothing to do with the person dying. The whole point of torture us that the person needs to be kept alive.
---
Actually, cutting a person's head off while they are alive, for effect and information, would also be defined as torture.
Bush had a lot to say when Saddam's interrogrators gave one of the US captured airmen from 'shock and Awe' a black eye.' To ask them any more than their name and number is against the Geneva Covention" said he on TV- unbelievable isn't it, on retrospect. No US president can get up and talk of the Geneva Convention again thanks to him. Obama is a 'bait and switch' deal.
Yes. A big justification for invading Iraq was that Saddam was an evil man who gassed his own people and tortured his prisoners.
Torture was front and center in the reasons why he had to be taken down. It also played a role in his death sentence under the Iraqi legal system the US set up for him.
Yes and there are volumes of proofs and testimonies of the maiming and death that his "torture" brought on. I have not heard of one US maiming or death incident -- if there was he/she would be in jail.
The two examples are like apples and oranges. President G. W. Bush was correct in bringing up the Geneva Convention to a world leader (most world leaders signed on to the Geneva Convention). Terrorists are not affliated with a single nation state and are not signed on to the Geneva Convention. In fact they are in direct opposition to it in targeting innocent civilians to inculcate fear.
---
Yes. Presidents can still speak of the Geneva Convention with their heads held high.
European rebels were constantly staging attacks against German targets both soft and hard. Their countries had surrendered. They were not operating on behalf of any nation.
How should they have been treated when they were captured by the Germans?
as to defining torture, we called waterboarding torture when Japan used the technique on American P.O.W.s. The world authority on torture( The Red Cross)
has stated that indeed toryure was performed on detainees at Gitmo and Abu
The Red Cross does respectable work, but they are not the "world authority" on the definition of torture. I'm sure they'd like everyone to stop fighting and this is noble, but not likely with evil in the world. As for waterboarding, it runs shy (albeit just shy) of maiming and killing. The reality is that all governments likely use psychological tools like waterboarding to get needed answers, but humane people will stop there and not maime or kill their prisoners.
Waterboarding was defined as torture in our own prosecutions against Japanese Interrogators.
Maiming and killing are not the measuring point for torture. The Bush team tried to define it that way when they were justifying it, but it's not. That definition has been widely debunked by legal scholars left and right. It's sort of a red herring.
Quite a rant. Although some tactics were indeed harsh not one of the detainees has been killed to my knowledge. But it is common knowledge that terrorists were cutting the heads off their victims. As for the law I agree. That is why everyone one of the procedures was run through the legal department. If someone pats you on the head 10 times that could be considered torture too. Defining "torture" is something that can be debated, but clearly cutting heads off qualifies.
The legal analysis you cite proves to be faultier and faultier. The dissenting views were snuffed out by a select few in power who truly desired to proceed with said tactics. It has NOTHING to do with proper lawyering and studying the issue. Time and the news will bear this out.
Perhaps consider getting your news from news sources that exclude MSM (CNN, FOX, MSNBC) because you won't learn very much there. You will, however, be saturated with talking heads lobbying for their masters.
Torture has been very clearly defined and it has nothing to do with the person dying. The whole point of torture us that the person needs to be kept alive.
Just because a lawyer thinks you might be able to loophole this and bend that in the law doesn't meant they are right. Legal advice can be motivated by politics and it can be wrong.
Yes. That is why the terrorists are "punished" for answers. There is a clear distinction between punishing warfighters and their punishing innocents. The two are not equal.
Do you have any evidence that the information we got from "punishing people for answers" led to any good answers? From what I understand, most of the usable information in these documented cases was gained before the "enhanced interrogation" began.
As I also understand it, there is now evidence that they even began "punishing for the answers" they wanted, regarding Iraq connections, rather than just looking for the truth. How do you feel about that?
Upholding the law is tantamount? So this guy would want potheads prosecuted I imagine, and also illegal immigrants??? Give me a break, at least admit your cherry pickling those laws you agree with and those you don't.... Obama now owns our national security, let's hope he is right (I don't think he is) for our safety's sake...
Yes. If Potheads get caught, they face the consequences. They know right from the start that they are taking a risk and they accept the risk. The law is the law until it is changed. There is no judge or jury that decides "we shouldn't be looking at the past. . we need to move forward. . " when it comes to bustng and convicting potheads.
Yet, this excuse is fine is when it comes to massive government corruption at the highest levels?
"this is what i don't get. if it were any other people who did this kind of stuff, we wouldn't even be arguing over whether there should be prosecutions. we would be demanding prosecutions ... if this were another country that tortured our people, we would be going to war over punishing the people that authorized it"
Yeah man this is good. I see your point. You know I really get sad when I watch to much cnn. I enjoy two and a half men. I really like allan the dorky brother. He's such a good actor becuse he really makes me hate him. Charlie pretty much just plays himself but he's still good. I'd like to see some guys go to the slammer for the touture thing too ya know. It makes me sad becuse I don't think those guys go after guys that are in the same club. There's like a code I bet. Anyway, keep it up!
The only reason I could agree they should "drop it" is because of the circus it would create. You know how much that would distract the idiot masses and would divide us even more. So I know it may bring justice, we as a country would be hurt in it wake. But I can see an easy argument for going ahead so if you disagree with me you are also right! So there!
Every American has the right to debate the issue and petition the government with their personal definition of torture. But, be careful what you ask for. Without intense interrogations we might not physically survive as a country (many attacks are thwarted each year). It is a dangerous world. And don't think that just the GOP is caught in this issue. The Democrats will use intense interrogations too (perhaps new or different ones) or they will lose power after we are attacked.
It seems like another really big leap to me to decide that Terrorists are some uber evil that we have never seen in the history of civilization. Terrorism is just a modern version of guerrilla warfare. The early Americans did it to the redcoats, the Irish did too, the Japanese were running airplanes into targets and Civilians were being bombed in WW2.
In the war of 1812 the enemy marched into Washington and burned down the Whitehouse. We've been through worse without selling our soul.
"The early Americans did it to the redcoats, the Irish did too, the Japanese were running airplanes into targets and Civilians were being bombed in WW2."
i wouldn't necessarily say that those examples are applicable to the current situation... considering that terrorists technically don't represent a government and that they aren't technically in war
The Early Americans were rebels. Their "government" wasn't recognized. The IRA didn't represent Ireland, they represented Irish independence from occupation much like Palistinian groups want their independence from occupation. Japan is about the only example that fits your rebuttal. Japan water boarded their prisoners and the interrogators, at the insistence of the USA, were given trials and got either the death penalty or hard labor for many years for doing it.
on the american one, i'll just argue that the early americans didn't have a focus of attacking great britain (of course, i could be wrong, and they could totally have wanted to attack britain)
You might presume this; however, I would presume that Ex Vice President Cheney would feel it's a violation to hold an "innocent" journalist (male or female) for a clear political aim. Do you see a thread here...innocents versus terrorists? People, don't you know good from evil anymore?
Aren't you jumping to a really big conclusion by assuming every person captured and tortured was a terrorist? This is my big fear. It seems like it is really easy to brand the word "terrorist" all over an argument. It makes it all some abstract evil that we are free to be sadistic against.
The whole point in this is that when you get sadistic with evil people you also do it to innocent people caught up in it. The law is there to restrain our revenge in the name of innocent people.
I would agree that their shoudl be justice for the victims! We should fully investigate 9-11! DId you know that the 9-11 commission report stated that the source of the funding of the attacks was not known and ultimately of little or no significance? Did you know that only a few days ago, senior counsel to the 9-11 commision John Farmer wrote in his book The Ground Truth that the American public "seriously misled about the events of September 11." Has anyone been charged for the crimes of 911?
Oh wow. . . I never thought of 9/11. Thanks for pointing that out. It never occured to me that everyone who has ever been rounded up in this have all been the 9/11 killers. Man. . . I wish I had that kind of ESP. We wouldn't need any justice system at all. We could just use your psychic powers to put every criminal to death and save the world. . .
Oh, please explain how waterboarding a known al-Qaida terrorist to prevent further attacks is the same as al-Qaida killing thousands of people in terror attacks...
They must be the same, since you claim it reduces us to the level of terrorists...
If Al-Qaeda were doing it to our guys, it would be torture! It is torture when we do it too. We have to be consistent for our arguments to make sense. Besides how many of the people we've tortured have been convicted of anything?
This is a loaded statement. It's like asking the question are you ignorant or stupid? Define your argument for the debate please. I'd be interested in hearing a more thought out response.
Ok, let me simplify it for you: WRONG IS WRONG!! Dosen't matter who is doing it. I don't need a complicated argument for that. If you have been terrorized into thinking that torture is necessary to fight these bogeymen, then obviously terrorism has worked on you. Now you need to ask who benefits from you thinking this way. (Hint: The most important tool of the pentagon is psychological or information warfare. You owe it to yourself to at least ASK if its being used on us.)
If you knew anyone had information about harm that is going to occur to another person I can see the desire to get the information out of them any way you can. A kidnapper, a guy that knows about a coming bank robbery, a guy that knows where a killer is held up. Every day our law enforcement could use these techniques to get information. We don't allow that because we are better then that and we have the rule of law. You think Sodom Hussein was right when he used torture to get information?
You talk a good game. But you're all bombast and no substance. Were you to be the "recipient" of the combination of "enhanced interrogation techniques" for a few days, you would change your tune mighty fast.
What we personally want done and what the law allows are completely different. There was a time when the people were allowed to create their own idea of justice based on emotions and revenge impulses. It was called the law of the jungle during the stone age.
The US helped provided him with his gas and had no problem with him torturing anyone until he went into Kuwait. There was NO justification for the invasion of Iraq. US foreign policy is not determined by what dictators do to their people, only by how US interests are affected. The US media is then employed to parade forth the usual victims to gain public sympathy, they are only pawns. Wake-up to reality, they have the wool pulled over your eyes.
You will need to study your history and geopolitics. There were imporant US interests (allies) in the region that were under an imminent threat. We are not a perfect country, but I would put our record up against all others and ours is only 233 yrs old.
I agree, emotionally, when I saw that terrorists were cutting the heads off Americans I felt they were cutting heads off my family members. If people want to get angry with anyone let's get angry at the enemy! Anyone angry with the enemy anymore or is it just easier to lash out at ourselves? Don't base your decisions on emotion. I don't think that what you want and the US law are much different. The law wanted to protect innocent people without maiming and killing and it is successful.
The "American People", the sane majority anyway, did not want or approve torture. We know it is unproductive. Do you really think it is about extracting information after the fourth or fifth simulated drowning? After the 83d time? After the 183d time? At that point it is torture for sport or for retribution or I don't know what!
And CIA officers should not be prosecuted for carrying out the will of the American people. I am an American soldier serving in Iraq. Should I be prosecuted for being a part of an "illegal war". Going after the CIA interregators is like going after Soldiers for fighting the fucking war.
When was it the will of the American people to sweep up hundreds of people in poorly targetted sweeps and continue to torture and detain then, after it was obvious there was no evidence, and in some cases they'd been sold to the Americans for money or to settle a grudge? The guys who tortured innocent men like Murat Kurnaz. Mahrer Ahrar, etc are criminals. Part of the 'evidence' used to get support for the Iraq war, was a false confession obtained under torture.
Your right, lets go after the people who put you in that illegal war and those who authorized and tried to legitimize the torture that has killed so many of our people through retribution.
Say this shit on September 12th 2001. There was a time when the majority in this country wanted terrorists tortured. Thats the problem in your argument. You see it as the Bush administration wanting terrorists tortured. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE wanted these guys tortured. The American people REELECTED Bush in 2004 BECAUSE he was taking the hard line with terrorists. A few years later people's tempers have cooled and their fears have eased and now they feel bad about it.
I see, so it's the Presidents job to ignore the law and cater to all the normal revenge fantasies that the law was designed to temper. The CIA is just the arm of the unrestrained animal passions of American's. Is that what you are saying?
I thought the whole point of our representative democracy was to prevent exactly that kind of mob rule?
First of all Atralis, it isn't as "cut and dry" as you make it to be. You talk as if GWBush won both elections by landslides. It is highly debatable GWBush won the 2004 presidential election in that a wide amount of voter fraud went unreported by our illustrious Mainstream Media, though it was reported by the BBC, caging lists used by the RNC (see "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast. (Let's not even talk about the 2000 election).
Sad. It's 2009 and some just can't get over the fact that their party did not get elected for two terms. It happens. The rules were set before the election and the loser wanted to change the rules when he didn't like the outcome. Sorry. It just doesn't work that way, for anyone, that is fair. The rules are that it is the electoral college and not the popular vote that wins elections and for a good reason (citizens in small states would have no voice).
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm over the past elections. But as I said in my reply to you I don't forget when deceit is employed. Again, read the chapter on election caging in Palast's book then we'll talk. (BTW I never said I was advocating popular vote over electoral in my previous comments.) Happy reading.
Torture is torture no matter if the person you're torturing is representing a 'state' or not. It's not about the status of the person tortured. Bush was talking about the Geneva Convention while his admin. were already torturing people. Murderers in US jails cannot be tortured legally. You can't even torture an animal by law. It's not just about the victim, it's also about being part of a civilised, ethical nation.
We ARE a country of laws. We have signed treaties binding us to uphold certain minimum standards of treatment. (Read a bit of history: The Atlantic Charter, The United Nations Charter, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights... just to name a few.)
Many Americans have lost their way, blinded by what they call "American Exceptionalism" which, in my view, is just a gross excuse of extreme hubris, the attempt to justify an unfettered license to go against what has, up until the last 8 years, been a more solid commitment to human rights.
I am an American. And I can tell you without reservation that I NEVER wanted terrorists tortured.
Total "Exceptionalism" may be hubris, but so is your arguement. President Bush did not justify "unfettered" license. And neither will President Obama when he has to allow intense interrogations. Spin is in the eye of the beholder I see.
yo fuck you all narrow minded punks, these muslim terrorists want to kill you and every other westener,, torture was not only correct but NECESSARY, if you dont like it GET UR ASS TO EUROPE, you might like their extremist liberal and moslem appeasing goverments,,, and get yourself blown up there sooner or later!!!
I'm IN EUROPE, and I can tell you that your views are based on little more than fearmongering. Most of what's called 'terrorism' in Iraq is Iraqi people fighting back against occupation. Al Qaeda is a tiny organisation, and most of the inmates of GITMO weren't in it. A few were, and deserve trial and jail, the rest got held on false secret evidence and got tortured. If you can't see that's wrong, I can't help you.
That's quite an ignorant argument ncsyer, and it only shows that you haven't done any research or put any thought into the topic. Despite the fact that I'm almost positive that you'd never listen to reason, you should understand:
1. Some who were tortured were teenage boys.
2. They got the info prior to torturing.
3. Read "How to break a terrorist" by M. Alexander
4. It's far more likely that a US soldier will be tortured.
5. You get false info quite frequently, it's not efficient
hell, the progressives won the election; why worry about stepping on the toes of right wing thugs and hacks. Give them what they deserve; i don't care if O needs them for his health insurance plan... the way they are acting now, they should lose in 2010, and we should have well over 60 votes.
If O speaks for the people, he and Rahm should stop playing games.
I understand what you're saying, but the situation is a bit different. Obama finally has some positive foreign relationships, I think he is right in trying to move on from it. It is obvious he is a different president than our last and he wont stoop to those lows. Bringing it back up will just delay the progress he can make. But this is a tough issua and that's just how I'm feeling now.
We had Watergate \ Iran Contra, Nixon, G. Gordon Liddy and Olliver North get pardoned and become media stars. Cheney, and Rumsfeld come in under Nixon and Reagan and then end up in the GWB White House exploring the dark side. That gives us Abu Ghraib (dismissed as "bad apples"), Valerie Plame (Scooter Libby pardoned), a bunch of other insane crap and now we waterboarded a guy 6 times a day for a month.
Wouldn't you agree that the law and order precedents in our govt. are going the wrong way?
Corruption has existed for ages. It's not fair, it might not make us happy, but we really can't do much to make these people follow the law when they can find ways to exempt themselves from it.
Are you out of your freaking minds? They didn't break the law! That's why "It's not time for retributiion." Because it's a lawsuit that could never be won. This guy is an idiot.
There's a difference between not being able to win a lawsuit (because the govt prevents release of evidence) and saying the law wasn't broken.
They DID torture people, innocent people, even after they knew they were innocent. Ahrar, Kurnaz, and others. I'd recommend "5 years of my life, an innocent man in Guantanamo" it will open your eyes a bit.
In school I learned a US ideal: "All people are created equal." Hmmm Rumblings can be heard today for the impeachment of the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Judge Bybee for his role in the Office of Legal Council where he wrote memos to provide cover for torture. We must press hard for Bybees impeachment and for a Special Prosecutor to deal with the others who wrote similar memos. If the process works as intended we will eventually see Cheney and Bush charged and convicted. Excellent video!!!
Great job! You said (in a totally awesome way, I might add) what I think a great many people in this country are thinking.
These people don't get a bye just because they are political elites or their intentions were good. All we're asking for is an investigation like everyone else gets who is suspected of breaking the law. Why is that tantamount to being angry and vengeful?
While I agree with your argument, I don't think you completely looked at the situation. The main job of the Pres is to keep us safe. If he demands prosecution there will be further division and even riots. That isn't safe. Obama's only job besides keeping us safe is to get our economy working again. If he does not else he will be regarded as a great Pres.
I hear what you are saying and I agree with you. But, I just don't think it is as easy as everyone is saying. I think no matter what Obama does on this topic he fails.
And I hear you, that there is pain with both options.
But getting a typhoid shot *hurts*, and not getting a shot means you can *die*. Enforcing the law will stir up US wingnuts something fierce, and *not* enforcing the law means the US Constitution is a meaningless piece of toilet paper
In each case: Which would you choose? It really *IS* that simple, folks.
There is no part of the Presidential oath that says "I will keep American's safe"
It says:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and I will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States."
Very clear and accurate... this video should be on every news show for ...until the hearings began ...
trying to incite agressive war is a crime.....please make a video of the crimes which seem to have been committed... September 11 we can not investigate, Torture we can not investigate....etc...Thanks you are reading my mind......from the land of Lieberman CT
According to a recent Human Rights Watch video (YouTube channel: HumanRightsWatch Video title: "Life Without Parole for Youth - Sara - Fair Sentencing for Youth"), 2500 youth are currently serving life sentences without parole in the U.S. -- in contrast to an official total of ZERO in the rest of the world.
Political creatures such as Rahm Emanuel shouldn't be allowed to speak about forgiveness of Bush-era crimes, unless they first discuss the routinely harsh sentencing of youths in the U.S.
Didn't Denis Kucinich try to have Bush and Cheney impeached for these same reasons? I believe he was shot down by Pelosi....the folks in washington are too cowardly to actually do anything...they don't want to risk it
Exactly! Thank you for stating the case so lucidly and forcefully.
I hope this gets a lot of views and that everyone who views it then writes their congressmen, senators and Obama throught he White House website. If enough of us yell about this they'll listen. So YELL, folks! Yell a lot!!
Bravo! Circulate widely; write your congress critters and cc the media; talk it up with any and all. And then demand your own get-out-of-jail-free card if this administration refuses to investigate (substantively) and prosecute where indicated. And of course, if the admin is not up to the task: Send the whole lot to Spain or The Hague.
Back in the day, the conservatives were all for rule of law. They've sunk lower than I ever thought they could. It's time for the country to swim back to the surface. Brilliant video! Keep up the good work!
Great commentary. The sad thing is, you can hear sentiments along the lines of "Fixing the economy should take first priority now" - which just goes to show where this issue lies in some minds. It's apparently more important that we can resume wasteful spending and go back to enjoying petty luxuries rather than ensuring that the law is enforced. Until this mindset can be broken it's unlikely that any action will be taken, but still, we have to try. Keep on keepin' on!
This is exactly right. We are a country of laws, not men. It is up to us, as the citizens of this country, to pressure these officials to do the right thing.
Clean your toilet
Morriusvids 1 year ago
Succinct. Great video mate.
citizensmitt 2 years ago
this video is great.
kurtisblow3000 2 years ago
Spot on.
BastyBoo 2 years ago
Listen to the terrorists themselves. They want a worldwide caliphate (all taliban-like theistic governments) and have posted a 100 year plan to carry this out. This is spiritual to those who follow it. While we debate the line where talk ends and torture starts they're plotting to destroy us and/or our near decendants and that's no myth. Next time we may not fare as well as post 911. They watch us bicker and infight and remain persistent. There is no issue larger than this war.
kaloncar 2 years ago
These are a tiny group of thugs that caught Bush with his pants down. They are about as big a threat as American skinheads. They are about as hard to catch as the Mafia. It's amazing how you are so scared of them that you would let them dictate all your morals. You just be a really weak person to sell out your national values so easily.
Plisko1 2 years ago
Bush was talking about the Geneva Convention while his admin. were already torturing people. Murderers in US jails cannot be tortured legally. You can't even torture an animal by law. It's not just about the victim, it's also about being part of a civilised, ethical nation.
---
My comment regarding the Geneva Convention was that terrorists don't abide by it so legally they are not protected by it either. I don't condone the maiming and killing of them and do condone trials first.
kaloncar 2 years ago
As for President Bush's "already torturing people." Sexual deviants at Abu Graib humiliated known terrorists and was considered a perverted scandal and prosecutions were made. The terrorists cut heads off live victims and we have heard as much as a single apology. If I were a prisoner I would take a bit of humiliation over maiming and killing any day! Oh, and our government has even released some prisoners, trying to be politically correct, and they killed again! Now that's smart.
kaloncar 2 years ago
You have no idea what you are talking about. There were no sexual deviants at Aby Ghraib. There were soldiers following orders based on a policy. You have no information to claim that all prisoners abused there were "known terrorists." You are pulling that out of your ass.
Casually talking about being humiliated and abused because it's better than being maimed of killed? This is obviously all so abstract to you that it's revolting. You would rather win an argument than be human.
Plisko1 2 years ago
In reply to kaloncar
Sir you are wrong. The Red Cross is in fact the world athority on the definition of torture. Study more , preach less. You are a pompous ass. Japan waterboarded American POWs and it was branded torture. By our own definition we tortured.
Do yourself a favor and get off the Fox
News Express!
BGreg57 2 years ago 2
Americans prosecuted the Japanese after ww2 for water boarding.
America has become it's own worse enemy.
those that told Bush it was ok to torture should be held to account.
either you want law , order and Justice, or you will be your own worse enemy forever.
dave777blaster 2 years ago
Nicely put.
smcmullin2001 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Torture is alive and well on American soil, even at Reagan National Airport in DC.
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police beat up a girl and slammed her head, leaving her with permanent brain damage.
Police charge the victim with imaginary crimes after the fact, to somehow justify the torture.
This malicious prosecution allows US citizens to be tortured in our own country. We should end torture now.
paolonutuni 2 years ago
One person called the terrorists "boogey men" as in myth. Uh, myths are not real, the bloodshed of terrorism is.
kaloncar 2 years ago
Terrorists are real, but the fear of terrorists is the boogey man because it creates a myth like sense of urgency and willingness to compromise. There are at least a million things you will die from before a terrorist attack. . . even if we didn't do anything in this war on terror. You have a better chance of choking to death on a pickle.. . but terrorists make people more panicked and willing to give up everything to be safe.
Plisko1 2 years ago
"Torture has been very clearly defined"
---- Nope. If it were we would not be having this debate over the dividing line where asking questions (interrogation) ends and torture begins. My personal dividing line is that torture surely begins with maiming and ends with death (murder). This is not just a matter of word play or symantics. Interrogators in war need answers to save innocent lives. How many attacks have been thwarted? Lives saved? My guess...numerous.
kaloncar 2 years ago
Waterboarding was defined as tortrure by the USA when convicting Japanese interrogators from WW2. It has now been established that we waterboarded one guy 183 times in a month and another 80 times.
We tortured by our own standards.
How can we trust that any information we were told about a guy they tortured 183 times is true? I bet if I could waterboard you 183 times you would be the mastermind of 9/11 by the 20th time.
Plisko1 2 years ago
Talk about unique! haha I have a friend who does these kinds of videos! that's cool to see someone else do it. but make more! haha
Chick6517 2 years ago
Just because a lawyer thinks you might be able to loophole this and bend that in the law doesn't meant they are right. Legal advice can be motivated by politics and it can be wrong.
--
I agree. Legal advice is motivated by politics (ref party platforms for their worldviews). What then, should we not have consulted with legal? Nope, that's irresponsible too. Let's not try to oversimplify a complex issue through emotion. Emotional decisions are usually wrong headed ones.
kaloncar 2 years ago
Why am I being accused of acting on my emotions when the only excuse anyone in this thread can come up with for torturing people is revenge? Nobody has proven yet that ANY information they got from torture stopped anything.. . so without that what's left? Revenge. Emotion, that's what. The law protects us from emotional reactions. That's why we follow it.
Plisko1 2 years ago
"Nobody has proven yet that ANY information they got from torture stopped anything."
it's not something the government necessarily has to prove when it's choosing safety over liberty
helloimvic 2 years ago
What? Did you read what you just wrote? That's license to do just about anything.
If information doesn't prove to be true there is no safety for that sacrifice of liberty is there? You don't sacrifice liberty "just in case" it might make us safer. You could do that all day long to thousands of people. It's insane logic. If they torture a guy 183 times and the only good information came out before the torture began. . . that's not a fair trade is it?
Plisko1 2 years ago
"That's license to do just about anything..."
that'd be the slippery slope end of it
they aren't relying on the argument having to be true... they're erring on the side of safety in hopes that safety is coming out of what they're doing. so, yes, they are sacrificing liberty "just in case" it makes them safer.
how is it insane logic? taken to the extreme, it definitely does have dangerous implications- but how is it insane? it could very possibly be helping the US' objectives
helloimvic 2 years ago
Cutting off heads is not torture, it is murder.
Torture has been very clearly defined and it has nothing to do with the person dying. The whole point of torture us that the person needs to be kept alive.
---
Actually, cutting a person's head off while they are alive, for effect and information, would also be defined as torture.
kaloncar 2 years ago
As I understand it, you are always murdering someone "while they are alive." By this definition all painful murder is also torture.
I don't see how you are supposed to get information from someone while either slitting their throat or cutting their spinal cord. . but whatever.
Plisko1 2 years ago
Bush had a lot to say when Saddam's interrogrators gave one of the US captured airmen from 'shock and Awe' a black eye.' To ask them any more than their name and number is against the Geneva Covention" said he on TV- unbelievable isn't it, on retrospect. No US president can get up and talk of the Geneva Convention again thanks to him. Obama is a 'bait and switch' deal.
loai050 2 years ago
Yes. A big justification for invading Iraq was that Saddam was an evil man who gassed his own people and tortured his prisoners.
Torture was front and center in the reasons why he had to be taken down. It also played a role in his death sentence under the Iraqi legal system the US set up for him.
Plisko1 2 years ago
Yes and there are volumes of proofs and testimonies of the maiming and death that his "torture" brought on. I have not heard of one US maiming or death incident -- if there was he/she would be in jail.
kaloncar 2 years ago
"I have not heard of one US maiming or death incident -- if there was he/she would be in jail. "
You need to google "Tortured To Death by US"
If you haven't heard of it you're not looking. I found a few of them in abouty 5 minutes.
Plisko1 2 years ago
The two examples are like apples and oranges. President G. W. Bush was correct in bringing up the Geneva Convention to a world leader (most world leaders signed on to the Geneva Convention). Terrorists are not affliated with a single nation state and are not signed on to the Geneva Convention. In fact they are in direct opposition to it in targeting innocent civilians to inculcate fear.
---
Yes. Presidents can still speak of the Geneva Convention with their heads held high.
kaloncar 2 years ago
European rebels were constantly staging attacks against German targets both soft and hard. Their countries had surrendered. They were not operating on behalf of any nation.
How should they have been treated when they were captured by the Germans?
The Geneva convention covers this.
Plisko1 2 years ago
In reply to kaloncar...
as to defining torture, we called waterboarding torture when Japan used the technique on American P.O.W.s. The world authority on torture( The Red Cross)
has stated that indeed toryure was performed on detainees at Gitmo and Abu
Grahib. So much for your little arguement
about " defining torture"
BGreg57 2 years ago
The Red Cross does respectable work, but they are not the "world authority" on the definition of torture. I'm sure they'd like everyone to stop fighting and this is noble, but not likely with evil in the world. As for waterboarding, it runs shy (albeit just shy) of maiming and killing. The reality is that all governments likely use psychological tools like waterboarding to get needed answers, but humane people will stop there and not maime or kill their prisoners.
kaloncar 2 years ago
Waterboarding was defined as torture in our own prosecutions against Japanese Interrogators.
Maiming and killing are not the measuring point for torture. The Bush team tried to define it that way when they were justifying it, but it's not. That definition has been widely debunked by legal scholars left and right. It's sort of a red herring.
Plisko1 2 years ago
Quite a rant. Although some tactics were indeed harsh not one of the detainees has been killed to my knowledge. But it is common knowledge that terrorists were cutting the heads off their victims. As for the law I agree. That is why everyone one of the procedures was run through the legal department. If someone pats you on the head 10 times that could be considered torture too. Defining "torture" is something that can be debated, but clearly cutting heads off qualifies.
kaloncar 2 years ago
The legal analysis you cite proves to be faultier and faultier. The dissenting views were snuffed out by a select few in power who truly desired to proceed with said tactics. It has NOTHING to do with proper lawyering and studying the issue. Time and the news will bear this out.
Perhaps consider getting your news from news sources that exclude MSM (CNN, FOX, MSNBC) because you won't learn very much there. You will, however, be saturated with talking heads lobbying for their masters.
enoughspin 2 years ago
Cutting off heads is not torture, it is murder.
Torture has been very clearly defined and it has nothing to do with the person dying. The whole point of torture us that the person needs to be kept alive.
Just because a lawyer thinks you might be able to loophole this and bend that in the law doesn't meant they are right. Legal advice can be motivated by politics and it can be wrong.
Thanks for watching.
Plisko1 2 years ago
agree!
donp55 2 years ago
Injustice was done. Someone needs to be punished.
Once again the Hypocrisy of Democracy is evident from the SAME ol administration. No change whatsoever.
indypindy2 2 years ago
Injustice was done. Someone needs to be punished.
---
Yes. That is why the terrorists are "punished" for answers. There is a clear distinction between punishing warfighters and their punishing innocents. The two are not equal.
kaloncar 2 years ago
Do you have any evidence that the information we got from "punishing people for answers" led to any good answers? From what I understand, most of the usable information in these documented cases was gained before the "enhanced interrogation" began.
As I also understand it, there is now evidence that they even began "punishing for the answers" they wanted, regarding Iraq connections, rather than just looking for the truth. How do you feel about that?
Plisko1 2 years ago
why do you use the word "punished" :(
it's arguable that some (i'll use the word some) of the people the US tortures aren't getting punished in the legal sense
helloimvic 2 years ago
Upholding the law is tantamount? So this guy would want potheads prosecuted I imagine, and also illegal immigrants??? Give me a break, at least admit your cherry pickling those laws you agree with and those you don't.... Obama now owns our national security, let's hope he is right (I don't think he is) for our safety's sake...
jeffsnyder73 2 years ago
Yes. If Potheads get caught, they face the consequences. They know right from the start that they are taking a risk and they accept the risk. The law is the law until it is changed. There is no judge or jury that decides "we shouldn't be looking at the past. . we need to move forward. . " when it comes to bustng and convicting potheads.
Yet, this excuse is fine is when it comes to massive government corruption at the highest levels?
Yea. . OK.
Plisko1 2 years ago
The people of America need to make sure that the bastards in the GOP who authorized torture should be brought to justice
Sparkanoid1 2 years ago
"this is what i don't get. if it were any other people who did this kind of stuff, we wouldn't even be arguing over whether there should be prosecutions. we would be demanding prosecutions ... if this were another country that tortured our people, we would be going to war over punishing the people that authorized it"
federal executive =/= another country
it's not hard to get
helloimvic 2 years ago
Yeah man this is good. I see your point. You know I really get sad when I watch to much cnn. I enjoy two and a half men. I really like allan the dorky brother. He's such a good actor becuse he really makes me hate him. Charlie pretty much just plays himself but he's still good. I'd like to see some guys go to the slammer for the touture thing too ya know. It makes me sad becuse I don't think those guys go after guys that are in the same club. There's like a code I bet. Anyway, keep it up!
themaxwellshow 2 years ago
thank you
CAMARA99 2 years ago
The only reason I could agree they should "drop it" is because of the circus it would create. You know how much that would distract the idiot masses and would divide us even more. So I know it may bring justice, we as a country would be hurt in it wake. But I can see an easy argument for going ahead so if you disagree with me you are also right! So there!
daveplays 2 years ago
Every American has the right to debate the issue and petition the government with their personal definition of torture. But, be careful what you ask for. Without intense interrogations we might not physically survive as a country (many attacks are thwarted each year). It is a dangerous world. And don't think that just the GOP is caught in this issue. The Democrats will use intense interrogations too (perhaps new or different ones) or they will lose power after we are attacked.
kaloncar 2 years ago
It seems like another really big leap to me to decide that Terrorists are some uber evil that we have never seen in the history of civilization. Terrorism is just a modern version of guerrilla warfare. The early Americans did it to the redcoats, the Irish did too, the Japanese were running airplanes into targets and Civilians were being bombed in WW2.
In the war of 1812 the enemy marched into Washington and burned down the Whitehouse. We've been through worse without selling our soul.
Plisko1 2 years ago
"The early Americans did it to the redcoats, the Irish did too, the Japanese were running airplanes into targets and Civilians were being bombed in WW2."
i wouldn't necessarily say that those examples are applicable to the current situation... considering that terrorists technically don't represent a government and that they aren't technically in war
helloimvic 2 years ago
The Early Americans were rebels. Their "government" wasn't recognized. The IRA didn't represent Ireland, they represented Irish independence from occupation much like Palistinian groups want their independence from occupation. Japan is about the only example that fits your rebuttal. Japan water boarded their prisoners and the interrogators, at the insistence of the USA, were given trials and got either the death penalty or hard labor for many years for doing it.
Plisko1 2 years ago
i'll concede the ira one
on the american one, i'll just argue that the early americans didn't have a focus of attacking great britain (of course, i could be wrong, and they could totally have wanted to attack britain)
helloimvic 2 years ago
I presume Cheney thinks it's okay for Iran to waterboard the young female American journalist they recently took captive on charges on spying?
DillonX 2 years ago
You might presume this; however, I would presume that Ex Vice President Cheney would feel it's a violation to hold an "innocent" journalist (male or female) for a clear political aim. Do you see a thread here...innocents versus terrorists? People, don't you know good from evil anymore?
kaloncar 2 years ago
Aren't you jumping to a really big conclusion by assuming every person captured and tortured was a terrorist? This is my big fear. It seems like it is really easy to brand the word "terrorist" all over an argument. It makes it all some abstract evil that we are free to be sadistic against.
The whole point in this is that when you get sadistic with evil people you also do it to innocent people caught up in it. The law is there to restrain our revenge in the name of innocent people.
Plisko1 2 years ago
Again I ask, why are none of you terrorists lovers concerned about justice for the actual victims of the 9/11 attacks rather than their killers?
Seems like you're pretty backwards people, too bad it wasn't you in the towers that day, then I wouldn't mind so much.
misterhowdy55 2 years ago
I would agree that their shoudl be justice for the victims! We should fully investigate 9-11! DId you know that the 9-11 commission report stated that the source of the funding of the attacks was not known and ultimately of little or no significance? Did you know that only a few days ago, senior counsel to the 9-11 commision John Farmer wrote in his book The Ground Truth that the American public "seriously misled about the events of September 11." Has anyone been charged for the crimes of 911?
jcliffb1 2 years ago
Oh wow. . . I never thought of 9/11. Thanks for pointing that out. It never occured to me that everyone who has ever been rounded up in this have all been the 9/11 killers. Man. . . I wish I had that kind of ESP. We wouldn't need any justice system at all. We could just use your psychic powers to put every criminal to death and save the world. . .
Plisko1 2 years ago
Where's justice for the people that died on 9/11?
The terrorists should be doused in jet fuel, caught on fire and then thrown out of a 100 story window, then justice will have been served.
You people that oppose waterboarding don't even have one clue about what justice is, stop pretending.
misterhowdy55 2 years ago
Who's pretending? I know what justice is and what it ought to be.
Your view reduces us to the level of the people you describe.
We're better than that. It's what made this nation what Lincoln called "the last great hope of mankind."
Finistereny 2 years ago
Oh, please explain how waterboarding a known al-Qaida terrorist to prevent further attacks is the same as al-Qaida killing thousands of people in terror attacks...
They must be the same, since you claim it reduces us to the level of terrorists...
misterhowdy55 2 years ago
If Al-Qaeda were doing it to our guys, it would be torture! It is torture when we do it too. We have to be consistent for our arguments to make sense. Besides how many of the people we've tortured have been convicted of anything?
jcliffb1 2 years ago
They do'nt do what we do.They just cut your fucking head off!!
fghnpoma 2 years ago
Being not as wrong as them does not make us right.
jcliffb1 2 years ago
This is a loaded statement. It's like asking the question are you ignorant or stupid? Define your argument for the debate please. I'd be interested in hearing a more thought out response.
kaloncar 2 years ago
Ok, let me simplify it for you: WRONG IS WRONG!! Dosen't matter who is doing it. I don't need a complicated argument for that. If you have been terrorized into thinking that torture is necessary to fight these bogeymen, then obviously terrorism has worked on you. Now you need to ask who benefits from you thinking this way. (Hint: The most important tool of the pentagon is psychological or information warfare. You owe it to yourself to at least ASK if its being used on us.)
jcliffb1 2 years ago
Paranoia is unbecoming and takes us off topic.
kaloncar 2 years ago
If you knew anyone had information about harm that is going to occur to another person I can see the desire to get the information out of them any way you can. A kidnapper, a guy that knows about a coming bank robbery, a guy that knows where a killer is held up. Every day our law enforcement could use these techniques to get information. We don't allow that because we are better then that and we have the rule of law. You think Sodom Hussein was right when he used torture to get information?
daveplays 2 years ago 2
You talk a good game. But you're all bombast and no substance. Were you to be the "recipient" of the combination of "enhanced interrogation techniques" for a few days, you would change your tune mighty fast.
enoughspin 2 years ago
What we personally want done and what the law allows are completely different. There was a time when the people were allowed to create their own idea of justice based on emotions and revenge impulses. It was called the law of the jungle during the stone age.
Plisko1 2 years ago
The US helped provided him with his gas and had no problem with him torturing anyone until he went into Kuwait. There was NO justification for the invasion of Iraq. US foreign policy is not determined by what dictators do to their people, only by how US interests are affected. The US media is then employed to parade forth the usual victims to gain public sympathy, they are only pawns. Wake-up to reality, they have the wool pulled over your eyes.
loai050 2 years ago
You will need to study your history and geopolitics. There were imporant US interests (allies) in the region that were under an imminent threat. We are not a perfect country, but I would put our record up against all others and ours is only 233 yrs old.
kaloncar 2 years ago
I agree, emotionally, when I saw that terrorists were cutting the heads off Americans I felt they were cutting heads off my family members. If people want to get angry with anyone let's get angry at the enemy! Anyone angry with the enemy anymore or is it just easier to lash out at ourselves? Don't base your decisions on emotion. I don't think that what you want and the US law are much different. The law wanted to protect innocent people without maiming and killing and it is successful.
kaloncar 2 years ago
Please continue in your mission to "speak truth to power."
I wonder if justice exists anywhere on this planet.... or did it ever exist?
Finistereny 2 years ago
This administration is demonstrating the fact that there is only 1 major political party in America, The Establishment Party.
In America, will people start chanting, "no justice, no peace"? Will they have to?
I think that if you are a Republican or a Democrat you are part of the problem. Both parties are bought and paid for by corporate interest imo.
Epic878787 2 years ago
You sir are a God. A God of justice and equality! Rain down your wrath on these sinners with unceasing fury!
Thank You!
macrumpton 2 years ago
I like Obama but he should punish those who authorised torture under the Bush administration
jround93 2 years ago
Great video. Obama is looking like a coward here. The DOJ needs to act and Obama shouldn't stop it.
dermotjm 2 years ago
The "American People", the sane majority anyway, did not want or approve torture. We know it is unproductive. Do you really think it is about extracting information after the fourth or fifth simulated drowning? After the 83d time? After the 183d time? At that point it is torture for sport or for retribution or I don't know what!
rmyurick 2 years ago
And CIA officers should not be prosecuted for carrying out the will of the American people. I am an American soldier serving in Iraq. Should I be prosecuted for being a part of an "illegal war". Going after the CIA interregators is like going after Soldiers for fighting the fucking war.
Atralis 2 years ago
When was it the will of the American people to sweep up hundreds of people in poorly targetted sweeps and continue to torture and detain then, after it was obvious there was no evidence, and in some cases they'd been sold to the Americans for money or to settle a grudge? The guys who tortured innocent men like Murat Kurnaz. Mahrer Ahrar, etc are criminals. Part of the 'evidence' used to get support for the Iraq war, was a false confession obtained under torture.
jimbobeire 2 years ago
Your right, lets go after the people who put you in that illegal war and those who authorized and tried to legitimize the torture that has killed so many of our people through retribution.
Boomer1949 2 years ago
Say this shit on September 12th 2001. There was a time when the majority in this country wanted terrorists tortured. Thats the problem in your argument. You see it as the Bush administration wanting terrorists tortured. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE wanted these guys tortured. The American people REELECTED Bush in 2004 BECAUSE he was taking the hard line with terrorists. A few years later people's tempers have cooled and their fears have eased and now they feel bad about it.
Atralis 2 years ago
I see, so it's the Presidents job to ignore the law and cater to all the normal revenge fantasies that the law was designed to temper. The CIA is just the arm of the unrestrained animal passions of American's. Is that what you are saying?
I thought the whole point of our representative democracy was to prevent exactly that kind of mob rule?
Plisko1 2 years ago
First of all Atralis, it isn't as "cut and dry" as you make it to be. You talk as if GWBush won both elections by landslides. It is highly debatable GWBush won the 2004 presidential election in that a wide amount of voter fraud went unreported by our illustrious Mainstream Media, though it was reported by the BBC, caging lists used by the RNC (see "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast. (Let's not even talk about the 2000 election).
enoughspin 2 years ago
Sad. It's 2009 and some just can't get over the fact that their party did not get elected for two terms. It happens. The rules were set before the election and the loser wanted to change the rules when he didn't like the outcome. Sorry. It just doesn't work that way, for anyone, that is fair. The rules are that it is the electoral college and not the popular vote that wins elections and for a good reason (citizens in small states would have no voice).
kaloncar 2 years ago
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm over the past elections. But as I said in my reply to you I don't forget when deceit is employed. Again, read the chapter on election caging in Palast's book then we'll talk. (BTW I never said I was advocating popular vote over electoral in my previous comments.) Happy reading.
enoughspin 2 years ago
Torture is torture no matter if the person you're torturing is representing a 'state' or not. It's not about the status of the person tortured. Bush was talking about the Geneva Convention while his admin. were already torturing people. Murderers in US jails cannot be tortured legally. You can't even torture an animal by law. It's not just about the victim, it's also about being part of a civilised, ethical nation.
loai050 2 years ago
We ARE a country of laws. We have signed treaties binding us to uphold certain minimum standards of treatment. (Read a bit of history: The Atlantic Charter, The United Nations Charter, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights... just to name a few.)
enoughspin 2 years ago
Many Americans have lost their way, blinded by what they call "American Exceptionalism" which, in my view, is just a gross excuse of extreme hubris, the attempt to justify an unfettered license to go against what has, up until the last 8 years, been a more solid commitment to human rights.
I am an American. And I can tell you without reservation that I NEVER wanted terrorists tortured.
Torture is a crime. Remember that.
enoughspin 2 years ago
Total "Exceptionalism" may be hubris, but so is your arguement. President Bush did not justify "unfettered" license. And neither will President Obama when he has to allow intense interrogations. Spin is in the eye of the beholder I see.
kaloncar 2 years ago
yo fuck you all narrow minded punks, these muslim terrorists want to kill you and every other westener,, torture was not only correct but NECESSARY, if you dont like it GET UR ASS TO EUROPE, you might like their extremist liberal and moslem appeasing goverments,,, and get yourself blown up there sooner or later!!!
ncsyer 2 years ago
I'm IN EUROPE, and I can tell you that your views are based on little more than fearmongering. Most of what's called 'terrorism' in Iraq is Iraqi people fighting back against occupation. Al Qaeda is a tiny organisation, and most of the inmates of GITMO weren't in it. A few were, and deserve trial and jail, the rest got held on false secret evidence and got tortured. If you can't see that's wrong, I can't help you.
jimbobeire 2 years ago
That's quite an ignorant argument ncsyer, and it only shows that you haven't done any research or put any thought into the topic. Despite the fact that I'm almost positive that you'd never listen to reason, you should understand:
1. Some who were tortured were teenage boys.
2. They got the info prior to torturing.
3. Read "How to break a terrorist" by M. Alexander
4. It's far more likely that a US soldier will be tortured.
5. You get false info quite frequently, it's not efficient
Amy31415 2 years ago 2
hell, the progressives won the election; why worry about stepping on the toes of right wing thugs and hacks. Give them what they deserve; i don't care if O needs them for his health insurance plan... the way they are acting now, they should lose in 2010, and we should have well over 60 votes.
If O speaks for the people, he and Rahm should stop playing games.
Clean up the right wing mess as you move forward.
mLKauai 2 years ago
I understand what you're saying, but the situation is a bit different. Obama finally has some positive foreign relationships, I think he is right in trying to move on from it. It is obvious he is a different president than our last and he wont stoop to those lows. Bringing it back up will just delay the progress he can make. But this is a tough issua and that's just how I'm feeling now.
HonzikzKansas 2 years ago
Without justice there IS no progress. Only illusion.
richlisagood 2 years ago 2
We had Watergate \ Iran Contra, Nixon, G. Gordon Liddy and Olliver North get pardoned and become media stars. Cheney, and Rumsfeld come in under Nixon and Reagan and then end up in the GWB White House exploring the dark side. That gives us Abu Ghraib (dismissed as "bad apples"), Valerie Plame (Scooter Libby pardoned), a bunch of other insane crap and now we waterboarded a guy 6 times a day for a month.
Wouldn't you agree that the law and order precedents in our govt. are going the wrong way?
Plisko1 2 years ago
Corruption has existed for ages. It's not fair, it might not make us happy, but we really can't do much to make these people follow the law when they can find ways to exempt themselves from it.
1yK3Y4 2 years ago
Are you out of your freaking minds? They didn't break the law! That's why "It's not time for retributiion." Because it's a lawsuit that could never be won. This guy is an idiot.
Glennman8 2 years ago
There's a difference between not being able to win a lawsuit (because the govt prevents release of evidence) and saying the law wasn't broken.
They DID torture people, innocent people, even after they knew they were innocent. Ahrar, Kurnaz, and others. I'd recommend "5 years of my life, an innocent man in Guantanamo" it will open your eyes a bit.
jimbobeire 2 years ago
This was rather cathartic after reading the Bybee memo and hearing that craven equivocating nonsense from Emanuel and Obama in the same day.
planetjanet 2 years ago
And Justice For ALL!
Thank you.
richlisagood 2 years ago
"The main job of the Pres is to keep us safe."
NO! It's to defend and protect the CONSTITUTION!
CalicoRock 2 years ago 5
In school I learned a US ideal: "All people are created equal." Hmmm Rumblings can be heard today for the impeachment of the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Judge Bybee for his role in the Office of Legal Council where he wrote memos to provide cover for torture. We must press hard for Bybees impeachment and for a Special Prosecutor to deal with the others who wrote similar memos. If the process works as intended we will eventually see Cheney and Bush charged and convicted. Excellent video!!!
RedwoodHippie 2 years ago 3
Right fucking on!
XavierNinnis 2 years ago 2
Well said. I couldn't agree more.
jaijoedougwatt 2 years ago 4
Great job! You said (in a totally awesome way, I might add) what I think a great many people in this country are thinking.
These people don't get a bye just because they are political elites or their intentions were good. All we're asking for is an investigation like everyone else gets who is suspected of breaking the law. Why is that tantamount to being angry and vengeful?
thegwo 2 years ago 2
While I agree with your argument, I don't think you completely looked at the situation. The main job of the Pres is to keep us safe. If he demands prosecution there will be further division and even riots. That isn't safe. Obama's only job besides keeping us safe is to get our economy working again. If he does not else he will be regarded as a great Pres.
burntonion05 2 years ago
burntonion: Would you say the President was doing the job of keeping us safe if he
A. Refused to prosecute, or even investigate, known crimes?
B. Allowed the people accused of those to go scot free?
C. Gave in to threats of riot and civil disorder by those who want to see those crimes ignored?
What if the crimes and criminals we were talking about were terrorism and Al Qaeda?
willibro151 2 years ago 2
I hear what you are saying and I agree with you. But, I just don't think it is as easy as everyone is saying. I think no matter what Obama does on this topic he fails.
burntonion05 2 years ago
And I hear you, that there is pain with both options.
But getting a typhoid shot *hurts*, and not getting a shot means you can *die*. Enforcing the law will stir up US wingnuts something fierce, and *not* enforcing the law means the US Constitution is a meaningless piece of toilet paper
In each case: Which would you choose? It really *IS* that simple, folks.
willibro151 2 years ago 2
The LAW baby... each and every time. No exceptions.
enoughspin 2 years ago 2
There is no part of the Presidential oath that says "I will keep American's safe"
It says:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and I will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States."
Plisko1 2 years ago
nevermind
burntonion05 2 years ago
Excellent!
khughes1963 2 years ago 2
Fantastic video. I hope this gets lots of play.
SweatyPenny 2 years ago 2
Very clear and accurate... this video should be on every news show for ...until the hearings began ...
trying to incite agressive war is a crime.....please make a video of the crimes which seem to have been committed... September 11 we can not investigate, Torture we can not investigate....etc...Thanks you are reading my mind......from the land of Lieberman CT
ebenross 2 years ago 3
Right!
If it was any other country doing this (waterboarding 183 times) to one of our people we would be bombing the crap out of them.
I'm sorry Obama and the Democrats are too cowardly to seek justice. Obama will not get my vote in 2012.
TrakkerToo 2 years ago 3
According to a recent Human Rights Watch video (YouTube channel: HumanRightsWatch Video title: "Life Without Parole for Youth - Sara - Fair Sentencing for Youth"), 2500 youth are currently serving life sentences without parole in the U.S. -- in contrast to an official total of ZERO in the rest of the world.
Political creatures such as Rahm Emanuel shouldn't be allowed to speak about forgiveness of Bush-era crimes, unless they first discuss the routinely harsh sentencing of youths in the U.S.
antebbbbb 2 years ago 3
Didn't Denis Kucinich try to have Bush and Cheney impeached for these same reasons? I believe he was shot down by Pelosi....the folks in washington are too cowardly to actually do anything...they don't want to risk it
WavesAndRocks 2 years ago 4
America: the New Banana Republic
The terrorists have indeed won.
MamoDad 2 years ago 4
Exactly! Thank you for stating the case so lucidly and forcefully.
I hope this gets a lot of views and that everyone who views it then writes their congressmen, senators and Obama throught he White House website. If enough of us yell about this they'll listen. So YELL, folks! Yell a lot!!
asdour 2 years ago 6
@ ejatz
I AM this furious!
msspratt 2 years ago 3
Well done. I can see why Greenwald linked to here.
Alan94539 2 years ago 5
Bravo! Circulate widely; write your congress critters and cc the media; talk it up with any and all. And then demand your own get-out-of-jail-free card if this administration refuses to investigate (substantively) and prosecute where indicated. And of course, if the admin is not up to the task: Send the whole lot to Spain or The Hague.
cleetcleet 2 years ago 5
Back in the day, the conservatives were all for rule of law. They've sunk lower than I ever thought they could. It's time for the country to swim back to the surface. Brilliant video! Keep up the good work!
GeorgeSaden 2 years ago 4
Great commentary. The sad thing is, you can hear sentiments along the lines of "Fixing the economy should take first priority now" - which just goes to show where this issue lies in some minds. It's apparently more important that we can resume wasteful spending and go back to enjoying petty luxuries rather than ensuring that the law is enforced. Until this mindset can be broken it's unlikely that any action will be taken, but still, we have to try. Keep on keepin' on!
deadnightshinobi 2 years ago 4
We should all be this furious.
ejatz 2 years ago 5
America needs more angry people like you.
OhanaHonu 2 years ago 6
I love you! Brilliant video! We need to DEMAND these asshats are investigated.
seabe 2 years ago 4
Awesome. Couldn't have said it better myself.
fawlty70 2 years ago 3
F- Yeah!
If Holder doesn't prosecute the DOJ is a
Department of Cowards!
athospaco 2 years ago 5
This is exactly right. We are a country of laws, not men. It is up to us, as the citizens of this country, to pressure these officials to do the right thing.
simpleasjlk 2 years ago 5