BACK to the original intent of the thread, my apologies to the original poster:

1. I do not think that US personnel engaged in actual torture as I would define it, and think this memo proves that point.

2. Releasing the memo was an irresponsible declassification of methods and sources.

3. Now, US personnel involved have been identified, by name, and are subject to retaliation.

4. The previous administration was within the constraints of constitutional duties to request legal advice, and that advice was requested and given in performance of official duties constitutionally assigned to the Executive Branch.

5. Congress was FULLY briefed on the full scope of these interrogation methods and that they were to be used on prisoners in US custody, and Nancy Pelosi is a liar.

6. Releasing these memos, and NOT releasing the results yielded by these interrogations as requested by former Vice-President Richard Cheney is irresponsible, and a politically motivated hit by the current occupant of the White House upon the previous administration, violating a compact that has existed in our legitimate transfer of government from administration to administration.

7. Releasing these memos is an attempt to criminalize policy differences, another breach of the standards of legal transfer of power between elected executives.

8. ANY legal action against ANY former administration official who was acting in constitutional duty to protect the citizens of the United States of America from foreign terrorist attack (completed AND attempted) is nothing more than Soviet-era "show-trial" tactics and anathema to US tradition and the legitimate electoral process.

9. Releasing the names of individuals involved in the deliberative process, from the legal to the administrative to the execution of legal orders from the national command structure, will cause others acting in official capacity to be reticent to carry out orders and will cause "overlegalization" of national security decision-making and activities, covert and overt.

10. Criminalizing the delivery of legal decisions to the executive branch, and the legal execution of executive branch orders supported by Congress simply because a new administration disagrees with the previous administration's policies will cause qualified individuals to avoid becoming involved in government service.

BAD idea.

Originally Posted by bropous

BACK to the original intent of the thread, my apologies to the original poster:

1. I do not think that US personnel engaged in actual torture as I would define it, and think this memo proves that point.

What WOULD you define as torture?

Originally Posted by bropous

2. Releasing the memo was an irresponsible declassification of methods and sources.

And it also proved that the United States is big enough to admit when it was wrong.

Originally Posted by bropous

3. Now, US personnel involved have been identified, by name, and are subject to retaliation.

Didn't catch that one on barackobamawatch... Wanna give us some sources for that?

Originally Posted by bropous

5. Congress was FULLY briefed on the full scope of these interrogation methods and that they were to be used on prisoners in US custody, and Nancy Pelosi is a liar.

Again... Sources?

BTW, "Nancy Pelosi is a liar." Isn't exactly a rock-solid argument.

Originally Posted by bropous

6. Releasing these memos, and NOT releasing the results yielded by these interrogations as requested by former Vice-President Richard Cheney is irresponsible, and a politically motivated hit by the current occupant of the White House upon the previous administration, violating a compact that has existed in our legitimate transfer of government from administration to administration.

The only solid thing the US could have released was the methods used. No one has any way of knowing whether or not the statements were true and therefore should NOT be released as such. If I'm about to drown someone, they'll tell me what I want to hear. Human nature and such.

Originally Posted by bropous

7. Releasing these memos is an attempt to criminalize policy differences, another breach of the standards of legal transfer of power between elected executives.

If a previous executive branch committed a crime, that branch deserves to be prosecuted for that crime. No one is above the law.

Originally Posted by bropous

8. ANY legal action against ANY former administration official who was acting in constitutional duty to protect the citizens of the United States of America from foreign terrorist attack (completed AND attempted) is nothing more than Soviet-era "show-trial" tactics and anathema to US tradition and the legitimate electoral process.

All torturing does is harden the resolve of those terrorists we haven't caught yet. What happens when we see a reporter get their head cut off? We want to kill the people responsible, right? So why should Al Queda be any different? Like I said before, the information given by the subjects of the torture could be completely false... If you were pretending to drown me (and some people HAVE drowned from it, which completely dismantles the "no physical harm induced" argument) then I'm going to tell you whatever I can to get you to stop drowning me.

Originally Posted by bropous

9. Releasing the names of individuals involved in the deliberative process, from the legal to the administrative to the execution of legal orders from the national command structure, will cause others acting in official capacity to be reticent to carry out orders and will cause "overlegalization" of national security decision-making and activities, covert and overt.

Sources... I know of only a handful of top brass who everyone already knew anyway.

Originally Posted by bropous

10. Criminalizing the delivery of legal decisions to the executive branch, and the legal execution of executive branch orders supported by Congress simply because a new administration disagrees with the previous administration's policies will cause qualified individuals to avoid becoming involved in government service.

Let the records show that the majority of Americans do NOT believe torture should be used in interrogations. There's that majority thing again.... It's a b*tch, ain't it?

"What WOULD you define as torture?"
Lasting physical damage. To paraphrase the lovely, brilliant Ann Coulter: "Tourture? Hah! They do that stuff to each other on First Dates!"

"And it also proved that the United States is big enough to admit when it was wrong."
No, proves that the Obama Administration is engaged in a Soviet-style pogrom, criminalizing policy differences.

As for your request for sources, too numerous to list. Google it yourself.

Torture is inflicting violent, lasting physical harm, Rob, not unlawful combatants getting their faces washed more than they ever have, or sleep deprivation, or having the Barney song played 24-7 while eating Fruit-Loops and hilal meals.

So even though the assistant to Colin Powell acknowledged that waterboarding is torture... You STILL don't think it is?

It's simply criminalizing that which should be criminal. Torturing someone is a crime. Not only in the US, but throughout the world.


This is an interview that Former President George W. Bush gave with the Rolling Stone Magazine.

Colin Powell says you guys had a little accident while you were working out the whole waterboarding protocol.

Yeah. We were actually right here in this room when that happened. Dick is going over what we can and cannot do legally to prisoners. Rummy is asking if we can stick hot pokers in their ears. "That works," he says, "I've done it to my kids." Dick's like, "No, I don't think so, I think they'll get us for that. But we've got this thing the Army uses in training, they call it waterboarding, which will hold up in court." Dick explains that it was invented by the Spanish Inquisition, but it was also used a lot by the Khmer Rouge. Rummy's eyes light up: "Oh, the Khmer Rouge." He likes the Khmer Rouge, is always talking about their management model. I've never heard of it, so I say, "I want to see it. Can we see it?"

Dick shrugs. Just at that moment, one of our houseboys comes in bringing coffees and some Mylanta for Rummy on a silver tray. He's a Laotian kid named Manny, nice boy, has a lazy eye, a stutter and a big mole on his neck. Apparently some guys at State took him in after one of his family's oxen stepped on an old land mine and blew up his mom and two of his sisters in the bush somewhere. I make sure to give him five dollars every Christmas because of that. So Rummy says, "Hey, Manny, can you do me a favor? Can you lie on this table?" And Manny is like, "Y-y-y-yes, Secretary R-r-r-rumsfeld."

So we put him on the table and Dick holds a napkin over his eyes and then starts pouring big gulps of ice water out of a pitcher into his nose and mouth. "C-c-c-can't b-b-b-reathe!" Manny gasps, and Dick is like, "We know, Manny, that's why we're doing this. Just relax." Next, Don starts pouring hot coffee in his ears and eyes, and Manny screams, at which point Dick says, "No, Don, it's not about temperature or burning, it's all about drowning." Rummy nods, and we go back to pouring the water up his nose. Manny is kicking and screaming, and Dick finally starts getting mad. "You're making a lot of noise, Manny. You're going to have to calm down."

But Manny is still screaming and Rummy is shaking his head, like he's not sure it's really working. "I still say it would work better if you could apply some heat," he says. "Here, try this." So he takes out his lighter and uses it to set Manny's ears on fire. "There, look at that," he says. Manny is really flailing around now, and Don looks totally engaged in the process.

"Mmm," Dick says. "I just don't think the law is going to let us do that." So they launch into an argument about it, and after a while we realize that Manny isn't moving anymore. There's a little streak of vomit coming out of his mouth and his little eyes have stopped blinking. Basically, he died. We had to get a new houseboy. One good thing about that is we made the decision not to set people's ears on fire.

Now, what I don't understand is that if someone died from this, how is it NOT illegal?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/cov...5329027/page/4

I asked you for sources to support your claim. Please do so. It's a forum rule.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

So even though the assistant to Colin Powell acknowledged that waterboarding is torture... You STILL don't think it is?

It's simply criminalizing that which should be criminal. Torturing someone is a crime. Not only in the US, but throughout the world.


This is an interview that Former President George W. Bush gave with the Rolling Stone Magazine.

Colin Powell says you guys had a little accident while you were working out the whole waterboarding protocol.

Yeah. We were actually right here in this room when that happened. Dick is going over what we can and cannot do legally to prisoners. Rummy is asking if we can stick hot pokers in their ears. "That works," he says, "I've done it to my kids." Dick's like, "No, I don't think so, I think they'll get us for that. But we've got this thing the Army uses in training, they call it waterboarding, which will hold up in court." Dick explains that it was invented by the Spanish Inquisition, but it was also used a lot by the Khmer Rouge. Rummy's eyes light up: "Oh, the Khmer Rouge." He likes the Khmer Rouge, is always talking about their management model. I've never heard of it, so I say, "I want to see it. Can we see it?"

Dick shrugs. Just at that moment, one of our houseboys comes in bringing coffees and some Mylanta for Rummy on a silver tray. He's a Laotian kid named Manny, nice boy, has a lazy eye, a stutter and a big mole on his neck. Apparently some guys at State took him in after one of his family's oxen stepped on an old land mine and blew up his mom and two of his sisters in the bush somewhere. I make sure to give him five dollars every Christmas because of that. So Rummy says, "Hey, Manny, can you do me a favor? Can you lie on this table?" And Manny is like, "Y-y-y-yes, Secretary R-r-r-rumsfeld."

So we put him on the table and Dick holds a napkin over his eyes and then starts pouring big gulps of ice water out of a pitcher into his nose and mouth. "C-c-c-can't b-b-b-reathe!" Manny gasps, and Dick is like, "We know, Manny, that's why we're doing this. Just relax." Next, Don starts pouring hot coffee in his ears and eyes, and Manny screams, at which point Dick says, "No, Don, it's not about temperature or burning, it's all about drowning." Rummy nods, and we go back to pouring the water up his nose. Manny is kicking and screaming, and Dick finally starts getting mad. "You're making a lot of noise, Manny. You're going to have to calm down."

But Manny is still screaming and Rummy is shaking his head, like he's not sure it's really working. "I still say it would work better if you could apply some heat," he says. "Here, try this." So he takes out his lighter and uses it to set Manny's ears on fire. "There, look at that," he says. Manny is really flailing around now, and Don looks totally engaged in the process.

"Mmm," Dick says. "I just don't think the law is going to let us do that." So they launch into an argument about it, and after a while we realize that Manny isn't moving anymore. There's a little streak of vomit coming out of his mouth and his little eyes have stopped blinking. Basically, he died. We had to get a new houseboy. One good thing about that is we made the decision not to set people's ears on fire.

Now, what I don't understand is that if someone died from this, how is it NOT illegal?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/cov...5329027/page/4

I asked you for sources to support your claim. Please do so. It's a forum rule.

"This is an interview that Former President George W. Bush gave with the Rolling Stone Magazine." quote Rob Henderson

No Rob it is not.

Might suggest using a source other than a tongue in cheek fantasy and maybe at least read the Title of the interview.
Rollingstone article title:

"Bush Apologizes: The Farewell Interview We Wish He'd Give."



A fictitious article should not count for much as a source.

Most people can find sources supporting their arguements, but presenting complete fantasy as fact is very strange.

Note: Sorry Rob this was just to funny to pass up.

Okay, okay. You caught me. *rolls eyes* It was a joke....


Whoever thought that Bush will apologize has been living in lalala land for the last 8 years. He has never back down or thought he was wrong about anything he did or said. And he will die thinking that he did a hell of a job with the cards that he got dealt.
Also watch out on April Fool’s Day. If you thought this was true, you are in danger!!!


This guy sums it up for me pretty nicely.


The point was that water boarding is dangerous... People CAN die from it. The scariest part about it is that you don't know. You don't know how much water they've inhaled and how much they've coughed up... You don't know when to stop.

Originally Posted by bropous

1. I do not think that US personnel engaged in actual torture as I would define it, and think this memo proves that point.

So correct me if I'm wrong, this is not torture?
http://ancapistan.typepad.com/photos...ghraib2dog.jpg

Originally Posted by bropous

2. Releasing the memo was an irresponsible declassification of methods and sources.

Releasing the memo cleared up what we all knew anyway. Plus, it proves we have nothing to hide if we don't torture, like you said.

Originally Posted by bropous

3. Now, US personnel involved have been identified, by name, and are subject to retaliation.

From who? Most people on this planet know how orders are given and what the consequences are for not following them.

Originally Posted by bropous

4. The previous administration was within the constraints of constitutional duties to request legal advice, and that advice was requested and given in performance of official duties constitutionally assigned to the Executive Branch.

So then they have nothing to hide. Release the documents and people will understand such.

Originally Posted by bropous

5. Congress was FULLY briefed on the full scope of these interrogation methods and that they were to be used on prisoners in US custody, and Nancy Pelosi is a liar.

And George Bush is an idiot for changing our previously successful methods in the first place, but why point fingers?

Originally Posted by bropous

6. Releasing these memos, and NOT releasing the results yielded by these interrogations as requested by former Vice-President Richard Cheney is irresponsible, and a politically motivated hit by the current occupant of the White House upon the previous administration, violating a compact that has existed in our legitimate transfer of government from administration to administration.

The results can't be released because THAT is classified information that may be vital to our war plan. How we get them is not vital. And there is no proof that this his is politically motivated, other than the words out of your mouth.

Originally Posted by bropous

7. Releasing these memos is an attempt to criminalize policy differences, another breach of the standards of legal transfer of power between elected executives.

It's not an attempt to criminalize policy differences if the last policy actually committed crimes. And wouldn't this place the government above the law?

Originally Posted by bropous

8. ANY legal action against ANY former administration official who was acting in constitutional duty to protect the citizens of the United States of America from foreign terrorist attack (completed AND attempted) is nothing more than Soviet-era "show-trial" tactics and anathema to US tradition and the legitimate electoral process.

And your comments are nothing more than the traditional US side Soviet-era "scare tactics" to denounce all that you don't agree with as traitors and commies. Does the phrase "Give me liberty or give me death" have no meaning to you? Anyone who is violating my privacy to better protect me can go to h*ll, for all I care. Obama is trying to determine if our attempts to save America violated the very rights we were trying so hard to protect.

Originally Posted by bropous

9. Releasing the names of individuals involved in the deliberative process, from the legal to the administrative to the execution of legal orders from the national command structure, will cause others acting in official capacity to be reticent to carry out orders and will cause "overlegalization" of national security decision-making and activities, covert and overt.

The government is not above the law. That's called a dictatorship, we don't have those here. Do remember that the Final Solution was completely legal too.

Originally Posted by bropous

10. Criminalizing the delivery of legal decisions to the executive branch, and the legal execution of executive branch orders supported by Congress simply because a new administration disagrees with the previous administration's policies will cause qualified individuals to avoid becoming involved in government service.

BAD idea.

Yeah, how dare Boris Yeltsin release Soviet memos after the government change in 1991 just because he didn't agree with what they said! [/sarcasm] A human rights violation is a human rights violation, no matter who is in charge.


And I have lived through eight years of being called everything from a terrorist to a wuss to a commie for deriding the last administration. However, in that time I NEVER called Former President Bush a coward. Ever. And I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't say such about President Obama. I respect free speech, but show the man a little respect; he IS the President, after all.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Okay, okay. You caught me. *rolls eyes* It was a joke....


Whoever thought that Bush will apologize has been living in lalala land for the last 8 years. He has never back down or thought he was wrong about anything he did or said. And he will die thinking that he did a hell of a job with the cards that he got dealt.
Also watch out on April Fool’s Day. If you thought this was true, you are in danger!!!

Yeah, right Rob. It is obvious from your post that you bought the article "hook, line, and sinker."

Here is a source that is as close as we may ever get to a unbiased review about releasing the memos.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103177115

It also has all 4 memos available if anyone actually wanted to know what was in them.

Here is a short section of the article in the link I supplied, talking about the ramifications of the memos release,

"In the past few weeks, top current and former CIA officials had pushed to keep the memos secret. After the Obama administration declassified the documents Thursday, former CIA Director Michael Hayden told The Associated Press that the United States is less safe now. He said agents will be more timid and foreign allies will be less likely to cooperate with American intelligence officials because "they can't keep anything secret."

Some human rights groups criticized the decision not to prosecute people for these actions. Amnesty International called it a "get out of jail free card" for people who committed torture. But Obama said in a statement, "Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

Releasing the memos could very well cause problems for President Obama's administration for years to come. We will probably get to see any bad decisions President Obama makes revealed by the next administration. Great for forums, but not so good for the government to be micromanaged after the fact.

I would think that government officials will now be looking over their shouders to see who is going to second guess them. Maybe causing the economy to recover, on the volume of lawyers government officials will be hiring to protect their @sses.

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

-snip-... show the man a little respect; he IS the President, after all-snip-...

Not for this gentleman, obviously:

Originally Posted by bropous

"- snip - ... He may be the CinC [unconstitutionally, I might add... -snip-

Originally Posted by bropous

-snip- ... I view Obama as a FOREIGN enemy of the United States Constitution, an usurper... -snip-

Rattler

Originally Posted by bropous

Uh, Rob, in case you missed it: WE WON. IRAQ won. They have a stable, constitutional government elected by the people. Their death rates have been lower than some US cities. The War in Iraq was won, by the Iraqis and by the Coalition. Iraq is Free.

We Won??? ... I dunno what war in Iraq you are talking about, You talk as if it were over, as yet we haven't won anything., and we don't even have the place under control let alone pacified.

(1). We were duped into believing lies that Saddam had WMD,... Wrong!!!
(2). It has claimed the lives of far more young Americans than 9/11, who essentially died to satisfy the Neo Cons desires to keep GWB in office,
(3). It has also cost US taxpayers Trillions of dollars

If that's winning, I'd hate to see what losing is like, short of nuclear annihilation.

Rob, you're oversimplifying on several levels. You know as well as I do that the Iraq War was NOT only about WMDs, but Husayn DID have them, 550 tons of yellowcake uranium was not there for chemotherapy.

Show me where it is illegal to own Yellowcake, Australia is swimming in the stuff. We prolly vacuum that much off our mill floors in 12 months. I hope you don't have any ideas of liberating us.

You are right, there were plenty of folks in Iraq we were fighting who hate(d) the West, but there are plenty of folks in Iraq who are HAPPY they are living in a free country now.

Free eh??? So theoretically if Australia invaded the US because we have told our population that Obama is cornering the world dill pickle market and in defeating you, we killed tens of thousands of your citizens, wrecked 99% of the country's infrastructure and reduced your country to an economic and political basket case, it would be justifiable because there would be a percentage of the population that would be happy we have got rid of Obama?

Where do you read all this rubbish, or is it all your own work?

Is it perfect? Hell, no. Would I want to live there? Hell, no. Are the Iraqi people better off not under the Ba'athist regime? Hell, YES.

Not if you ask the Baathists, who incidentally were a legitimate party in their own country just as in many other one party states, which the US has not invaded. Yeah,... we don't like it, but you've got to realise that it's not our country. we had no right to interfere in their own internal affairs.

Hell, I'd argue we can't afford NOT to have a permanent military presence in Iraq, and the Iraqis would prefer us to have permanent bases there just like we have STILL in Germany and Japan, and for the same reasons. An additional American base in the region is a stabilizing force, Rob.

So next week the US will be installing a few more stabilising forces in places like Somalia and North Korea???

Obviously you believe your own propaganda.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

t.I would think that government officials will now be looking over their shouders to see who is going to second guess them. Maybe causing the economy to recover, on the volume of lawyers government officials will be hiring to protect their @sses.

Yeah, it might even stop some government agencies from thinking they can get away with committing war crimes. That would be a great pity wouldn't it.

That's why we never bothered to convict any Nazi war criminals, it would have made the Nazi party look bad.

Short memories, eh?