Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Our president shakes hands with dictators...

while planning to prosecute fine Americans who serve to protect us from Islamic extremists.

28 comments:

rac said...

Not an unprecedented move given the 17 fine soldiers and officers Bush prosecuted for carrying out those orders.

Cindy said...

From the story I read Sean, there is not a plan to prosecute at this time ...it just said that Obama might be open to further investigations and possible prosecutions of those responsible for any techniques that crossed the line into torture. I get the impression that there is pressure for him to do this.

Ric Larson said...

Now, if I were a field intelligence officer, (such as a CIA G-man); I would be ‘literally debating (or worried shitless)’ rather to do my job correctly, such as interrogating the bad guys to figure our where their next American target is. I would be questioning,”Now if I interrogate this potential terrorist, will the next administration attempt to prosecute me”?

Just by reporting that our Commander in Chief apparently stating “Obama might be open to further investigations and possible prosecutions of those responsible for any techniques that crossed the line into torture”. He just lost our intelligence capability. It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure this one out.

And don’t you think the enemy is aware if this?

Oh yes, they are.

Ric Larson said...

"Light bulb"!

Cindy said...

We are not talking about "interrogation" here Ric,If there was actual inhumane brutal torture, are we any better than the "bad" guys? Are there no limits to what should be done to get the info we want? If we say our country is founded on "christian" values how do we justify treating other human beings like animals?

Ric Larson said...

Cindy, read the Bible, especially the Old Testament. You’ll get the drift!

Ric Larson said...

If I were a CIA agent, and I knew that the one that I was interrogating was going to set off a duty bomb near NYC (where my family lives), you bet, I would use inhumane brutal torture to safe the many lives. Wouldn’t you, especially if your family was involved? But let us think on a national perspective.

Cindy said...

Sorry Ric, you won't convince me on this one...I would never even be able to have a gun in my house because I know that I wouldn't be able to use it on anyone.

Ric Larson said...

If an armed predator were braking into your house threatening your family, whom would you trust to protect you in immediate danger? Dialing ‘911’, or ‘Smith and Weston’?

Sean said...

RAC - is that the best you got? It's OK because Bush did it?

Sean said...

Cindy, we shall see whether there are persecutions, er I mean, prosecutions down the road. I don't buy his stated reasons for releasing the memos, there was really no justification for this at all.

I haven't read them yet, but I understand that any mention of the actual effectiveness and results of the techniques was blocked out from the released documents. Why would that be?

Ric Larson said...

It must suck running out of ammo! ;)

Cindy said...

What about the argument that our techniques actually cost American lives??

An Air Force Senior Interrogator who was in Irag in 2006 wrote the following (he used the pseudonym Mathew Alexander)in a November 30, 2008 Washington Post op-ed:

"I know the counter-argument well -- that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that's not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."

Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans."

Cindy said...

Ammo enough, Ric?

mat said...

Well here's one for Cindy, look at it this way, Suppose this guy and his friends plant a bomb in a busy store or park or whatever and the bomb goes off and kills many innocent people. Then we track one of his friends down and he knows where the "bomber" is. He won't tell us though because he hates us as much as the bomber. We keep asking him "Please" tell us. Or we'll ask you "Please" again. In the meantime, his friend sets off another bomb and kills more innocent people and we say,"Okay,now we're really going to ask you please". In Viet Nam the Army used to capture peasants who were NVA sempathizers(peasants meaning no education and have never known indoor plumbing or electricity etc). We would question them to no end and then one technique we would use would be to attach a blood pressure monitor to their arms and ask them a battery of questions one at a time. Each time pumping the bulb a little and tightening on the arm. The whole time the translator would be screaming at the guy saying "you lie, your arm will blow up". The poor bastards would sing like canaries. Was that torture? Did it work? Hell yeh. I'm a nice guy and I would never wish any pain or harm upon someone for no reason, But are you serious that you would let harm come to your family, your grandkids Cindy because you didn't want to hurt these fuckers feelings? Or violate a civil right? You think they give a shit about Cindy or who you voted for? Sheesh!

Ric Larson said...

My reinforcement has just arrived! Hi Matheeeeew! Hey buddy, my wife and I still want your wife’s secrete ingredients for her succulent chicken. Pass on the secret dude! ;)

mat said...

And I might ad that the "homicide" bombers are not blowing us up but blowing their own people up. Because we treat their people like shit? Huh? So why have they been
doing it for decades before Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo huh? As a matter of fact didn't the US Cole bombing and the first attack on the world trade center happen before Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.What magazine was this article you read in, High Times?

mat said...

Ric, Buddy I love ya like a brother but you can't have the recipe.(If I told ya I'd have to torture ya) hahahaha.

Ric Larson said...

Ahhh, come on buddy ‘ol pal, you can do it for an old friend, can’t you?

Just kidding Mat, I know that blood is much thicker than water. Your wife’s cooking recipe is a top-secrete family recipe and can wait till the next reunion!

Cheers! Ric

rac said...

Precedence is the rule of law. Other than that it's not really an issue I've given a whole lot of thought to.

Sean said...

RAC - I followed the link you posted and I can only assume that you are equating Bush's prosecution of the soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib abuse and the possible prosecution of the lawyers who wrote legal opinions on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Do you really think this is the same thing?

Abu Ghraib actually was a "dark chapter" in America's history. This was abuse with no purpose. The water boarding and other techniques now under discussion absolutely served a purpose - saving American lives, exposing the organization and methods of our enemy and preventing further attacks.

rac said...

Bush Officials Tried to Shift Blame for Detainee Abuse to Low-Ranking Soldiers

Sean said...

RAC - if you want to spend time Bush-bashing, start a new thread. This one is about Obama-bashing!

rac said...

Precedence is the rule of law.

rac said...

Again, I would point out I haven't given this issue much thought - mostly because I don't really give a shit. If the lawyers want to battle it out then let them - it's what they do. My only point was there is legal precedence for torture prosecutions. But as far as me ruffling my feathers - it ain't going to happen. I don't get excited about an issue just because the media says I should.

rac said...

UK High Court demands U.S. torture documents

juliet said...

So Dave, I think you have a not so hidden talent here. Are you taking a creative writing class. Really, we need some more of those B rated war movies. I just purchased at the KMart on Guam a DVD collection called Spaghetti Westerns.That my entertainment for the weekend while I get over my cold. We need a thread worst creative "B" movie dialogue. You likie likie?

Ric Larson said...

“UK High Court demands US torture documents”? Just what jurisdiction do they have over us (the US)?