[Parabolica]

KSM-
Can you provide a citation to your assertion that only 3 prisoners were tortured? As a followup, I’m curious about where you usually get your sources of information, if you don’t mind telling me. Nothing that I’m seeing in print, online, or television media lines up with your views about the number of people tortured, or the effficacy of torture, and I’d like to know how you come by your ideas.

I believe that reports by the Red Cross, the Pentagon, and a Congressional committee indicate that torture was employed systematically across military prisons and secret prisons. Also, that this torture was approved at the highest levels of the Bush administration. Just yesterday, documents were produced that Cheney and Condi approved torture. “Pretty small program”?

I’ve got to run now, but here is a quick cite to the Red Cross reference.

The Red Cross report says that torture, including waterboarding, was practiced systematically in our secret prisons.

“It discusses elements of the CIA rendition and detention program, in which prisoners were transported – shackled and blindfolded – to secret “black sites” where they faced interrogation using what President Bush, in a September 6, 2006 speech publicly revealing the program, termed “an alternative set of procedures.”

These techniques, the Red Cross states, included suffocation by water, beatings, confinement in a box, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, exposure to cold temperatures or cold water, starvation and prolonged stress positions.

According to the report’s authors, “in many cases, the ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program … constituted torture.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/16/terror/main4869240.shtml

[Parabolica]

KSM-
Can you provide a citation to your assertion that only 3 prisoners were tortured? As a followup, I’m curious about where you usually get your sources of information, if you don’t mind telling me. Nothing that I’m seeing in print, online, or television media lines up with your views about the number of people tortured, or the effficacy of torture, and I’d like to know how you come by your ideas.

I believe that reports by the Red Cross, the Pentagon, and a Congressional committee indicate that torture was employed systematically across military prisons and secret prisons. Also, that this torture was approved at the highest levels of the Bush administration. Just yesterday, documents were produced that Cheney and Condi approved torture. “Pretty small program”?

I’ve got to run now, but here is a quick cite to the Red Cross reference.

The Red Cross report says that torture, including waterboarding, was practiced systematically in our secret prisons.

“It discusses elements of the CIA rendition and detention program, in which prisoners were transported – shackled and blindfolded – to secret “black sites” where they faced interrogation using what President Bush, in a September 6, 2006 speech publicly revealing the program, termed “an alternative set of procedures.”

These techniques, the Red Cross states, included suffocation by water, beatings, confinement in a box, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, exposure to cold temperatures or cold water, starvation and prolonged stress positions.

According to the report’s authors, “in many cases, the ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program … constituted torture.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/16/terror/main4869240.shtml

[Parabolica]

KSM-
Can you provide a citation to your assertion that only 3 prisoners were tortured? As a followup, I’m curious about where you usually get your sources of information, if you don’t mind telling me. Nothing that I’m seeing in print, online, or television media lines up with your views about the number of people tortured, or the effficacy of torture, and I’d like to know how you come by your ideas.

I believe that reports by the Red Cross, the Pentagon, and a Congressional committee indicate that torture was employed systematically across military prisons and secret prisons. Also, that this torture was approved at the highest levels of the Bush administration. Just yesterday, documents were produced that Cheney and Condi approved torture. “Pretty small program”?

I’ve got to run now, but here is a quick cite to the Red Cross reference.

The Red Cross report says that torture, including waterboarding, was practiced systematically in our secret prisons.

“It discusses elements of the CIA rendition and detention program, in which prisoners were transported – shackled and blindfolded – to secret “black sites” where they faced interrogation using what President Bush, in a September 6, 2006 speech publicly revealing the program, termed “an alternative set of procedures.”

These techniques, the Red Cross states, included suffocation by water, beatings, confinement in a box, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, exposure to cold temperatures or cold water, starvation and prolonged stress positions.

According to the report’s authors, “in many cases, the ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program … constituted torture.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/16/terror/main4869240.shtml

[Parabolica]

KSM-
Can you provide a citation to your assertion that only 3 prisoners were tortured? As a followup, I’m curious about where you usually get your sources of information, if you don’t mind telling me. Nothing that I’m seeing in print, online, or television media lines up with your views about the number of people tortured, or the effficacy of torture, and I’d like to know how you come by your ideas.

I believe that reports by the Red Cross, the Pentagon, and a Congressional committee indicate that torture was employed systematically across military prisons and secret prisons. Also, that this torture was approved at the highest levels of the Bush administration. Just yesterday, documents were produced that Cheney and Condi approved torture. “Pretty small program”?

I’ve got to run now, but here is a quick cite to the Red Cross reference.

The Red Cross report says that torture, including waterboarding, was practiced systematically in our secret prisons.

“It discusses elements of the CIA rendition and detention program, in which prisoners were transported – shackled and blindfolded – to secret “black sites” where they faced interrogation using what President Bush, in a September 6, 2006 speech publicly revealing the program, termed “an alternative set of procedures.”

These techniques, the Red Cross states, included suffocation by water, beatings, confinement in a box, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, exposure to cold temperatures or cold water, starvation and prolonged stress positions.

According to the report’s authors, “in many cases, the ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program … constituted torture.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/16/terror/main4869240.shtml

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[Author]

Posts