The Bush administration insisted that “enhanced interrogation techniques” — torture — were necessary to extract information from prisoners and keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks. Never mind that it was immoral, did huge damage to this country’s global standing and produced little important intelligence. Now, as we had feared, it is also making it much harder to try and convict accused terrorists.
Because federal judges cannot trust the confessions of prisoners obtained by intense coercion, they are regularly throwing out the government’s cases against Guantánamo Bay prisoners.
A new report prepared jointly by ProPublica and the National Law Journal showed that the government has lost more than half the cases where Guantánamo prisoners have challenged their detention because they were forcibly interrogated. In some cases the physical coercion was applied by foreign agents working at the behest of the United States; in other cases it was by United States agents.
By the time you get done reading the whole thing, your desk will have a six-inch deep imprint of your forehead. And here’s one last paragraph to gt you started:
Even in cases where the government later went back and tried to obtain confessions using “clean,” non-coercive methods, judges are saying those confessions too are tainted by the earlier forcible methods. In most cases, the prisoners have not actually walked free because the government is appealing the decisions. But the trend suggests that the government will continue to have a hard time proving its case even against those prisoners who should be detained.
The Bush Administration fucked it all up, the whole ball of wax. Bin Laden’s still alive, we lost in Iraq, we’re going to lose in Afghanistan, and now we have one more reminder of what happens when you put an incompentent C+ legacy student and his CIA father’s corrupt chums in charge of the government: when you try to skirt the law and due process, you end up losing.
All of this was, of course, predicted by the rational people. Not that it matters.
So my remaining question is, when do we hang Jay Bybee and John Yoo on national TV from RFK Stadium?
But we were told that we must look forward not backward. Obama failed to make a complete 180. He’s Bush-lite on this.
This is why it’s utterly ridiculous to prosecute terrorists..
Simply wring them from every piece of usable intel and then take them out and shoot them.
No muss, no fuss, innocent people are allowed to continue living…
we lost in Iraq,
How so????
we’re going to lose in Afghanistan,
That’s what Harry Reid said about Iraq. We all know how wrong Harry Reid was.
Michale32086
1. surely seasoned kampers will realize that many/most ‘official’ investigations, commissions, and trials involving gummint people and policies, are to LIMIT exposure and blame ?
2. there is little/no doubt that the bush klavern purposefully ‘tainted’ all kinds of prosecutions by its own justice dept, mostly to protect their own, or schemes and schemers they were related to…
3. and -of course- the ‘solution’, is NOT to adhere to minimal moral principles and NOT torture/etc; but to absolve and make all nice and pretty and legal-like the torturing and subsequent ‘tainted’ confessions, etc…
yep, a little ‘taint-be-gone’, and those confessions will be 100% solid gold; ignore the constitution (not to mention mere humanity), recall ‘bad’ judges, and shop for ‘good’ judges who know which way the empire’s winds are blowing…
*THAT* is the moderne ‘solution’ (almost final)…
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
And you can’t expect the next C+ legacy student to fix the problem either.
“This is why it’s utterly ridiculous to prosecute terrorists.. Simply wring them from every piece of usable intel and then take them out and shoot them.”
Nice to know that you don’t believe in due process, innocent until proven guilty or the US Constitution, Michale. A lot of the people at Guantanamo are innocent of any wrongdoing at all, and you would like to kill them. Visited Salem Massachusetts lately?
As for losing in Iraq, perhaps you don’t know that the government we installed there enjoys close ties with our enemy Iran, or that the explosions are still going on, oil is not any cheaper, the middle east is no more peaceful, and lots of americans and innocent iraqis are dead. That’s not winning. Of course, there was never any objective there to begin with, so there was never really anything to actually “win”. though i guess, in the context of your other remark, muslims are dead and that’s good with you.
“we’re going to lose in Afghanistan,
That’s what Harry Reid said about Iraq. We all know how wrong Harry Reid was.”
Except Harry reid was, of course, completely correct. and we’re going to lose in afghanistan because ,a href=”http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/karzai.htm”>the Karzai government has no real power outside of Kabul, there’s talk of the US negotiating with the Taliban (who we were going to oust, but apparently are unable to do so, so now we’re inviting them back), and the minute we leave an area like Marja, the Taliban come right back. So much for that “government in a box”, eh?
So there.
Brendan,
Nice to know that you don’t believe in due process, innocent until proven guilty or the US Constitution, Michale.
Actually, I DO believe in them. Spent over 2 decades defending them..
I am not talking about SUSPECTED terrorists.. I am talking about terrorists..
A lot of the people at Guantanamo are innocent of any wrongdoing at all,
And you know this…. how exactly?? Because they said so??
and you would like to kill them.
Did I ever say that??? Nope, note once…
As far as the rest, I’ll chalk it up to you being completely ignorant of military affairs and issues..
I am not insulting you…
“There is no dishonor in not knowing everything.”
-SubCommander T’al, STAR TREK, The Tholian Web 😀
Michale32086
sorry, i refuse to engage an argument with someone who A) quotes star trek at me and B) plainly doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
and yes, you DID say you want to kill them, in your first comment:
“Simply wring them from every piece of usable intel and then take them out and shoot them.”
I assume you didn’t mean “in the foot with a bb gun”.
Chris, i think we have a troll…
Brendan,
sorry, i refuse to engage an argument with someone who A) quotes star trek at me
Pretty high standards you set for yourself, eh?? 😀
There isn’t anything worth knowing that you can’t learn from Star Trek.
I feel sorry for you that you don’t realize this..
“Simply wring them from every piece of usable intel and then take them out and shoot them.”
I was referring to terrorists. YOU are referring to suspected terrorists.. You are trying to compare apples and alligators..
Chris, i think we have a troll…
It’s statements like this that proves you are completely ignorant of the facts.
Tell me. Do you even KNOW the definition of an Internet Troll?? Because, you appear to believe it’s anyone who posts something you do not like…
I can assure you that THAT is definitely NOT the definition of an Internet Troll…
But, gee whiz… Thanx for trying. 😀
Michale32086
He has been around for a while and Susie hasn’t asked me to get rid of him so, for now, he’s here to stay. I imagine he lost touch with his humanity long ago, so I wouldn’t personally take the time to engage him. He’s like a vessel that has been filled to the brim with trite rationalizations for all of the most monstrous, cruel and illegal policies of whatever government is being discussed in a given thread. Savor and enjoy!
he’s not troll.
At last… SOMEONE with some logical gray matter…
illegal policies of whatever government
Nixon once said that it is not illegal if the President does it.
Of course, we all know better..
However, if Congress authorizes it and the President does it, then it is NOT illegal.
Just wanted to clarify that one point..
As for the rest, while subjective, most of it is true enough… 😀
Michale32086
I’m going to hate myself in the morning, but:
However, if Congress authorizes it and the President does it, then it is NOT illegal.
I’m surprised to learn that the United States only has two branches of government and lacks a written constitution. That’s nothing like how I thought things worked. Live an learn!
Chris,
I’m going to hate myself in the morning, but:
Isn’t that a Leanne Womack song?? 😀
I’m surprised to learn that the United States only has two branches of government and lacks a written constitution. That’s nothing like how I thought things worked. Live an learn!
Yer absolutely right.. I did miss a step…
If Congress authorizes it and the SCOTUS doesn’t rule it unconstitutional and the POTUS does it, then it is not illegal.
My apologies for lacking detail.
Now, if you have a specific instance of alleged illegality on the part of our government, I would be happy to examine the specifics.
Barring specifics, generally speaking things are as I posted above.
Michale32086
What am I, your research assistant?
Here’s one example of what you’re asking for. For more you’ll have to pay me. I charge $4.95 a minute, but for you, I’ll only charge $9.74 a minute.
Here’s one example of what you’re asking for. For more you’ll have to pay me. I charge $4.95 a minute, but for you, I’ll only charge $9.74 a minute.
Whatta peach… 😀
A perfect example of exactly how our system works..
Congress authorizes A….
President does A….
SCOTUS says, Uh Uh, Mr President, you can’t do A…
President responds by stopping A….
Interesting to note that the NEW President reworks A and expands on it… But that’s another discussion…
You have to realize that, when Congress authorized UOF after 9/11, they basically gave Bush a blank check…
If it was ever thought that Bush had gone off the reservation, then Congress was duty-bound to rescind the Authorization. The fact that they didn’t was tacit approval..
Again, the simple fact that President Obama has continued and expanded on many of the Bush Administration’s CT policies is ample evidence that they were AND are the right thing to do.
Almost 10 years w/o a successful terrorist attack on US proper is a “keeper stat”, as they say in the NFL.
With my background and, as you put it, “loss of humanity” 😀 I really can’t muster up any sympathy for terrorists…
And I am always shocked that others can.
I appreciate the adult and mature back and forth discussions. It’s what makes these debates so interesting and enjoyable.
Michale32086
It has nothing to do with sympathy and everything to do with the desire to maintain a constitutional republic, the government of which adheres to, and is strictly bound by, law. When the government denies a person his or her freedom, it is our duty as citizens to insist that the law has been followed precisely and that the person’s rights have been maintained and respected, regardless of the heinousness of the crime they committed or are accused of committing. When the government starts mucking around with things like the writ of habeas corpus and is holding prisoners without charge, I feel it is our duty to assume the very worst of the government. Simply maintaining a policy through two administrations does not confer legality or morality onto that policy. If the arc of history does in fact bend towards justice, then the people behind the policies we’re talking about here, will be regarded as the war criminals and monsters they are.
Fair enough, Chris..
All of what you state is fine and dandy when we are talking peace time and American citizens..
However, we are not talking peace time and we are not talking American citizens, the few exceptions notwithstanding…
When you mention legality and morality, there is one more consideration that MUST be taken into account with the situation in the here and now..
Necessity. Survival.
All the high minded ideals don’t mean squat if they lead to the death of thousands, tens of thousands or even millions.
While it is all noble and poetic to die for your principles, it is unfair in the extreme to ask those thousands or even millions to die for your principles.
For all intents and purposes, I have been a soldier my entire adult life since the age of 17. And I can completely and utterly assure you that, when one is on the battlefield, WHEREVER that battlefield is, the paramount concern is saving lives…
Not soothing consciences or worrying about what’s politically correct.
This is the reality of the world we live in..
And, while I have many beefs with President Obama, HUGE beefs with him (even though I voted for him) I can honestly and truly say that, when it comes to most of his CT policies, I am 1000% behind them…
Michale32086
If we can’t maintain the basic laws of our republic in the face of 19 assholes with box cutters, then we are already well and truly fucked. Why even maintain the fiction? I’m sorry the world’s a scary place. Really, I am! I wish it wasn’t so frightening for so many of you. Living in liberal democracy is an inherently risky proposition and if you, and the millions of people you’re worried about, are going to choose to continue to do so, maybe it’s time to buck up a little. And really, no matter how draconian and overbearing and intrusive we allow our policies to become, some asshole is going to get through eventually and blow something up.
Section 9, Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it
You’ll notice that there is no asshole with box cutter exception.
My personal belief is that the US Constitution doesn’t apply to scumbags who are not Americans, but the SCOTUS overruled me on that…
Let me ask you something, Chris.. Honestly and seriously..
What rights have you given up?? Other than taking hair gel on an aircraft (draconian, to be sure.. 😀 OK, so I don’t do serious all that well.. :D) what rights have you given up?
Have you been unlawfully detained?? Have you been illegal surveilled?? Have you been thrown into a deep dark hole at Gitmo??
I am going to wager that the answer to all of those is a “no”…
So, what you are talking about is theory.. You are saying what MIGHT happen, what COULD happen…
I would say that, as long as you stay away from terrorists, the chances of any of those happening to you is virtually nil..
Now, let’s look at the other side of the coin.. It is documented as fact that our government’s surveillance operations and our coercive interrogations (torture if you prefer) HAVE produced results that HAVE saved lives. This is fact…
Now, you put up these facts with what has happened with the supposition that what COULD happen to you, personally, in theory and… Well, it’s no contest..
You have to understand that the ultimate goal of CT operations is very simple…
TO SAVE INNOCENT LIVES…
And, in the pursuit of that goal, ALL other considerations are secondary.. If there ever was an area that PROVED the maxim, “The Ends Justifies The Means”, CT operations is it…
It’s a lot easier for me to comprehend the situation as I have BT and DT.
Although I hesitate to bring it up (it invariably leads to sneers of ‘life isn’t a movie’, but I think you are too intelligent to fall back on that clichéd, tiresome and wholly obvious response), I would recommend you see a movie called UNTHINKABLE. It stars Samuel L Jackson and it will have you on the edge of your seat. It’s very thought provoking and it deals with the exact subject matter we are discussing here.
It’s a dangerous world out there. And the men and women charged with keeping you and I safe take their work very seriously. They should be honored and applauded, not sneered at as “war criminals” or “monsters”.
It’s entirely possible that you and/or your loved ones are alive today, thanks to the actions of our military and our intelligence services…
You might think about that the next time you want to label these brave men and women….
Just a thought…
Michale32086
First of all, it’s not all about me me me me me. It’s not about what has happened or hasn’t happened to me. Try to think a little bigger here.
You could explain to me 100,000,000 times over why you think Jay Bybee and John Yoo are brave, but you won’t convince me. But what does it matter anyway? Brave or not, they are war criminals, simple and plain.
If you believe torture has saved lives, give me examples that trace precisely the cause (torture) and effect (lives saved). I want to see precise correlation. Most of what I’ve seen refutes the notion that anything has been gained. And on the off chance you can do that, you still won’t be able to convince me that any of it is worth flushing the foundations of our civilization down the drain. Random talk about theoretical assholes killing my family isn’t going to do the trick any better than an actual asshole actually killing an actual member of my family did. Rights are absolute. Even for monsters.
Chris Baldwin, you are spot on. I wanted to add one more thing, though. Michale is mistaken when stating that our constitution only applies to American citizens. Our founders considered the rights they wrote into law to be assumed for all people. Not just Americans. Everyone in this country is subject to its laws and also to its rights. The founders intended that these are universal rights. But we can only enforce these rights in this country. It was intended that they still all apply to everyone under our jurisdiction.
Chris,
First of all, it’s not all about me me me me me. It’s not about what has happened or hasn’t happened to me. Try to think a little bigger here.
Fair enough.. I admire your ethos and your compassion.
And I DO share it with those who have been wrongfully accused. I really do..
But we are not talking about THAT group. We are talking about hard-core confessed terrorists who BRAG about how many infidels (IE innocent Americans) they have killed.
THAT is the group that I am referring to..
If you believe torture has saved lives, give me examples that trace precisely the cause (torture) and effect (lives saved).
Well, beyond personal experience, the words of Obama’s former DNI is sufficient.. He has stated on several occasions that torture of HV Al Qaeda scum had produced excellent intel that saved lives…
That’s good enough for me..
And on the off chance you can do that, you still won’t be able to convince me that any of it is worth flushing the foundations of our civilization down the drain.
No one is talking about flushing civilization down the drain..
“A civilization thrives best when it can protect itself.”
-Commander George Kirk, THE FINAL FRONTIER (Novel)
Babba,
Michale is mistaken when stating that our constitution only applies to American citizens. Our founders considered the rights they wrote into law to be assumed for all people. Not just Americans. Everyone in this country is subject to its laws and also to its rights. The founders intended that these are universal rights. But we can only enforce these rights in this country. It was intended that they still all apply to everyone under our jurisdiction
I see you are a Trek fan too?? 😀
But seriously, do you have a cite for your position?? I am curious as to your source…
Michale32086
Michale, I base it on our founders own words:
” all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The words of Thomas Jefferson:
“Man [is] a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights and with an innate sense of justice.”
“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
“Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.”
Thomas Paine:
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
In the Constitution the words repeatedly speak of all persons in the US, for example:
“Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Any more questions?
Well, if it is trolling, it ain’t your classic “talking points with a dash of nasty” trolling. Reading this string is like watching a pretty good tennis volley. While I am pretty much a DFH, the one accused of trolling pretty much can be given a tip of the hat as being a “master debater.”
boohunney, I agree. Michale32086 is no ordinary troll. Actually, Michale is no troll at all.
Babba,
OK.. So you are saying it doesn’t specifically state in the US Constitution that it applies to terrorist scumbags..
Whew.. Glad we cleared that up.. I thought we were reading two different US Constitutions. 😀
In other words, it’s your interpretation, based on the words of men in those days (who didn’t have to deal with terrorists and the like) that the US Constitution applies to everyone in the world..
I respect your opinion. I simply disagree with it, Captain James T Kirk’s words notwithstanding.. 😀
Boohunney & Babba,
While I am pretty much a DFH, the one accused of trolling pretty much can be given a tip of the hat as being a “master debater.”
boohunney, I agree. Michale32086 is no ordinary troll. Actually, Michale is no troll at all.
Thank you. Ya’all, apparently are more smart people who actually KNOW what the definition of an Internet Troll is.. 😀
It’s been my experience in political blogs, both Right AND Left, that people throw around the word “troll” without ANY understanding of what constitutes an internet troll… Much like people bandy about the word “terrorism” and “terrorist” with no clue as to it’s meaning.
Sadly, in these political blogs, “troll” is simply defined as someone who posts things that the immature name-caller doesn’t like to read..
While I may be an arrogant prick (ok, ok.. No “maybe” about it 😀 ) one simply cannot accuse me of being a “troll”.
One might as well call me a “cucumber”. It’s about as accurate.. And ridiculous… 😀
One question though for Boohunney, though.. DFH????
Michale32086
Babba,
Michale, I base it on our founders own words:
I am also constrained to point out that those words do not apply in wartime.
Nay, even in the time period of our founders, those words were violated time and time again.
War is a nasty business. Which is actually a GOOD thing, least we grow too fond of it…
Michale32086
Yes, war is nasty business, but that’s just when we need to at least attempt to live up to the words of our constitution and the words of people like Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries. Our current wars are particularly nasty and unnecessary. There are a couple of hundred members of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and we have 100,000 troops there after almost 10 years and I can’t even figure out what our goal is. That actually makes us look pretty weak, if you think about it. Compound that with ignoring our highest ideals and that looks pretty pathetic.
Babba,
Yes, war is nasty business, but that’s just when we need to at least attempt to live up to the words of our constitution and the words of people like Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries.
I am nearly certain that if “Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries” were faced with the likes of Bin Laden, Zwahiri or Ata they would add on the phrase, “except for those guys” to their words.. 😀
Our current wars are particularly nasty and unnecessary.
Neither of us have enough information to much such a determination either way. We elect our leaders to make the decisions for us, based on information that we cannot (or more accurately, DO NOT want to) know.. We just have to hope and trust that they make the best decisions possible.
There are a couple of hundred members of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and we have 100,000 troops there after almost 10 years and I can’t even figure out what our goal is.
That’s easy. Eliminate Al Qaeda as a threat.. If we have to go thru the Taliban to do that, well… I really don’t have a problem with that. Do you realize how the Taliban treats women?? Gays???
The enemy is not deserving of any sympathy…
That actually makes us look pretty weak, if you think about it. Compound that with ignoring our highest ideals and that looks pretty pathetic.
I agree that it is pretty sad how the US Armed Forces are being jerked around by the enemy..
But, having BT and DT, I am certain it’s because of the politicians back in Washington and has little to do with the true capability of our Armed Forces.
As for compromising our ideals, I don’t see it that way.. The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Ideals and principles are all fine and dandy and makes one feel all warm and fuzzy…
But they should never, EVER, stand in the way of saving innocent lives… Not ever..
Michale32086