Torture is the supreme act of cowardice.

"even though it is a logical conclusion"
-
As I have told you repeatedly...your belief is not the facts. Yes you finally got it.

RetiredAirForce, sorry about that last post, I was in a rush to leave the house and I wasn`t thinking. But, after I left I was. I have been arguing the memos caused abuse, I supposed you were arguing they didn`t. I now believe your argument has been those words, "memos caused abuse" do not specifically appear in the report, even though it is a logical conclusion from said report. Let me know if I finally have it right.

The report states "aggressive interrogation techniques were a direct cause of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib." No memos, no aggressive techniques. Period.

"says there is a direct connection...I believe the report says exactly what I said it does."
-
Neither the report or the summary state a "direct connection"...no matter what you think. It would be much different if you came out and said something like "after I read it I believe there is a direct connection", but you don't you state something inferring a quote from your stated source...obfuscating your belief with actual facts is the issue.

RetiredAirForce, I said, "The Armed Services Committee Report says there is a direct connection between the memos and the abuse at Abu Ghraib." Reading the report from when the memos are written and delivered, to GTMO, then to Afghanistan and Iraq, the enhanced interrogations began. The military received a "power point" instruction on the techniques. The report states the abuses were not the result of a "few bad apples", but a systemic problem covering CIA, contractors, and the military itself. By quoting a summary, written by the authors of the report, in no way minimizes that summary. I believe the report says exactly what I said it does. I realize I have a left-leaning bent, and you are not a moderate yourself, so we will not agree on a lot. But, I think a "neutral" observer reading the report would certainly tend to agree with my point of view on it`s content just by the contents of paragraph 3, conclusions 15 and 19 alone. Obviously this debate is going nowhere, so it`s done.

"In your zeal to get the quote exact"
-
My zeal, if you must, was to get the facts first on what was really written and then where you got your remarks from. As is most often the case your remarks are based on your belief not facts and your comments stating from "source" are really your words and not from the source you cite.

"not a few bad apples,senior officials solicited information on aggressive techniques, redefined the law(memos), this report about unfortunate results" In your zeal to get the quote exact did you read it? "SMUTF policies were a direct cause of detainee abuse and influenced interrogation policies at ABU Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq" , conclusion 15. The techniques were not only authorized for the CIA, outside contractors, but came through the chain of command to the services. The report follows the orders as they go from Cuba to Afghanistan to Iraq.

"The quote that you cite is exactly what I said."
-
None of your comments are the same as para 3...they are picked parts of many to include 3.

RetiredAirForce, fine you are done. The quote that you cite is exactly what I said. The abuses came not from a "few bad apples"(guards), but were a direct result of orders from the top, supposedly "legalized" by the memos, and spread throughout the detainee system. Without the memos, the abuse would not have been systematic. Conclusion 19 does more than infer that. The quote from the summary says what the Committee believes the report says. If you choose not to believe that is fine.

Yes, Pharm it is hard work justifying the torturing and dehumanization of alleged terrorists who haven't had a trial. However, RAF looks to his fascist heroes for strength.

Pharm....here is the direct quote of all of the thrid para "The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of “a few bad apples” acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority. This report is a product of the Committee’s inquiry into how those unfortunate results came about."
-
As we all can see this is not the quote you have posted...I'm done.

RetiredAirForce, the "few bad apples" quote is in the third paragraph of the report, and again later in the report. Conclusion 6, "The OLC opinions distorted the meaning and intent of anti-torture laws rationalizing the abuse of detainees in US custody." Conclusion 8, "SERE instructors had no experience in detainee interrogation." Conclusion 11, "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs cut short the legal and policy review." Conclusion 15, "aggressive interrogation techniques were a direct cause of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib." There is extensive writing in the report about the memos being the basis of OKing the techniques, and about how the techniques made their way from GTMO to Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Your latest quote is from an executive summary on abuse not from the previous report you just listed. These inconstancies are the very reason your comments have grown too tiresome to bother with.

RetiredAirforce, it is your right not to respond if you so choose. "The committee concluded that the authorization of agressive interrogation techniques by senior officials was both a direct cause of detainee abuse and conveyed the message that it was okay to mistreat and degrade detainees in U.S. custody." "The abuses at ABU Ghraib, GTMO, and elsewhere cannot be chalked up to the actions of a few bad apples. The message from top officials was clear; it was acceptable to use degrading and abusive techniques against detainees." The Yoo and Bybee memos are mentioned in the report as the rationale the "top officials" used to OK the techniques.

“Senate armed Services Report in December of 2008 says there was a direct connection to the memos authorizing torture and what happened at Abu Ghraib.”
-
Not true. Nothing in the report states your words. An inference might come from conclusion 19 but that states nothing of the memos. For the record I am done trying to correct your posts on this, no offence, I just don’t have the time to keep looking up the facts to discount your rumors.

“No, you brought it up.
-
Darwin, is that advanced degree in forgetfulness and incredulity? You posted the comment on this thread; May 18, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. “I actually have an advanced degree from a University so I am not a pseudo intellectual.”

RetiredAirForce, the Senate armed Services Report in December of 2008 says there was a direct connection to the memos authorizing torture and what happened at Abu Ghraib.

"It never had anything to do with it...until you brought it up."

No, you brought it up.

"What does it have to do with the issue here?"
-
It never had anything to do with it...until you brought it up.

What does it have to do with the issue here?

Still waiting on what that advanced degree was in?

More from Nanci Pelosi and her sister. Evidently, DizzyGirl and RareForce cut and run from the issue at hand.

Did anyone else notice the title of the article...?
.
KRAUTHAMMER a conservative and regular on fox titles his article, the TORTURE debate...
.
If we all agree torture is illegal and even Krauthammer admits it was torture, WHAT IS THE ISSUE?
.
WHAT DEBATE?
.
If illegal torture happened and it was approved by our government official then those officials should be prosecuted.
.
END OF STORY...no more debate

DiGriz, don't go there with Darwin. He already compared a fetus to a parasite. Of course that was before the latest debate on what is a true anaolgy.

hmmm so predictions you can make but salient points you can't. Still waiting on what that advanced degree was in?

Sorry, for a second there I thought I was reading Nanci Pelosi. Then, I remembered I was reading military men who evidently don't like to take responsibility for their words. You compared gay people to drug addicts anyone can read what you wrote.

Since you're not the President or any other type of elected official I don't exactly know how you get to speak for everyone.

RAF, With my advanced degree I predicted you would quote what I said and then make some back handed comment. How original.

"An analogy is a comparison."
-
Surprised with your advanced degree you could not grasp the analogy as presented without judging the ideas used in the comparison. Just what type of advanced degree was that?

An analogy is a comparison. So, as a matter of fact you were comparing gay people to drug addicts. The point was about the rule of law which the military and CIA seems quite capable of twisting when it suits their purposes. Just because something is in an employment contract doesn't mean its legal. Are non-compete clauses legal in Wisconsin? I don't think they are.

RetiredAirForce, the administration torture memos went out in August of 2002, after the military questioned the legality of them. In February of 2003 the Judge Advocate General`s Corp(JAG) sent memos of their own to the administration, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, saying the Bybee/Yoo memos were wrong, dangerous to our troops, could cause legal repercussions for anyone using/condoning/ordering the techniques advocated in those memos .

"The fact that Pelosi (and her intelligence aide) and then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss and dozens of other members of Congress knew about the enhanced interrogation and said nothing, and did nothing to cut off the funding, tells us something very important."
.
Listening to the radio this AM, this comment, written and reported as FACT by Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox, may be untrue.
.
Several congressman have come forward with different accounts of meetings/briefings than what the CIA has led us to believe.
.
A truth commission is needed more than ever. Appoint someone and let's get rid of those who had ANYTHING to do with our country breaking the law by committing torture.
.
Pelosi, GW, Cheaney, lawyers, etc... prosecute all of them. I don't care enough about either party or any of these politicans to have them protected. We should never, EVER tolerate our gov't breaking the law in our name.
.
This entire thing and everyone involved, including the media cover-up on both sides, makes me sick.

I always find it interesting when they go after a Congress person. First, Congress holds the purse strings and nothing more. We know the CIA has lied, murdered (Allende in Chile) and some such as Aldrich Ames sold out their country. Ms Pelosi unlike the CIA has to be re-elected every two years. She unlike the CIA has to accountable in every way imaginable. Maybe we should put the CIA up for a vote?

To your point about the interpreters. First, you are arguing the rule of law? I think that is exactly the point about torture. Secondly, you are comparing homosexuals to drug addicts? Do you realize how bigoted that sounds? It seems like the only reason why we have this rule is due to the bigotry in the military and nothing else. Here we have useful "assets" that can help us obtain useful information about future terrorists acts but because they are gay it isn't useful. This sounds like Germany in the 1930's when the research of Jewish scientists like Einstein was discounted because they were Jewish. Would you compare being Jewish to being a drug addict?

“As it was, the administration never let them finish their legal opinions and went ahead with the memos.”
-
Pure conjecture.

"if that is true why did all the services offer opinions contrary to the memos and ask the military lawyers to offer an opinion?"
-
The military works for the administration. They do not go out and do anything like this on their own.

RetiredAirforce, if that is true why did all the services offer opinions contrary to the memos and ask the military lawyers to offer an opinion? If they were not to be involved, they could just ignore the memos. As it was, the administration never let them finish their legal opinions and went ahead with the memos.

Pharm, again you are wanting to believe what is not true. The services operate under a set of rules. The memos were written to offer guidance for policy makers. These same lawyers do not and did not have the authority or ability to tell the military members what they could or could not do.

Retiredairforce, if the memos made torture legal, did they specify only certain people could do it? Did it prohibit the military from doing it?I didn`t see that paragraph.If it is there I will apologize. To work at the detention centers they would have had to receive some training to assist when the interrogators were resting, you don`t deny sleep to someone for weeks at a time by yourself. If the reason given by the CIA is valid(who knows!) then Obama cannot legally release the records, he would be violating the law. On another point, Cheney could have been turned down for any reason, or no reason, he has no more standing to ask for release of anything than Joe Blow off the street.

"did I get all of the tortures OK`ed in the memos?"
-
If you keep them in the context of interrogation, yes. The problem you have is then assuming everyone in the military may follow these guidelines...that is false.

"the White House did not refuse to release the documents, the CIA did"
-
The CIA is part of the Executive Branch...run by the President. He has the authority to release the documents if he wants to.

DIGriz, I didn`t take it that you did. Have a great day/night whatever time you read this.

RetiredAirForce, the White House did not refuse to release the documents, the CIA did because they said those documents were subject to litigation. The "plots" mentioned so far, L.A. Towers, Brooklyn Bridge, Dirty Bomb, fell apart of their own weight, not because someone was tortured. If an act is supposedly "legal" during an interrogation, what makes it illegal when enlisted personnel do the same thing?DIGriz, For what it`s worth, I commend you for having such good self control. The problem I have is that our government planned the torture of the detainees, tried to make it seem "legal" by issuing memos, and proceeded to break all the rules of treatment of prisoners. They are not to be "slapped", even beaten to death, nor deprived of food, forced to be nude, walled, subject to psychological torture, and waterboarded.(RetiredAirForce, did I get all of the tortures OK`ed in the memos?) By the way Griz, I have a nephew in the Army Rangers, and he calls me Uncle, not Aunt.

The irony is that while Cheney and the goon squad talk about the need to use all assets, the military has let go 54 Arabic interpreters because they are gay. Evidently, we must protect our country at all costs except for that one.

"Cheney touts the information they got as a result of torture, but nobody can name one threat that actually was averted because of that information."
-
Ask the White House to release all the documents, not just selected ones. Cheney's request for release of the documents to shed more light on the subject has been denied by the current administration.

Pharm your argument falls to pieces because those pictures were not taken of interrogations. The memos were written for interrogation purposes only. The people convicted of offenses based on the pictures did not follow orders. Again, no mater how much you want it to be true, it was not.

RetiredAirForce, in the memos a "prototypical interrogation" begins with the detainee being stripped, shackled, hooded. Look at the pictures. 916wi, according to the FBI, members of the real world, they were getting everything from the detainees before the torture started. Cheney touts the information they got as a result of torture, but nobody can name one threat that actually was averted because of that information. The 9-11 Commission could not find any credible evidence of any foiled plots either. Now Cheney is saying because Obama is endangering the country by stopping the Bush administration tactics when they were supposedly stopped in 2005. Is he saying they continued the torture even after it was supposed to be stopped?

I liked what Jesse Ventura said about torture. He said and I quote "Give me an hour waterboarding Dick Cheney and I have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders." That is why it doesn't work. It gets information no doube about it; but the info is all likelyhood is not accurate.

", the guards whose photos were snapped at Abu Ghraib paid the price for that, even though what they were doing were the exact "enhanced" methods described by the Justice Department memos."
-
Pharm back again trying to peddle these remarks? Where exactly in the memos did it say to do what they did? It was not there! Just because you want it to be true does not make it true.

Pharm--Relax:) We're not debating the fact that any of this took place, just the fact that many of us agree that it is necessary. I understand that you have a disconnect with what's going on. Perhaps in your world a steak dinner or a supervised night out at the movies complete with popcorn and junior mints would get the terrorists who want us all dead to open up and tell us their secrets, but, unfortunately, in the real world it just doesn't work like that.......

Torture is immoral. Not. Allowing people to die because we are too busy trying to be politically correct is just as immoral.

andre, there you go again, telling me I can`t join the discussion because I didn`t serve. I guess you can`t talk about being a congressman, or president then, seeing as how you were never one. The US tortured and murdered prisoners whether you like it or not. those facts won`t change. Why don`t you write Cheney and tell him to shut up, he didn`t serve in the military either. Oh, that`s right, he is one of your heroes! You seem to have a temper problem sometimes when confronted with an opposing view.

andre, it has been prosecuted as torture in this country for over 100 years. Japanese soldiers were hung after WW11 because they did it. Just because a lawyer writes a memo does not change it from illegal to legal. The same goes for beating prisoners to death, try and make that legal!

916wi, the military and the FBI did NOT do any waterboarding. The CIA and hired contractors did it. As for the other "enhanced techniques", the guards whose photos were snapped at Abu Ghraib paid the price for that, even though what they were doing were the exact "enhanced" methods described by the Justice Department memos.

Torture is wrong. Its wrong. Get some morals.

Yep Pharm, those are exactly the people that I'm talking about. The people that are on the front lines--of course you're going to have a division in any group of people, including the military, as far their beliefs are concerned. But who do you think did the waterboarding? The tooth fairy? Within these branches of the military that have people speaking out against the methods used, you have just as many people in those branches who believe the methods were a necessary tool......Let's just agree to disagree with respect to the topic being discussed.....

andre_linoge, I asked my teacher and they said that socialism is on the far left end of the political spectrum and facisim is on the far right. The Nazi's used the term "socialism" in their party title for the fact that socialism was all the rage in the 1920's. Note they did have left wingers in their party early on, but the right wingers won out in the end. Also, had they used the term "facism" in their title they would be referred to as Nafi's, and that just didn't sound as cool.

Let`s see, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, FBI, and even some of the CIA believe we have tortured, and it is wrong. Are those the people you are talking about 916wi?

McCain was rejected because he was out of touch--and that rings true in this set of circumstances as well. He hasn't served in battle conditions in 40 years. Get a clue--the world had changed dramatically since the 1960's. The military members who I will lend credibility to are those who are front and center at this point in time. These brave men and women have been trained to get the job done and they should be allowed to do it.....

Well, if the Nazi's say so you must be right. I mean I am always looking to the Nazis for answers to all my political questions.

andre, you set the rules about experience, I didn`t. McCain fits the rule about torture experience. As to the rest of what he campaigned on, it was rejected not only by me but the majority of voters.

You're not Conservative. Not even close. Maybe reactionary, but much closer to fascist as it was actually practiced in Germany and Spain. The only place you know what your talking about in is Limbaughland. Where everyone thinks they are smart because they are on drugs.

andre, OK is see your point. Then when John McCain, who served, was a POW, was tortured , says we have tortured, it is wrong, and doesn`t work, we should heed his words more than someone with no experience. I`ll buy that!

I don't need to hide behind the barrel of a gun. Go do your goose stepping in some other country fascist thug.

andre, this is clearly an example of the military living in its own little world. You sound like a bunch of addicts: "You don't know me. You don't know where I come from. Don't judge me." If this is why you served then you shouldn't have. It was a waste of your time and tax payer dollars.

digriz, to bad you aren't defending our country with all the zeal you are attacking me. Maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Could Nancy Pelosi have dug herself a much bigger hole in the last week? She and Joe Biden are the prime examples (and to be fair I could name two equally as ridiculous republicans) of why term limits are needed. Read Leonard Pitts column in today's Gazette.

"I actually have an advanced degree from a University so I am not a pseudo intellectual."
-
Advanced degree? That explains some of your issues.

"RAF, "would would" nice English - NOT."
-
I was laughing so much at your nonsense I stuttered when I typed...

RAF, "would would" nice English - NOT.

Digriz, you can't even get my name right. And your defending our country? What exactly was the military doing on 9/11? Trying to figure out if it was a real attack or a simulation. Was that the media's fault? Maybe it was Bill Clinton's fault? Or, Nanci Pelosi's? Who else can you blame? Where else can you shirk responsibility? Are you sure it is America you are serving?

I actually have an advanced degree from a University so I am not a pseudo intellectual.

janesvillean:the reason it is important to know when Pelosi knew things is she lied to the american people and is now frantically trying to cover it up, pass blame, etc... If it were a conservative who was acting in this manner you leiberals would be screaming for his removal!! Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you are waffling in your stance!
DiGriz: Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service to this country! Stay safe and come home safe as well. I agree with all your comments and if anyone on here truly loved their country, they would say the same thing. We need to stand up and protect our country,and our president is not!! If anyone were to really read the koran they would know that muslims DO NOT want us living. We, to them, are the infidels and they are told to eliminate us!! It is not just a radical group,if they are truly muslims, they believe this. The American people need to get a clue and stop being so namby-pamby!! Get some guts and pride in your country and stop selling us down the river. God bless you all you service men and women.

"Maybe they problems with the military are with the military and excepting that responsibility is the first step to recovery."
-
Maybe, if you could articulate a point in English would would stop laughing.

DiGriz, I think if you really really tried harder you could be more bigoted and self-righteous. Maybe they problems with the military are with the military and excepting that responsibility is the first step to recovery.

andre, a statement of opinion. I don`t see any protesting going on about the war in Afghanistan, just some about the illegal invasion of Iraq. There were no Al Quaida in Iraq until after we invaded and they came to practice their tactics. Saddam would not allow then in the country, they did not have the same goals. You didn`t answer my question, am I not allowed to express my opinion because I never served?

andre, and what do they see in this country? A discussion of morality like always in the US. We have been looked up to till the invasion of Iraq for no reason, and now this torture business. And as you know I didn`t serve, so that negates my opinion in your eyes? That is not what our soldiers are fighting for is it? If you have seen any of the news stories from the majority of our experts, Army, Air Force, Marines, FBI, even some of the CIA, you would see that they say the torture was wrong, and has helped the enemy to get more converts to their cause.

DiGriz--You do whatever you need to do to get the job done and come home safely. I truly believe that this is one of those cases where the ends do justify the means. All the Monday morning quarterbacks crying about the terrorist "victims" are living in an alternate reality--passing judgment on our soldiers not having a clue as to what this war is all about. I trust the judgment of those who have been well trained and are experiencing it up close and personal. Please don't think that the views of someone like Darwin1 are representative of the average American. I suspect that if someone like him was dropped off in Afghanistan, you would find him tucked into a corner, wrapped in a blanket cowering in a puddle of his own urine screaming for his mommy...and, typical of any of our soldiers, despite his warped views, you would make sure he got home safely......
Thanks for your service.....

I can't believe people are still discussing this. There is no debate. Torture is immoral, and torture is illegal. Getting your rocks off imagining doing it to your enemies -- well, that makes you the bad guy in the movie. The BAD GUY.

DiGriz, shooting someone in a war to save your life, other lives, is not a quandary at all. Deciding to torture, when it is illegal, immoral, could be if you give in to it. The rationale is it could save lives. Could, might, maybe, maybe not, no way. The "ticking bomb" scenario is always brought up, but the results released have not shown any of those situations. I guess it comes down to what each individual is willing to have on their conscience, can you live with yourself after torturing, no matter if you saved lives or not? As to what the enemy does or does not do, we can`t control their actions no matter if we copy them or not, can we? I believe that is why there are rules in place, for war, handling of prisoners, etc., to help people who are in a "quandary" make an informed decision.

DiGriz, thank you for your service, and thanks to every other man or woman who has served. That said, torture is illegal immoral and self-defeating. Our laws say so, along with numerous conventions and treaties we have signed. As you say, you are entitled to an opinion, as am I and every American citizen. In your mind you are right, according to the rule of law, you are wrong.

Thank you for your service to our country DiGriz, but I'll let you execute the tactics, and leave strategy up to the experts like General Petreus. Unfortunately, in the beginning, this "war on terror" was conceived and ran by the politicians, who have never had a great track record.

I believe Mohandas said the opposite thing: all tyrants fall, empires crumble, the violent eventually kill each other, and war is just a blip between great peace. I believe Gandhi defeated the greatest power ever known in his Birkenstocks. He was beaten and imprisoned. Sadly, you know nothing about me except for your bigoted views about fuzzy kittens and those who wish for peace. Do you really believe that lasting peace comes from the barrel of a gun? Does General Petreus know you undermine his mission in Iraq with your careless comments? Right now our President has to regretfully not allow for the release of pictures that show what was done to detainees to protect people like you supposedly serving the cause of liberty and justice for all.

DiGriz I like the post, good job and thanks for the service. The sad part is "John" is not alone on the gazette paper's web-blog. There are more than half a dozen posters with identical views as his.

Excellent post DiGriz....

Nope, just laughing at your comedy.

Well then this idiot appreciates you paying so much attention to his entries. I hope you are learning something.

I got it the first time...repetition of an idiot.

Yes, that is all I said. There is that comprehension problem again. My reference to the repetition of idiots was in reference to the conservative cliches of you and your fascist morons. I understand that this is difficult for you considering your ignorance of the subject.

Now to your Petreus comments, what was it you wrote earlier today? Oh yeah, "Any idiot can repeat something over and over again", as you continue to do with trying to quote Petreus every third or forth day.

How have the Republicans and the media made "what did Pelosi know and when did she know it?" the important issue? Isn't the important issue that the United States ordered members of the military and intelligence services to violate international law, signed treaties, and the U.S. Constitution?
.
Oh, I guess that bit isn't important. At least, not if you can't face facts.

"the statements about what Congresswoman Pelosi and others new is based upon the BEST recollection of the CIA personnel providing the briefing. "
-
Yeah lets not let the little things like typed briefing memos from the day of the briefing cloud any issues.

There are several problems with Kraut's statements. First, the Israeli prime minister's statement is pure conjecture. Since the alternative was NOT used he CANNOT say it would not have worked without it being a bald face lie. Second, the statements about what Congresswoman Pelosi and others new is based upon the BEST recollection of the CIA personnel providing the briefing. Why didn't they record it? Why didn't they actually have her sign off on it? The CIA has a proven track record of moral corruption. If Nancy Pelosi's constituency doesn't approve of her then she will be voted out of office. She is held accountable - the CIA torturers are apparently not. Lastly, this is a SINGLE vaguely described anecdote. Sadly, General Petreus the commander in theatre, the commander fighting on the ground, the commander who has brought some level of stability to an actual war, describes all miss treatment of prisoners as "self-defeating". So, who is really the stupid one.