Did White House backtrack on torture?

Did White House backtrack on torture? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/4/2007 4:02:18 PM)
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations. But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales ’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency . The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134143

philosophy -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/4/2007 4:09:32 PM)
Regardless of whether people think such activities justifiable it is deeply saddening that the US administration is so two-faced over another moral/ethical issue. Take a stand and stand there.....don't say one thing publically and do another in private. Sheer hypocrisy.

Politesub53 -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/4/2007 4:16:09 PM)
Under international law the above is classed as torture. Either the USA wants to abide by international law or not. I think they would be served better by sticking with stuff they signed up to. Long term they would get more respect from the public than at present.

Level -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/4/2007 4:22:13 PM)
We won't see a change until the people in the White House are changed. I'm pretty sure of that. [:)]

thornhappy -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/4/2007 5:09:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level We won't see a change until the people in the White House are changed. I'm pretty sure of that. [:)] We (the US) used to absolutely excoriate the Soviet Union, among others, for using the techniques described in the letters. And they used to say the victims were terrorists or enemies of the State. thornhappy

Owner59 -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/4/2007 6:11:23 PM)
Yup.

Level -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/4/2007 6:20:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy quote: ORIGINAL: Level We won't see a change until the people in the White House are changed. I'm pretty sure of that. [:)] We (the US) used to absolutely excoriate the Soviet Union, among others, for using the techniques described in the letters. And they used to say the victims were terrorists or enemies of the State. thornhappy *And I'm sure some of them were* enemies of the Soviet state, as some of those we've taken prisoner are ours; but, does that make torture "right"?**

thornhappy -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/5/2007 5:49:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy quote: ORIGINAL: Level We won't see a change until the people in the White House are changed. I'm pretty sure of that. [:)] We (the US) used to absolutely excoriate the Soviet Union, among others, for using the techniques described in the letters. And they used to say the victims were terrorists or enemies of the State. thornhappy *And I'm sure some of them were* enemies of the Soviet state, as some of those we've taken prisoner are ours; but, does that make torture "right"?** Oh hell, no. I just figured the government was hypocriticle to justify torture, which the best investigators will tell you doesn't work worth a damn. A la the Salem Witch Trials. thornhappy

Level -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/5/2007 5:57:52 PM)
Hi thorn; I didn't think you believed it was okay, I was being rhetorical (I think that's the right word lol).

thompsonx -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/5/2007 7:12:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Under international law the above is classed as torture. Either the USA wants to abide by international law or not. I think they would be served better by sticking with stuff they signed up to. Long term they would get more respect from the public than at present. Politesub: I could not agree more. thompson

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/5/2007 8:00:06 PM)
I am not agree with torture, but I would lke to point out that people have virtues/morals/ethics, countries and big business only have interests. I do not see the use of torture to be in the best interest of the US. Also, almost every President that has been in office, has had to say one thing, while actually doing another. Complete transparency allows those that wish a country harm to see all information. I do believe there has been past, and a current, Presidents that have abused the national security clause though. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Regardless of whether people think such activities justifiable it is deeply saddening that the US administration is so two-faced over another moral/ethical issue. Take a stand and stand there.....don't say one thing publically and do another in private. Sheer hypocrisy.

MsBearlee -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/6/2007 7:02:19 AM)
Ummmm…does anybody else have trouble with policico-speak? Torture is abhorrent…no wait, it’s a necessity, but we do it humanly. We are headed toward a recession; no wait…we miscounted, there are more new jobs then we first thought. The economy is fine. We are loosing our boys head over heels in Iraq… Oh, suddenly we’re loosing them at half to one quarter the rate we were! All is going swimmingly over there! We are not to worry. So, whenever it is necessary to explain away something or do an about face…we just change the meaning of a word or how we count? Just curious, Beverly

Level -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/6/2007 7:05:29 AM)
Good morning, Beverly. Yeah, politicians have abused language for a long time. "Collateral damage" comes to mind....[:)]

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/6/2007 7:37:53 AM)
Plausable deniability is another phrase they use often, but not to the public. If everyone is tired of the business as usual politics, then prove it. Vote out every incumbent in 2008, and send the message "We are tired of business as usual politics." To the OP, if you knew it would save millions of lives, not a chance it would, but you knew for certain, would you use torture to get the information? Orion

Owner59 -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/6/2007 9:03:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Plausable deniability is another phrase they use often, but not to the public. If everyone is tired of the business as usual politics, then prove it. Vote out every incumbent in 2008, and send the message "We are tired of business as usual politics." To the OP, if you knew it would save millions of lives, not a chance it would, but you knew for certain, would you use torture to get the information? Orion This fantasy scenario,is what every neo-con dreams about. The fantasy involves being/playing Jack Bauer,of "24". Like children playing "cops and robbers",these less then mature chicken-hawks ,are fantasizing ,and inserting those morbid fantasies into everyone else`s reality. We know that torture doesn`t work and is not affective. But, this one in a billion chance,that we`ll have al queda`s # 3 man in hand,w/ info about an attack,is the rare and narrow excuse that the neo-cons are using to drive a ocean liner through. If you say yes to that limited example you gave,then every Tom,Dick,and Harry is going to do whatever they want,to whoever they want ,and with impunity. At least the Army knows the reality,and did the right,mature and moral thing.They invited "Jack Bauer" to speak at West Point,to dispel the ruinous and stupid myths and fantasies ,about torture. . http://www.hollywood.com/news/US_Army_Invites_Sutherland_to_Give_Anti_Torture_Speech/3662740 http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2265087.ece http://www.24headquarters.com/2007/02/26/kiefer-sutherland-to-give-anti-torture-talk-at-west-point/ Thank god,the adults are in charge(kinda). Just after 9/11,my buddy`s kids built a fort in there bedroom and dealt with it mentally,with fantacies of fighting terrorist and the bad guys. I liken the neo-con`s fascination w/ torture,to kids and the way kids deal with reality.

Owner59 -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/6/2007 9:15:38 AM)
For other neo-cons,it really doesn`t matter,whether or not torture is affective. They just want to torture.Like that character in "Reservoir Dogs",who tortured the under-cover cop,for the fun of it. "Clowns to left of me,jokers to the right,here I am,stuck in the middle with you". For some neo-cons,ANY brown person, is the "number 3 man" at al queda,and is subject to torture.

thornhappy -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/6/2007 4:49:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Hi thorn; I didn't think you believed it was okay, I was being rhetorical (I think that's the right word lol). Guess that was an original thornhappy clueless moment. Argh. I blame the chinese food. thornhappy

Sinergy -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/6/2007 5:01:23 PM)
The way I view the whole thing is how I want myself (and in an ubuntu sense, I speak of humanity) to be remembered by future generations. Do I want to be remembered as somebody like Schindler or Ghandi are, who did the right thing regardless of the threat to themselves, the lack of profit for themselves, and because it was the morally or ethically correct thing to do. Would I rather be remembered as Stalin or Pol Pot are, as ruthless dictators who slaughtered over a million of their subjects in order to further (they believed) their political or social aims? You people justifying the use of torture against anybody simply mystify me. Hope when they break down your door, call you a follower of Barney the Dinosaur, and hook house power up to your genitalia, that you remember that the ends justify the means and you are the Space Monkey being shot into space to further the advancement of our species. Sinergy

pahunkboy -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/6/2007 5:31:21 PM)
if it isnt torchure then he will allow me to do it on him??

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Did White House backtrack on torture? (10/6/2007 9:16:22 PM)
The adults are in charge? Meaning you? Anyway, I was not even talking about al Queda or anything going on right now. I keep having to remind you of something, though you keep ignoring it I AM NOT A FUCKING REPUBLICAN. Did you get it that time? You seem to call everyone a Neo Con that disagrees with your opinion. Were you not the one that said Rush Limbaugh claimed anyone that did not agree with him is not a republican? Were you the one that called someone a hypocrit? Damn, I am getting off topic again. I asked the question to see if there were people that may say yes, because the scenario will never occur. Damn we seemed to have been on the same page. How you treat your enemy is a measure of how virtuous a society is. Notice I did not say country, but society. I suppose Hillary's chinese connections will help this country out more. She is really trying hard to convince people that China is a problem, and seems to be trying harder since certain money was traced. Guess there is not a clean politician out there, and it depends on the brand of dirty you will accept. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Plausable deniability is another phrase they use often, but not to the public. If everyone is tired of the business as usual politics, then prove it. Vote out every incumbent in 2008, and send the message "We are tired of business as usual politics." To the OP, if you knew it would save millions of lives, not a chance it would, but you knew for certain, would you use torture to get the information? Orion This fantasy scenario,is what every neo-con dreams about. The fantasy involves being/playing Jack Bauer,of "24". Like children playing "cops and robbers",these less then mature chicken-hawks ,are fantasizing ,and inserting those morbid fantasies into everyone else`s reality. We know that torture doesn`t work and is not affective. But, this one in a billion chance,that we`ll have al queda`s # 3 man in hand,w/ info about an attack,is the rare and narrow excuse that the neo-cons are using to drive a ocean liner through. If you say yes to that limited example you gave,then every Tom,Dick,and Harry is going to do whatever they want,to whoever they want ,and with impunity. At least the Army knows the reality,and did the right,mature and moral thing.They invited "Jack Bauer" to speak at West Point,to dispel the ruinous and stupid myths and fantasies ,about torture. . http://www.hollywood.com/news/US_Army_Invites_Sutherland_to_Give_Anti_Torture_Speech/3662740 http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2265087.ece http://www.24headquarters.com/2007/02/26/kiefer-sutherland-to-give-anti-torture-talk-at-west-point/ Thank god,the adults are in charge(kinda). Just after 9/11,my buddy`s kids built a fort in there bedroom and dealt with it mentally,with fantacies of fighting terrorist and the bad guys. I liken the neo-con`s fascination w/ torture,to kids and the way kids deal with reality.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1875