PDA

View Full Version : Bush pardons himself retroactively



kungfujew
29th September 06, 11:48 PM
At least that's what's probably about to happen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ

Where is the outrage? Where are the riots? The barricades? The fires? Where is the guillotine in the main square? Nada? Nothing? Really? And here I thought this country had enough outrage to go around... just not for anything that really matters.

http://www.occultopedia.com/images_/guillotine.jpg

Steve
30th September 06, 12:14 AM
Awesome find KFJ.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kungfujew again.

Stick
30th September 06, 12:48 AM
Wow.

I have nothing to say.

I'd call my state representative, but he's a conservative republican so it's not like he'll fucking listen to me.

Steve
30th September 06, 12:58 AM
That admits his, and his staff's, guilt.

WarPhalange
30th September 06, 01:02 AM
Damn liberal media trying to shut down Bush again.

Here he is, slaving away, trying to forcefully get information from prisoners which may or may not be accurate. He's even willing to mutilate these people to get this information. And you're saying he's some sort of war criminal. What's wrong with you?

Steve
30th September 06, 02:01 AM
http://www.patriotdaily.com/bm/blog/bush-seeks-retroactive-im.shtml


Bush Seeks Retroactive Immunity From US War Crimes Prosecution

Posted: August 3, 2006

Recommended at Daily Kos

Front Paged at My Left Wing

Now that the Bush team faces possible prosecution for war crimes under US law, the team is quietly changing the law to provide a "legal escape hatch." The recent US Supreme Court decision in Hamdan removed a potential defense from war crimes prosecution that the Bush team had been relying upon. So now the Decider is quietly changing this US law to exempt himself and other officials from criminal prosecutions that may not occur until the next administration. One thing for sure -- Bush is not much of a planner for wars, natural disasters, and terror attacks -- but he sure does plan years in advance to save his own hide.

Many Americans were captured during the Vietnam War and tortured for years, including retired Navy pilot Mike Cronin, who was shocked to learn when he returned to America that there was no US law providing US courts with jurisdiction to prosecute violators of the Geneva Conventions. After 6 years of torture, Cronin knew that Geneva Conventions prohibitions against torture and "humiliating and degrading" treatment were essential to protect US soldiers.

Thanks to Cronin's persistent lobbying, Congress passed the War Crimes Act of 1996 with "overwhelming bipartisan support." The War Crimes Act provides US courts with jurisdiction "to convict any foreigner who commits a war crime against an American, or any American who commits a war crime at all." The War Crimes Act did not provide a real difference for soldiers and officers, who were already subject to military law that prohibits the abuse of prisoners. Under the War Crimes Act, for the first time, US civilians -- including intelligence officers, contractors, and government officials -- could be criminally prosecuted for ordering war crimes. Understandably, this US war crimes law was passed with strong bipartisan support because "nobody could have predicted that a decade later a U.S. administration, with the explicit consent of the president and the attorney general, would be accused of systematic war crimes."

Now, the recent US Supreme Court decision of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld opens the door for President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales to be prosecuted under the US War Crimes Act. The Hamdan case ruled that the Bush administration could not deny at least some of the Geneva Convention protections to prisoners suspected of ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. One legal expert has opined that Hamdan's ruling that al-Qaeda members are covered by at least parts of the Geneva Conventions would also apply to American soldiers and CIA operatives.

Since at least 2002, internal memos show that the Bush team was worried about potential application of the War Crimes Act to their implementation of torture and inhumane treatment policies:

Publicly released memos show that as far back as Jan. 25, 2002, Gonzales, then the White House counsel, worried that the president's policies could trigger prosecution under the act. That led the White House to declare, over the objection of the State Department, that al-Qaida was not protected by the conventions. In the memo, Gonzales argued that the president could create "a solid defense against any future prosecution" by declaring that the Geneva Conventions did not apply.

However, the Hamdan ruling eliminates this "solid defense" by holding that Geneva Conventions do apply, and thus places the Bush team in "a legally vulnerable position" as even an Air Force judge advocate recently testified before Congress that "some techniques that have been authorized" violated the Geneva Conventions.

A legal expert opined that the Hamdan case "probably could not be used retroactively to punish anyone for employing extralegal interrogation techniques," but certainly use of those techniques after the Hamdan case will be grounds for a war crimes prosecution. This is interesting. If Hamden does truly only have prospective application, and yet the Bush team is trying to quietly change the reach of the War Crimes Act, then is this not tantamount to an admission that the Bush team plan to continue to violate the Geneva Conventions? That is, continue to torture despite what the highest court in our country has ruled.

Expanding the Bush preemption doctrine to protect himself and administration officials, the Bush team is now "quietly circulating legislation to change the statutory interpretation of the War Crimes Act of 1996. In short, the legislation would make it difficult to prosecute U.S. personnel for the harsh interrogation methods authorized by President Bush and the Justice Department." These proposed changes have "not yet been spelled out publicly."

But, Human Rights Watch director says the "effort to change the interpretation of the War Crimes Act is focused on protecting those outside the military chain of command who may have committed war crimes or ordered war crimes to be committed." In other words, the changes would protect Bush team officials who drafted the torture memos and passed the policies down to the military to be implemented, but would leave military officials and soldiers hanging in the wind. Another way that Bush supports our troops.

The fear is not that Bush team officials would be criminally prosecuted now under the War Crimes Act because that also requires a federal prosecutor to file charges against them. So, the Bush team must be fairly confidant that they have all their ducks in a row with federal prosecutors. The fear is prosecution by the next administration or by the appointment of a special prosecutor.

The Bush team proposal wants to mandate that US enforcement of Geneva Conventions be subject to domestic interpretation, not international standards. This change is needed by Bush because the US Supreme Court believes that foreign interpretations of international treaties, like the Geneva Conventions, should at least be considered by US courts.

This minor change could have a "huge practical impact" because the Justice Dept. could "define certain interrogation techniques as legal in U.S. courts, even if the rest of the world considers them violations of the conventions." This "minor" change could provide retroactive immunity to Bush team because the War Crimes law today applies to the Bush team. Today, prosecution under this law would likely include international law interpretation as case law precedent because the War Crimes law is based on violating Geneva Conventions, an international treaty. Today, foreign countries and courts have stated in media reports that they do not agree with Bush's view of what constitutes torture or compliance with the Geneva Conventions, particularly disagreeing with the rules governing the Guantánamo prison and treatment accorded prisoners. That is the general state of the law when Bush and administration officials drafted their memos and issued their orders. That is why the Bush team memos issued before implementing their policies expressed concern of their own liability under the War Crimes Act. To change the substantive law after the actions were taken is tantamount to retroactive immunity. As one legal expert stated:

"They want retroactive immunity," said Mary Ellen O'Connell, a professor of international law at Notre Dame, who has been critical of the Bush administration's detention policies. "Have you known of any other time in our history when we have tried to immunize public officials against crimes after they have committed the crimes?"

Actually, yes. Bush is now also trying to obtain retroactive immunity for his legal liability in implementing his illegal NSA spying programs.

While Bush publicly proclaims we must all support our troops, he again works behind closed doors to protect himself from legal liability while rendering US soldiers less safe from physical and mental torture. Of course, some Democrats, like Sen Leahy, have promised to fight these changes in the law, saying that Attorney General Gonzales, who is the "highest law enforcement officer in the country is leading an effort to undercut the rule of law." Given that the Decider has years ago dispensed with the need for Congress or the Courts, without any effective action by either institution to stop the Decider, can any Democrat really be shocked or surprised by Bush's plan to change another law to protect himself from legal liability?

Note: All material and quotes are from this Salon article unless other attribution is cited.

kungfujew
30th September 06, 02:09 AM
Any of you enterprising little Bush-supporters have anything to add to this? Some shock, horror, and a mia-culpa would make you all look like real godamn human beings again...

Leodom
30th September 06, 07:21 AM
I just do not believe it.

no, really, I do not believe we have been torturing prisoners. At least not in the manner that has traditionally been defined as torture.

That is the problem when you start getting lawyers involved in prosecuting a war. Definitions get changed and what was at one time considered a reasonable method of interrogation gets redefined as torture. For one example, consider how some of us were raised. If we mis-behaved, we got our ass beat. That is now considered "child abuse". Now, sleep deprivation, a time-tested, honorable method of interrogation is in danger of being deemed "torture".

I have not read the legislation, as I am sure very few of you have.

We are all quick to believe the best of our side and the worst of the other. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

I, for one, believe NOTHING I hear of or read from DailyKos. If George Bush walked on water, they truly would bitch that he couldn't swim.

add: An editorialist with an obvious anti-Republican agenda and a review from DailyKos are NOT un-biased reviews of the legislation.

DAYoung
30th September 06, 07:29 AM
I just do not believe it.

no, really, I do not believe we have been torturing prisoners. At least not in the manner that has traditionally been defined as torture.

That is the problem when you start getting lawyers involved in prosecuting a war. Definitions get changed and what was at one time considered a reasonable method of interrogation gets redefined as torture. For one example, consider how some of us were raised. If we mis-behaved, we got our ass beat. That is now considered "child abuse". Now, sleep deprivation, a time-tested, honorable method of interrogation is in danger of being deemed "torture".

I have not read the legislation, as I am sure very few of you have.

We are all quick to believe the best of our side and the worst of the other. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

I, for one, believe NOTHING I hear of or read from DailyKos. If George Bush walked on water, they truly would bitch that he couldn't swim.

Leodom, these CIA people aren't fucking around. Do you honestly think Bush would be seeking immunity, or the US Government would be shuttling prisoners to 'pro torture' Egypt, Syria and Uzbekistan, if they weren't really torturing these people? They are threatening, terrifying and maiming the 'bad guys', and only spin and propaganda suggests otherwise.

Leodom
30th September 06, 07:36 AM
Leodom, these CIA people aren't fucking around. Do you honestly think Bush would be seeking immunity, or the US Government would be shuttling prisoners to 'pro torture' Egypt, Syria and Uzbekistan, if they weren't really torturing these people? They are threatening, terrifying and maiming the 'bad guys', and only spin and propaganda suggests otherwise.


That's the problem, it's all spin and propoganda, on both sides.

Do I think we have passed prisoners to other countries who do torture, yes.

Do I believe we have tortured, no.

Am I naive about this, maybe.

DAYoung
30th September 06, 07:44 AM
That's the problem, it's all spin and propoganda, on both sides.

Do I think we have passed prisoners to other countries who do torture, yes.

Do I believe we have tortured, no.

Am I naive about this, maybe.

There are more 'sides' than the Bush administration and its 'liberal enemies'. For example, Amnesty International is not a cynical spinner of lies. While Governments and their ersatz opposition might spin their way through these disgusting compromises, organisations like Amnesty are refreshingly straightforward and generally unbiased. They say the US is torturing people, and they mean it. Why wouldn't it? What would stop it? Law? No. Morality? No. International condemnation? Nah.

Phrost
30th September 06, 09:05 AM
Argg... we created a Videos forum specifically because videos screw up the front page.

Seraphim
30th September 06, 09:32 AM
Has the bill been passed?

ThaiBoxerShorts
30th September 06, 10:10 AM
The full text of the bill is available here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/%7Ec109Z5xm1S::). I tried skimming through it, but I can't read legalese. Does anyone know the section in question here?

As for whether or not the administration engages in torture, anyone who says they don't is in fucking denial. Bush has publically acknowledged the use of waterboarding on detainees (see the recent Matt Lowry interview), which is universally considered a form of torture by the international community. He calls it a "coercive interrogation technique," but we all know what old Willy said about a rose by any other name...

Edit: The link to the bill doesn't work. Go to http://thomas.loc.gov (Library of Congress website) and do a search for H.R.6166.

ThaiBoxerShorts
30th September 06, 10:31 AM
One thing that people seem to be overlooking is that Bush cannot grant himself immunity international law... Can he? If there is in fact adequate grounds to indict him on war crimes, I would think he could still be tried at the Hague.

Not that that makes is okay for him to grant himself (or be granted) immunity from US law. We're supposed to be a nation of laws, in which no one is above the law. The Founding Fathers were quite adamant about that.

Shawarma
30th September 06, 10:58 AM
The US doesn't allow their common soldiery to be tried by international courts. What on earth makes you think that any other rule could apply for the president?

Iscariot
30th September 06, 11:53 AM
That's the problem, it's all spin and propoganda, on both sides.

Do I think we have passed prisoners to other countries who do torture, yes.

Do I believe we have tortured, no.

Am I naive about this, maybe.
Are you retarded?

Saying that passing prisoners to other countries to torture for you makes you innocent is like a mass-murderer saying he didn't kill anyone, his knife did.

Shawarma
30th September 06, 11:57 AM
Even if the "extraditing prisoners to tortureland" is true, the US is still innocent of torture from a legal point of view.

Iscariot
30th September 06, 12:10 PM
Even if the "extraditing prisoners to tortureland" is true, the US is still innocent of torture from a legal point of view.
United Nations Convention Against Torture Section 3 respectfully disagrees:

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Shawarma
30th September 06, 12:24 PM
Has the US signed that?

Iscariot
30th September 06, 12:30 PM
Has the US signed that? From the Great Oracle Wiki:

The United States ratified the Convention, but declared that "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."

Can we guess which administration said that?

WarPhalange
30th September 06, 12:32 PM
Has the US signed that?

People like you need to be shot in the face.

"You tortured people!"

"But I didn't sign anything saying that's a bad thing."

"Oh, you're free to go, then."

Shawarma
30th September 06, 12:34 PM
Not saying I agree with it, Loops. Just saying that if the US didn't sign an international convention, they can't be blamed for not adhering to it. Like when the US used white phos against targets in Falujah - The US was perfectly within legal bounds doing so because it hadn't ever signed the bill prohibiting use of white phos, nasty as it might be.

WarPhalange
30th September 06, 12:37 PM
Not saying I agree with it, Loops. Just saying that if the US didn't sign an international convention, they can't be blamed for not adhering to it. Like when the US used white phos against targets in Falujah - The US was perfectly within legal bounds doing so because it hadn't ever signed the bill prohibiting use of white phos, nasty as it might be.

That doesn't change the fact that only a piece of shit would approve torture or white phos. on humans. The Law =/= Justice. As long as those people are in power, it never will. We should take a page from the Frogs and start beheading people. That might get something moving.

Iscariot
30th September 06, 12:37 PM
Not saying I agree with it, Loops. Just saying that if the US didn't sign an international convention, they can't be blamed for not adhering to it. Like when the US used white phos against targets in Falujah - The US was perfectly within legal bounds doing so because it hadn't ever signed the bill prohibiting use of white phos, nasty as it might be.
I haven't signed a convention against shooting my housemates with a rusty nailgun, but guess what? It's still wrong.

Shawarma
30th September 06, 12:40 PM
You ain't a country.

Iscariot
30th September 06, 12:44 PM
I'll start one like Danny Wallace did!

WarPhalange
30th September 06, 01:02 PM
Petoria.

Osiris
30th September 06, 01:31 PM
Whether or not the US tortures people is besides the point. I don't give a fuck if he's issuing himself retroactive immunity againts SPEEDING TICKETS. The president should never be above the law. Any of them.

Truculent Sheep
30th September 06, 02:27 PM
My question is, if 'vigorous' interrogation was justfiable, ethical and acceptable, why is the Bush administration needing to pass a law to allow it? And there, ladies and gentleman, lies the rub.

Sun Wukong
30th September 06, 03:22 PM
Fuck this. That's all I have to say.

kungfujew
30th September 06, 03:26 PM
For example, Amnesty International is not a cynical spinner of lies.

As far as anything not concerning Israel is concerned, yes... sorry off topic, ignore this.

kungfujew
30th September 06, 03:30 PM
Fuck this. That's all I have to say.

California secession, anyone?

I found this posted in a discussion about Hezbollah... I found it a decent read.

** Junior-level military intelligence sources will leak classified info on war plans to the press in October or November making it clear that Bush plans to attack Iran.

** In a reverse of Abu Ghraib, senior generals will be blamed for the leak and a purge of generals opposed to the Iran war will proceed, with prosecutions for leaking classified information and possibly treason. This will not occur until after the war began, however.

** Before this occurs, JCS will see the writing on the wall and go to ground. Bush will spend lots of time fighting with UN and flying around the world talking about "point of no return" and "another 9-11". Meanwhile, the media, having primed the pump already in October, will stop talking about the impending attack, but "sources will say" that "the" war with Iran "may happen after all" if Bush does not get his way (which he will of course won't.)

** Escalating the conflict, Ahmadinejad will unexpectedly go before the media and announce that Iran is prepared to take "pre-emptive action" to block the Straits of Hormuz if American minesweepers (on their way to the Persian Gulf as of Oct. 1) do not stand down. US will disregard the threat and, indeed, step up preparations. MSM will ask: "Is this the start of the war we have been waiting for?"

** A sigh of relief will be breathed when "nothing happens". Columnists will write op-eds saying that Iran is clearly weak and ready to topple from within, as shown by its Soviet-style bluffing, and that no military action on US part will even be needed. Pentagon will report that Iran is making pre-emptive preparations to blockade the Straits before naval ships reach Hormuz, but will decide to keep it secret in order to avoid messing up their strike plans.

** A secret neutrality pact will go into effect between Iran, Oman, and the UAE. Part of the deal will entail no additional US troops in UAE or Oman (beyond the token presence that exists.) The assumption of the deal will be that Dubai will be the last stable financial center left in the region if Iran is attacked. US intel will know nothing about the deal beyond a hunch.

** Suddenly, "heavy" airstrikes will occur at Bushehr and Tehran. These airstrikes will have limited effect on Iranian military or civilian infrastructure, but will wipe out the nuclear facility at Bushehr and several Russian technicians along with it. The Russians will have been warned ahead of time by CIA, but will have disregarded the warning.

** Ahmadinejad will go before TV and announce that "Iran has been attacked" and "a state of war exists". Pentagon will wait to see what Iran does. Media talking heads will flood the airwaves with patriotic anthems ("Mideast War", "War with Iran", "War in the Persian Gulf", "Standoff with Iran"). The question of the hour will be strategy: Where should we bomb next? Since Iran is too weak to retaliate, should we decapitate the regime?

** Iranian diplomats, pre-positioned in Bahrain and Qatar, will promise senior emirs that they have no plans to target those countries. In any event, they promise not to target civilian infrastructure even if attacked by US troops in Bahrain & Qatar directly. To the extent that US intel learns of the conversations, which they will, neocons will portray it as evidence of weakness on Iran's part, saying they so not have the capability to hit those countries.

** Days after the initial airstrike on Bushehr, Iranian agents will complete preparations for the blockade of the Straits.

** US will announce that it is not at war with Iran. Bush will address the nation saying that the strike was successful and "Iran is no longer a nuclear threat". At Russia's prompting, he will apologize for civilian deaths and delcare he is willing to meet with Ahmadinejad to let bygones be bygones. Meanwhile, Air Force will continue top-secret plans for second wave of attacks in the event "Iran attacks the US or a terrorist attack occurs".

** 2 days later, US minesweepers and a battleship will advance into straits to demonstrate that Iran is pacified. Bush will go on the air and announce that Iran has blocked the straits "in violation of international treaty and a clear act of war against the US". He will declare "no more negotiation" and say "the Iran regime is evil".

** A US battleship in the Western Hemisphere, possibly at Guantanamo will mysteriously blow up in a COle-style attack, rallying nervous Americans to Bush's side. "Remember Guantanamo Bay" columnists and Republicans will self-consciously declare, pre-empting the expected, and inadequate, sneering from educated (but not radicalized) Dems about William Randolph Hearst, the Maine, etc., references which most Americans will not understand anyway.

** Airstrikes will immediately be launched against hundreds of Iranian targets, including nuclear sites deliberately not targeted in the initial airstrike because they were "difficult to get to".

** Bush will get on the air again and announce that America will not stop bombing until Iran deposes the mullahs and/or unconditionally surrenders. When questioned on the "all-air force" strategy, Bush will cite Clinton and Serbia as his guiding inspiration. Clinton will denounce the comparison but back up Bush's demand that the bombing continue until Iran surrenders.

** After days of sitting in the strait, several US ships busy clearing the straits of mines and chaperoning oil tankers will be unexpectedly sunk.

** Iranian Shahab missiles, having been smuggled out of attack ready position to prepare for the main wave of US bombing, will wait until we run out of initial munitions and reposition themselves in pre-prepatred bunkers not hit in the initial attack. US agents who have identified the initial location of the Shahab missiles will have called in airstrikes on those locations but not most of the empty bunkers, many of whose locations will remain secret or remote.

** On the second day of the mass air assault on Iran, southern Iraq will erupt in flames.

** Congress will pass an emergency resolution permantently diverting 200,000 troops from Asia (at the secret acquiescence of China) to Kuwait in order to "protect our forces in Iraq from Iranian invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq".

** Bush will declare that no option is off the table if Iran "decides to widen the war by invading the sovereign nation of Iraq, whose Shi'ite and Kurdish citizens already desire peace."

** Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in Southern Iraq, led by the Badr Brigades, will be shot at.

** The Dawa party and SCIRI will abandon the Iraqi governing coalition. In a good-cop bad-cop strategy US intel will be unaware of, SCIRI will split into a rump Maliki faction, tacitly supporeted by the pro-Iranian elements as a vestigial government (maintaining Shi'ite control over the rump central government and an inside man). Maliki will be percieved as a figurehead by US forces, like Diem. He will spend most of his time hiding in the Green Zone and funneling intelligence to Iranian agents.

** Moqtada Al-Sadr will have a personal hearing with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani before TV cameras. He will emerge and announce that he is choosing to remain in the Iraqi governing coalition while simultaneously asking his followers to "take up arms against anyone who attacks on Shi-ites within the nation of Iraq." In a separate statement, Sistani will denounce the bombardment of Iran and call for peace, having inoculated himself against irrelevance by meeting with the radical Sadr. He will say that he has no position on whether the Iraqi government of Maliki is still legitimate and "that is up to Iraqis to decide." The effect of the press conference will be to make Sadr the second most powerful person in Iraq (after Sistani).

** Badr Brigades and Mahdi Army will declare war on US troops. Sadr will declare that, as a spiritual leader, he has no control over his followers actions but "if US troops attack any Shi-ite, then god willing, they will resist with armed force."

** Senior Shi'ite clerics affiliated with SCIRI will meet with Sistani and come away committed to get out in front of Sadr and the Mahdi. They will announce in sermons at Karbala and Najaf war against the US forces and say that Maliki's government (composed of rump Sunni and Shi'ite factions, and the Kurds) must also reject the US presence or lose legitimacy.

** Under heavy fire, a subastantial portion of existing troops in Iraq will retreat ("reposition") in Kurdistan at the insistence of Kurdish leaders who fear an attack by Turkey or Iran.

** The US port facility AND oil export facility in Kuwait will be bombed by Iran, temporarily severing supply lines as naval skirmishes continue around the Straits.

** Oil exports out of the straits will all but cease.

** Waves of Iranian paramilitary units will cross the Iran-Iraq border and enter into open shooting war with US forces holed up south of Baghdad. US forces will drive them back after heavy losses.

** In response to "attacks on fellow Shi'ites", Mahdi Army and Badr Brigades will enter open combat and pin down US forces in the rear, turning all of Southern Iraq into a free-fire guerrilla warfare zone.

** All US occupying troops will retreat from Anbar province "in preparation for a major assault."

** All US troops will retreat from the east bank of Baghdad, except for the fortresses on the bank itself such as Gunners Palace, creating a state of siege. Mahdi Army will declare Sadr city liberated from US troops.

** Badr Brigades will essentially take over the Marshes and the portion of desert east of Baghdad, creating a beachhead for Iran.

** 100,000 of US reinforcements will enter Iraq in combat mode, while the remaining 100,000 remain in Kuwait to rebuild port facilities there. Several small ships will be lost to mines in the Gulf.

** Instead of relieving Baghdad, troops will turn right and invade Iran. They will immediately sieze almost all of Khuzestan province, further cementing the Gulf oil shutdown since remaining Iranian oil personnel will have no incentive to repair damaged Iranian oil facilities.

** Khuzestanis and Luri Shi'ites will reaffirm their commitment to drive off "the invaders", dashing US hopes that non-Persians would break with the regime.

** US Paratroops will relieve forces in Kurdestan and prompt a US invasion of the Zagros mountains where they will encounter little opposition in a Kurdish area. However, Iranian Kurds will ally themselves with Iran in response to aggression "sanctioned by rival Kurdish leaders" that would at this point, essentiallty run the US-controlled portion of Iraq. Offensive will grind to a halt in the mountains.

** US troops advancing into Iran will stop at the near-impenetrable southern Zagros and await orders.

** 2 US Battleships will be sunk by Iranian missiles in response to ground invasion.

** Anbar tribal leaders will declare themselves an independent Sunni sheikhdom. In a midnight purge, the Saudi members of Al Qaued in Iraq will be lynched and burned in the souk of Ramadi and Fallujah, along with dozens of captured "US agents" who had penetrated factions of Al Qaeda in Iraq, in a repeat of the Erbil disaster of the 1990's.

** Under intense pressure from Shi'ites and Palestinians, Syria will commit to send troops and arms to Iran by way of Kurdish smugglers in Turkey from ports in the Mediterranean, after having recieved private "assurances" from US that Syria will not be invaded at the present time. Huge shiplents of arms will be financed this way by shadowy interests connected to Pakistan and possibly China. Pakistani operatives, including senior Al Qaeda terrorists, will infiltrate Anbar province this way for the first time. A parallel terrorist shadow government, answerable to no one and having no real constituents, will be set up in the desert by "the Saudis", at war with Iraqi sheikhs and the US. US will tacitly back the sheikhs and make no move to reclaim Anbar region.

** Ayman Al-Zawahiri will send a tape from Pakistan announcing that a "new Caliphate" has been established in Anbar province.

** Bush will reinstate the draft, starting with "special skills", with near-unanimaous support from Congress.

** Having established a beachhead in Khuzestan, another 100,000 troops will enter the

** Shahab-III missiles, held in reserve in case of a US penetration deep into Iran, will launch a wave of attacks on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, the Ghawar oil field, US bases in Bahrain and Qatar, and the Green Zone. Massive casualties will occur in the Green Zone as Iranian paramilitary forces penetrate under cover of missile fire in a Tet-style attack.

** Mass protests in the US are met by deployment of nonlethal military weapons producing dozens of casualties. Riots break out in Seattle, Chicago and New York City.

** Violence will occur in small towns in the midwest, as angry working-class youths, mostly unemployed, hostile to both urban Democrats and Republicans, and libertarian in outlook, fight it out with freepers over the consequences of the attacks.

** Troublemakers will be interviewed by reporters and declare that they have been drafted and are eager to serve in Iran/Iraq to fight the Muslims. However, "None of us are fighting for Bush, we're doing it for the American people, and when we get back, there's gonna be hell to pay." Reporters will declare that nothing is amiss and both sides are patriotic, red-blooded Americans who merely disagree about whether to kill or merely imprison anti-war protestors.

** World Can't Wait and other leftist activist groups will announce a "new boston massacre". over the consequences of the microwave attacks.

** Columnists, Democratic leaders, and Municipalities of wealthy, blue urban areas present a united front against "unpatriotic radicals" who would destroy the strategy of Congressional Democrats, which is to let Bush dig himself in deep enough in Iran that public opinion once AGAIN turns against the war, and THEN start investigations as close to the 2008 election as possible, with the assumption that Bush will be pardoned by either Hillary or McCain.

** DLC-led Municipalities such as New York, LA, Chicago, Boston and DC, led by real estate interests reeling from sudden stagflation, pass emergency crackdown laws on what is left of the urban poor, declaring the remaining ungentrified areas "havens for domestic terrorism" caused by "anarchists and Iranian sympathizers" from "outside city limits".

** To the sound of cheers from the urban elite, who control most of the neighborhoods in the aforementioned cities, ID Curfews go into effect by DLC run city councils, allowing non-city residents to be arrested on the street after 10 PM unless they can prove (by way of a theater ticket or bar tab) that they are in the city to partake of its nightlife. At the instigation of DLC-led local governments, random ID checkpoints are set up on major arteries leading into major US cities.

** The overwhelming object of curfews and ID checks, ostensibly to "protect against domestic and Iranian terrorism" is to prevent anti-war rioting from precipitating the impending real estate collapse.

** Drained of law enforcement by the war, and battered by a flood of heroin from Afghanistan by way of the Pakistan/Kurdish/Syrian connection, as well as crashing real estate ill-timed with the impending depreciation of houses built in the 1960s, inner suburbs around major US cities, including southern Prince George's and central Fairfax County in the DC area, parts of Baltimore county, East LA, southern areas of Seattle, San Jose and Richmond CA, the inner ring suburbs of Chicago and Atlanta, parts of Brooklyn beset by anti-war violence brought on by white student agitators, and towns in New Jersey such as Edison, Passaic, Bayonne, Elizabeth and Perth Amboy, plunge into a deep real estate and crime depression, with no-go zones in the outlying areas.

** In the interests of "safety", the Federal government DHS suspends service on DC Metro, Chicago's EL, and BART.

** Real estate prices crash. Police barricades are set up between fully-gentrified zones and "no longer safe" zones in urban areas, as during the 1970s. "Yuppie flight" enters the lexicon.

** Sweeping NSA wiretap bill passes under the new Congress. DLC Dems declare victory, having sponsored the bill in conjunction with McCain in opposition to an even more radical 2007 proposal by the Bush admin.

** The Federal Government nationalizes all low-lying parts of New Orleans, not including the wealthy Lakeview subdivision. Remaining residents are classified as squatters or anti-government activists. Attempts at "clearance" are beset by sabotage. Sporadic violence breaks out between African Americans and Hispanics brought into the city to clear it. Bush condemns anti-war activists for blocking the reconstruction effort of "another US city that was attacked" and gets wide applause. His popularity in the South shoots up. Freepers urge Bush to go in and "root out all the remaining ----- in the low-lying parts of new Orleans if they refuse to work to help rebuild the city" into an air-base.

** Anti-war activists in Seattle and New Orleans declare a "free city" movement and start pirate radio stations urging residents to "refuse and resist the Bush regime". Bush orders local officials to engage in crackdowns similar to the major Northeastern and Californian cities, but is met by intransigence on the part of city officials, some of whom side with the protestors and say "the war in Iran is a war for America's soul."

** One city councilman and several journalists is arrested and detained on charges of "aiding and abetting terrorists". Large parts of the anti-war movement are declared criminals or terrorist sympathizers, and a dragnet is instituted, using NSA wiretaps, to interview and "name names" from all individuals associated with the "more radical anti-war groups".

** UFPJ breaks apart into factions, split between radicals, fed-up mainstream democrats and libertarian independents, loyal oppositionists (a coalition of naive grassroots centrists, party operatives of uncertain political leanings, and affluent hardcore leftists seeking to develop connections with the DLC, like the trotskyist and stalinist neocons did in the 1970s) and agent provocateurs. The loyal oppositionists tacitly support the curfew policies on the basis that "regardless of the criminality of the Bush regime, we cannot let thugs destroy our US cities or we will have another New Orleans."

** Prompted by whistleblowers inside the system, NSA blackmailing scandal breaks wide open, eventually leading to the downfall of large parts ofthe Bush administration and the Republican party.

** The US is bogged down in Iraq and Khuzestan and has been driven back in the northern Zagros Mountains. US Paratroopers and special forces engage in guerrila warfare throughout Iran, with heavy casualties that are kept secret from the media because they are covert missions.

** Khuzestan is an armed camp with non-functioning oil pipelines, although Iran has lost the ability to attack it from without.

** Iranian troops pour across the Iran-Iraq border near Baghdad, where the Zagros is close to the border and the front lines are porous.

** US casualties in Iraq are double or quadruple those at present.
In an attempted PR flourish, US "turns over" the Green Zone to the "newly empowered, nationalistic" Maliki government which is nominally opposed to the Iran invasion and nominally wants both US and Iranian troops out of Iraq, which has become the main battlefield. In a repeat of Lebanon (1999) and Saigon (1975), US troops depart the Green Zone under sporadic small-arms fire.

** Public opinion turns decisively against the War and Republicans throughout the country, except in Idaho, Utah, western Oklahoma, parts of Texas, and white parts of Louisiana and Mississippi, where polls show a majority of residents beginning to hold near-fascist viewpoints.

** Emboldened by revelations of blackmail, brave politicians begin holding hearings on the Bush administration, with or without the permission of senior Democrats. Major (though not all) shoes begin to drop. Major issues that sites like DU think important are put by the wayside as seemingly lesser issues become huge in the media. Media revolt within corporate newsrooms, prompted by blackmail and other revelations, results in a lack of coordinated effort to quash revelations.

** Pat Robertson and other right-wing leaders declare that "the Messiah is on earth and is ready for the final battle."

** Frightened by Robertson's and other statements, evangelical groups begin deserting the pro-war American camp in droves and ally themselves with various libertarians, leftists, and various unheard-of populists and independents. Several Huey Long-style politicians emerge who fall somewhere between Buchanan and Kucinich in their political views.

** "Anti-government" emonstrations break out in small towns in the South and Midwest. Freepers and Fundies loyal to the Bush regime engage in violence against "atheist liberals" and "apostates" (libertatians and anti-war christians).

** Newly radicalized groups of religious libertarians declare that the Anti-christ is in the Middle East and that he is in the employ of the Bush administration, in accordance with their interpretation of Revelations.

** They are given more reason to think so when the US unexpectedly invades Syria, sending a line of troops through the hostile Anbar province to quickly take Damascus. In response, Iran instigates Hezbollah to attack Israel.

** In a momentous photo-op that is on the front page of newspapers across the world, American and Israeli generals shake hands across the Litani river near the Syrian border.

** US is Diplomatically isolated in the world as Russia, Latin America, and various European countries boycott US Exports. China dumps US bills, prompting the dollar to go in the toilet. Double-digit inflation in the US. The Strategic Petroleum reserve begins to run out, forcing gas lines (exacerbated by the "temporary wartime shutdown" of mass transit systems in the US).

** Mysterious financiers begin shipping oil and gas from Russia TO Iran by way of tankers in the Caucasian Sea, in return for credits on future exports. Russia takes no credit for stopping the tanker shipments, which are leaving Uzbek and Khazak facilities. In defiance of the US, "Belarussian" engineers construct an underground pipeline between Tehran and the Caucasian Sea, passing throguh the Elburz. US ceases to recognize Belarus.

** "Anti-Regime" Iranian expats form a "free Iranian Government" in the UAE, citing security concerns in Khuzestan and a desire not to be associated with the US invasion. US lauds the expats as successors to de Gaulle and the Free French.

** "Anti-Regime" expats with extensive contacts to the Pentagon form an off-shore Oil Bourse in Abu Dhabi, fincanced by credits from future Iranian oil exports. Extensive capital flight from Saudi Arabia.

** Despite heavy pressure from US officials, the "free Iranian" expats insist on Bourse trades in Euros, double-crossing the Pentagon. One of the Emirs of Abu Dhabi agrees to grant the concession for the off-shore Bourse. He is later assassinated.

** Overnight, the UAE becomes the Hong Kong of the Middle East.

** The US enters a severe recession, coupled with Argentine-style inflation and infrastructure decay. Americans begin to lose customer confidence sufficient to keep many chain stores afloat, and a wave of consolidation occurs. Retail centers and speculative office buildings become abandoned, making it difficult for would-be terrorists to find suitable targets. Squatting becomes commonplace.

** An epidemic of assassination occurs in the UAE, with various victims turning out to have ties to the US, Pakistan, Kurdistan, Al Quaeda, the "pro-neuteality" emirs who authorized the creation of the Bourse, and the "anti-regime" Iranian elements, who turn out to have ties to the Iranian regime after all...

** US, having occupied southern portions of Syria, attempts and fails to establish a second, secure supply line into Iraq through the Bekaa Valley from the Mediterranean via Tyre.

** Hezbollah enters into direct conflict with US troops in Lebanon.

** Israel, suffering from popular and electoral revolt, withdraws from Lebanon and Syria as US troops advance into northern Israel to "protect" the Holy Land. In a side-agreement, Israel withdraws troops from the West Bank on the grounds that both Israel and Palestine are now occupied by outside forces.

** Palestine declares independence on condition with the new Israeli PM that they declare neutrality and mutual non-agression with Israel, and opposition to US presence in the region. The Israeli PM is assassinated by pro-US radical Orthodox settlers.

** The Palestinian PM, heavily funded by Russia and intimately familiar with by-now co-opted Hamas elements, declares martial law and exiles the hard-line wing of Hamas to Lebanon, Jordan and Hejaz. Faced with a population crisis and regional war, the "Right of Return" is ignored. Gaza becomes independent and declares war on Israel. On the ground, nothing changes in Gaza.

** Al Quaeda bombs go off in US shopping malls. To divert attention from the administration's failure to quash Al Quaeda in Pakistan and the irredentist "Caliphate of Al-Anbar", Hezbollah is blamed for the attack.

** US troops give Hezbollah fighters, most of whom are Lebanese citizens, no quarter, and accede to no law or convention in treatment of captives. Hezbollah does the same.

** Athough unable to infiltrate the US, Hezbollah stage bombing attacks against US facilities throughout the Middle East, particularly in the Gulf Coast of Saudi Arabia oil fields where many Shi'ites are employed.

** US troops in Kuwait drive south into Saudi Arabian Gulf coast to "defend the Saudi regime from attack by Iranian forces".

** The Saudi Monarchy splits apart. Radical Wahabi elements form a separate, hostile to the US government known as "The Kingdom of Hejaz and Mecca". The weakened Saudi central government is confined to Riyadh, with the Gulf Coast of Saudi under US protectorate and nominally part of Saudi. As in the case of Somaliland, US does not recognize the existence of "Hijaz and Mecca" and thus has no reason to attack it (which would be militarily and politically impossible.)

** Realizing the threat of Al Qaeda has actually materialized, US forces move quickly to decapitate Al Quaeda in Pakistan, previously ignored. Osama bin Laden is killed. In a gruesome episode of media curiosity, instead of a trial or resultant follow-up operations to wipe out Al Quaeda from Pakistan, bin Laden's body is brought back to Manhattan morgue to be examined by reporters and officials. US troops leave Pakistan and abandon southern Afghanistan to Taliban warlords on the basis that "we've won". Western Afghanistan allies itself with Iran.

** In response to the formation of an American Viceroyalty of, essentially, Syria and Mesopotamia extending across the Fertile Crescent:

Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Libya and Hejaz form a mutual defense pact known as the Suez Pact, surrounding Israel and the American corridor to the sea, after clever negotiation by Jordan, a moderate goverment now surrounded by hostile forces on all sides.

** The decision by Turkey to join the coalition splits apart NATO.

** Knowing that they are too weak to besiege Israel, US counts on Turkey not to allow Hijaz to declare war on Israel.

** With US tacit approval, Turkey invades and occupies the northeastern portion of Syria, where US forces are bogged down in desert guerrilla warfare. Declaring itself in opposition to "Kurdish separatists" and its desire to "liberate" the rump northern portion of Syria as a nominal member of the Suez Pact, Turkey ignores US requests and invades Kurdistan as well, annexing the KDP held areas and confining US troops to the areas around Kirkuk and Sulaymania, now the only US-friendly territory in the Middle East.

** US troops are ordered to stand down from Turksh agression; however, Jalal Talabani, who runs Kurdistan as an independent state, allies himself with the occupied areas commanded by the Kurdistan Democratic Party's Barzani (conveniently in a Turkish jail and scheduled to be executed) and the terrorist PUK organization inside Turkey, who suddenly recieve a fresh infusion of US cash and supplies, channeled through Kurdish smugglers; and against the Iranian Kurds who are allied with the Iranian government in a stand-off on the Iran-Kurdistan border. Talabani declares a Free and Independent Republic of Kurdistan encompassing all of the Kurdish areas in surrounding states.

** Al Quaeda's senior terrorist cells in Pakistan, mostly Saudi, Yemeni and Egyptian, decimated by a (finally) serious US response unencumbered by the Pakistani secret service, pack up and leave for Saudi Arabia, chiefly the mountainous interior between the pro-US Saudi kingdom based in Riyadh and Hijaz. Unfortuneyrly, this places Al Qaeda in a black hole impenetrable to US special serivces.

** Pakistan's military government is overthrown. US forces guard nuclear facilities in and around Islamabad and elsewhere. Fears of an Al Qaeda bomb and nuclear annihilation of SE Asia are neutralized when anti-US Sikh leaders sieze power and establish a national unity government. US siezes and destroys Pakistani nuclear infrastructure.
The President of India, a Sikh, pledges not to engage in offensive or defensive operations against Pakistan south of the Kashmir border.

** The Republican successor to Bush, having defeated McCain and Giuliani (in the Primary) and Hillary Clinton to become president, declares martial law.

** From their base in the ostensible and unpopulated "Caliphate of Baghdad and Mecca", which includes desert areas of Al Anbar province and Hijaz, Al Quaeda stages another massive attack on the US, destroying the reputation of Homeland Security and the martial law proponents.

** The 44th president, having pardoned Bush 43, is impeached. The Republican party dissolves, amidst factionalism and popular rejection.

** The Democratic party, having absorbed a massive influx of secular, conservative professionals in favor of martial-law, curfews and domestic spying, splits apart into the New Democrats (based in Eastern Seaboard, Illinois, newly-Democratic Texas and the Southwest, and California), the Democratic Populist Party (in northern New England, the northern tier, of the Plains/Northwest, and Pacific Northwest) and the Constitutionalist/Dixiecrats (based in the Deep South, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Utah and Idaho, as well as Florida where Hispanic voters and Midwestern transplants have been radicalized in favor of "law and order" national security and against the still-surviving Raul Castro regime.)

** The Dixiecxrats are considered the successors to the fundamentalist wing of the GOP. Big Business flees to the New Democrats, who already control most of the nation's richest cities, which are now islands of extreme wealth in a sea of decaying sprawl.

** Development and Social Service regulations go out the window in city centers as the New Democrats, backed by the DLC, pledge to "restore America's entrepreneurial spirit in the new economic war with China", which mostly consists of trying to replicate the booming economy of Dubai.

** America enters a prolonged Cold War with China...

*** ...which we lose when the Dominionists, having siezed control of the Dixiecrat party, wins the Presidency as the Populist faction, backed by anti-government and civil-rights activists in the northern tier, gains ground against the New Democrats, splitting the vote.

** Taking advantage of the split, Dominionists sieze the presidency in a reverse of Lincoln's first election and attempt to institute a theocracy, causing the US to split apart, Soviet Union-style.

** The US reaches an armistice with Iran.

** Texas and California become independent (and formidable) states. Asian, European, and Middle Eastern countries rush to curry favor with Austin and Sacramento.

** The Pacific Northwest, now known as Cascadia, collapses into libertarianism when the State of Jefferson declares independence from California and Oregon. Anti-PRC Chinese financiers purchase and keep Seattle afloat.

** Pennsylvania and the Midwest, in response to tanks in the streets sent from the new Dominionist "national capital" of Springfield, Missouri, declare themselves the Federated States of America (headquartered in Philadelphia, but with most of its political support in Chicago and Minneapolis).

** North Carolina, finding itself suddenly on the front lines between a DLC-controlled urban East Coast USA and the Dominion of the US, requests and is granted independence and neutrality to serve as a buffer between the two.

** The (internationally recognized) United States of America consists of Virginia, DC, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York State, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, as well as (nominally) Arizona and New Mexico.

** US troops, still controlled from Washington, finally leave Iraq in 2035.

** Remaining Al Qaeda elements in Anbar and Hejaz are promptly rounded up and executed in mass graves by frightened Arab successor regimes.

** Dominionist elements sieze control of the overseas military and invade Israel and Palestine from the American base in Damascus.

WarPhalange
30th September 06, 03:54 PM
wtl;dr

I'm actually starting to believe in the Bible now, because I swear that Bush is the anti-Christ.

Sun Wukong
30th September 06, 03:59 PM
Interesting yeah, but each point is highly unlikely. A military conflict with Iran is far from imminent due to Iran's lack of progress with Nuclear weapons. Right now, Bush is afraid his free ride is almost over. So his admin is gearing up for him to go on the defensive. That's what this legislation is for.


Don't get me wrong, if anything is worth polictical pandemonium right now, this latest bill is.

However, the 2008 president elect may well lead us into something like that. Like that, but definitely not that. Iran has shit for military power; mostly surplus vehicles and equipment from the soviet collapse and out of date chinese made weapons. Those antique soviet submarines are barely a speed bump and no middle eastern ground force has the organized capacity to be able to advance on any US military position due to overwhelming to the point of ridiculous US air power. Guerilla warfare, sure thing, but actually over running a major US military position? Almost patently ridiculous with respect to real military might actually possessed by potential combatants in the middle east.

I think the person who wrote it was just being overly pessimistic or optimistic about US/Iranian conflict.

Shawarma
30th September 06, 05:49 PM
It won't be any kind of full-scale war with subsequent occupation when the war comes. (Yes, when.) The US simply doesn't have the manpower, and good luck trying to get the Coalition of the Willing to help them out in Iran. Iran will most likely get bombed to shit, though, and retaliate by guerilla warfare in Iraq and supporting anti-Israel/US guerilla groups everywhere. Nukes are a wild card.

NSLightsOut
30th September 06, 08:53 PM
I just do not believe it.

no, really, I do not believe we have been torturing prisoners. At least not in the manner that has traditionally been defined as torture.

That is the problem when you start getting lawyers involved in prosecuting a war. Definitions get changed and what was at one time considered a reasonable method of interrogation gets redefined as torture. For one example, consider how some of us were raised. If we mis-behaved, we got our ass beat. That is now considered "child abuse". Now, sleep deprivation, a time-tested, honorable method of interrogation is in danger of being deemed "torture".

I have not read the legislation, as I am sure very few of you have.

We are all quick to believe the best of our side and the worst of the other. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

I, for one, believe NOTHING I hear of or read from DailyKos. If George Bush walked on water, they truly would bitch that he couldn't swim.

add: An editorialist with an obvious anti-Republican agenda and a review from DailyKos are NOT un-biased reviews of the legislation.

I've been writing a lengthy essay on this subject for my International Relations course. I'll share some of my sources



In Senate hearings after Abu Ghraib, it became known that (Major General) Miller was allowed to use legally questionable techniques which could include, with approval, sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in "stress positions" for agonizing lengths of time.


I think that even in years past, exposing one's children to hypo/hyperthermia as a punishment would be considered abusive. Same with beating the shit out of them, or placing them in a naked dogpile (Abu Ghraib guards were 'encouraged' to 'soften up' prisoners, becoming the sacrificial goats to the masses when the evidence of abuse became public).

And let's not even get into that lovely little practice of 'rendering' prisoners to torture happy nations which is not only illegal under U.S. Federal law (U.S Code: Title 18, Chapter 113C) but under the Geneva Conventions and the document cited below.



Torture constitutes any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

ThaiBoxerShorts
30th September 06, 09:13 PM
For those who think torture is a perfectly valid method of gathering intelligence, I propose this scenario:

Pretend, for a moment, that The Powers That Be suspect you of being a terrorist. You're not, of course, but they've somehow stumbled across evidence suggesting you might be. So, one day, they pluck you off the street and take you to a detention facility. Your reaction, of course, is to say that there's been some mistake. You're not a terrorist. You don't know any terrorists. You don't know anything about terrorism.

Unfortunately for you, that's exactly what a real terrorist would say. They don't believe you. So they proceed to use "coercive interrogation techniques" until you confess to being a terrorist, and cough up information about other terrorists.

Before too long, you're going to do exactly what I or anyone else in that situation would do: You're going to start making shit up. You're going to confess to being a terrorist. You're going to start saying other people you know are terrorists. Anything to get the "coercive interrogation techniques" to stop. You're not going to be thinking clearly, self-preservation is going to kick in, and you're going to do whatever you have to do.

And if you don't believe things like the above scenario are already happening, you're hopelessly naive.

Bottom line: Torture is not only morally atrocious, but yields bad intel. There's really only one reason to engage in torture, ever, and people like Jeffery Dahmer and Ed Gein can tell you all about it.

WarPhalange
30th September 06, 10:04 PM
Fuck, you mean my bachelor's in Torturology is useless?

kungfujew
1st October 06, 01:43 AM
Fuck, you mean my bachelor's in Torturology is useless?

Syria has a few openings.

WarPhalange
1st October 06, 01:55 AM
They only accept Torturonomists. I checked.

ThaiBoxerShorts
1st October 06, 02:00 AM
I'd also like to add that if torture is the price of safety, then the price is too high. I'd rather be killed by terrorists than have anyone tortured for my protection.

And anyone who does not object to torture done in their name is morally bankrupt and not worth debating. If you're not outraged, you're fucking scum.

kungfujew
1st October 06, 03:02 AM
I'd also like to add that if torture is the price of safety, then the price is too high. I'd rather be killed by terrorists than have anyone tortured for my protection.

And anyone who does not object to torture done in their name is morally bankrupt and not worth debating. If you're not outraged, you're fucking scum.

My sentiments exactly.

Shawarma
1st October 06, 05:19 AM
They only accept Torturonomists. I checked.

You must spread...

Sun Wukong
2nd October 06, 02:11 PM
My sentiments exactly.

Seconded.

ojgsxr6
2nd October 06, 03:41 PM
Ok, I have one question what type of torture are we talking about? Is it like Old School Inquisition style torture, or do you mean like Sleep deprivation, taking a dump on the Quran, psychological stuff?

Because I personally have no problem with an interrogator not letting a suspect sleep or get a lapdance by a woman who's menstruating to get some information.

WarPhalange
2nd October 06, 03:54 PM
Ok, I have one question what type of torture are we talking about? Is it like Old School Inquisition style torture, or do you mean like Sleep deprivation, taking a dump on the Quran, psychological stuff?

Because I personally have no problem with an interrogator not letting a suspect sleep or get a lapdance by a woman who's menstruating to get some information.

Because pyschological torture isn't torture?

ojgsxr6
2nd October 06, 04:27 PM
Because pyschological torture isn't torture?

I guess technically it is, but is it an acceptable form of torture?

DAYoung
2nd October 06, 04:59 PM
I guess technically it is, but is it an acceptable form of torture?

There is no such thing - psychological torture and physical torture are both torture. You either accept torture, or you don't.

For example, sleep deprivation is not something you can just shrug off. Forced sleep deprivation is even worse. If psychological torture didn't fuck with people in seriously disturbing ways, they wouldn't use it.

WarPhalange
2nd October 06, 05:43 PM
Not to mention, experiments done on rats have shown that they will die after about 7 days of sleep deprivation. If your mind can't function, your body can't, either.

kungfujew
2nd October 06, 05:43 PM
There is no such thing - psychological torture and physical torture are both torture. You either accept torture, or you don't.

For example, sleep deprivation is not something you can just shrug off. Forced sleep deprivation is even worse. If psychological torture didn't fuck with people in seriously disturbing ways, they wouldn't use it.

Anyone else find the fact that we're even having this discussion on whether not torture is ok, or that certain forms of torture might be okay sickeningly Orwellian?

ojgsxr6
2nd October 06, 06:10 PM
There is no such thing - psychological torture and physical torture are both torture. You either accept torture, or you don't.

Why do I have to accept physical mutalation and other sorts of physical torture, if I believe that psychological torture is scceptable? If I am Pro Choice, does that mean I have to support 3rd Trimester abortions and kicking pregnant women down the stairs?

NSLightsOut
2nd October 06, 11:36 PM
Some lovely quotes I picked up for my International Relations essay on Torture and coercive interrogations:



“Anyone who has experienced (the desire to sleep) knows that not even hunger or thirst are comparable with it.”


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866][/url]
The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.


Even experienced interrogators reportedly believe that coercive interrogation (torture) is a lousy idea, not simply due to the media repercussions and resultant war crimes trials when it is revealed, but that it has a tendency to produce false confessions from the subject simply to stop the pain, be it physical or psychological. From what I have read from Seymour Hersh and other sources, co-opting the interrogated, whilst taking a longer period of time, tends to produce better results, and has the advantage of not leaving the subject a drooling vegetable, as some of the prisoners at Guantanamo were reported to be in Hersh's book, Chains of Command.

DAYoung
3rd October 06, 03:59 AM
Why do I have to accept physical mutalation and other sorts of physical torture, if I believe that psychological torture is scceptable? If I am Pro Choice, does that mean I have to support 3rd Trimester abortions and kicking pregnant women down the stairs?

Torture is torture. You might find mutilation abhorrent, but psychological torture is just as damaging. If you object to one on the grounds that it is inhumane and cruel, it is inconsistent to accept the other, unless you can show grounds for some kind of radical difference (which you haven't).

Your 'kicking down the stairs' analogy seems like sophistry to me.

ThaiBoxerShorts
3rd October 06, 02:39 PM
Kicking a pregnant woman down the stairs is assault, not abortion.

In other words, apples and oranges.

Therefore, completely fucking useless metaphor.

ojgsxr6
3rd October 06, 02:50 PM
Torture is torture. You might find mutilation abhorrent, but psychological torture is just as damaging. If you object to one on the grounds that it is inhumane and cruel, it is inconsistent to accept the other, unless you can show grounds for some kind of radical difference (which you haven't).

Well since I haven't experienced either type of torture, unless you count going to my sister's dance recitals, I have to say that physical torture seems worse to me. Possibly because you can see the effect of physical torture.

ojgsxr6
3rd October 06, 03:11 PM
Kicking a pregnant woman down the stairs is assault, not abortion.

In other words, apples and oranges.

Therefore, completely fucking useless metaphor.

In my opinion a similar analogy would be comparing wiping pigs blood on a muslim prisoner to mutilating him.

ThaiBoxerShorts
3rd October 06, 03:19 PM
You can certainly observe the effects of psychological torture as well. Maybe not "see" it in a direct sense, but it's there and it does cause noticeable and almost always maladaptive changes in a person. Have you ever met anyone with post-traumatic stress disorder? I have. It can be pretty ugly, doesn't look like fun, and can psychologically cripple a person for years.

But hey, that's okay, as long as they're not tearing out people's eyeballs and stuff, right?

ojgsxr6
3rd October 06, 03:28 PM
Ok, so would offending someone's faith be considered torture? (ala deficating on the quran, or bible etc.)

Shawarma
3rd October 06, 03:31 PM
^^^^^That would accomplish even less and be more harmful than torturing people. Firstly, who's gonna talk just because you insult his religion and guarantee him a place in hell? Not a lot of incentive. If you want people to talk, you need nastier mindgames and physical pain.
Secondly, when it gets out that you've been defiling the Muslim religion, it will piss off a lot more Muslims and Iraqis than if you'd just tortured them. See, electrocuting some jerk's testicles is one thing, and you might do it out of hatred for him. Smearing him in pigs blood would be viewed as an attack on all things Muslim-y and cause a lot more outrage. Remember the entire "Koran being used as toilet paper" business? These people are USED to people being dragged away and tortured. Saddam did that. However, they will NOT stand for somebody insulting their religion.

ThaiBoxerShorts
3rd October 06, 03:31 PM
Well, as a hardcore, almost-militant atheist who happily offends everyone's faith... I'm not going to touch that one.

ojgsxr6
3rd October 06, 03:43 PM
Shawarma, I'm not asking if it's a good way to get information, I'm asking if it's torture? NSLightsout pretty much showed that even psychological torture isn't good for getting information. I'm looking for a definition of torture. I asked my brother what torture was, he had a similar definition as me, I asked someone at work he too included psychological torture as torture.

kungfujew
3rd October 06, 04:58 PM
I wouldn't myself classify wiping your ass with the Koran, it's just stupid and provides easy propaganda for our enemies.

Shawarma
3rd October 06, 05:28 PM
Agreed. What went on in Abu Grabass wasn't torture either - it was a bunch of fucking hicks who should never have been allowed in Iraq destroying any moral high ground the US might have had in the conflict. Nothing was gained from their maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners, no valuable information about anything. All that was gained was more hatred from the people you're supposed to be showing how great democracy and the American Way is.

Lyndie England and pals should be executed for endangering the lives of every single US national in Iraq.

DAYoung
3rd October 06, 05:35 PM
From Amnesty International:

"1. What is torture? What is ill-treatment? What’s the difference?

Torture is defined in the UN Convention against Torture as the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering for purposes such as obtaining information or a confession, or punishing, intimidating or coercing someone. The term is applied to those forms of ill-treatment that are particularly severe and are deliberate."

"3. Isn’t a bit of sleep deprivation or other forms of discomfort which do not cause lasting physical harm acceptable when interrogating suspected terrorists?

Sleep deprivation, “stress and duress” and other so-called “lesser” means of coercing detainees into disclosing information are prohibited by the international legal ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Holding a prisoner under water until they think they are drowning is cruel and inhuman. Photographing a person naked and subjecting them to sexual humiliation, denying them the most basic forms of decency and privacy, is degrading. Other cruel measures include those which break a person’s resistance by causing confusion and disorientation -- such as sleep deprivation; sensory deprivation, including holding people in dark cells; hooding; sensory overload such as sustained and excessive noise; subjecting people to extremes of heat or cold, and stress positions.

These types of measures, even if they do not leave physical scars, have been shown to cause mental harm which can persist for years afterwards and may never heal completely. Sleep deprivation leads to cognitive impairment, including attention deficits and impaired memory, reasoning, verbal communication, and decision-making. The effects of prolonged isolation can be especially devastating and can include an inability to think or concentrate, disorientation, hallucinations, depression, and other severe mental health problems, including self-harm and attempted suicide.

The effect of such measures is often cumulative. For instance, depriving a person of 15 minutes’ sleep would not be more than annoying, but long-term deprivation of sleep has been shown to cause serious and long lasting psychological damage. The same is true of stress positions and sensory deprivation. Where such measures are used in combination and over a sustained period, there is a double accumulation, of methods and duration."

Olorin
3rd October 06, 11:39 PM
Do you honestly think Bush would be seeking immunity, or the US Government would be shuttling prisoners to 'pro torture' Egypt, Syria and Uzbekistan, if they weren't really torturing these people?

This was a President Clinton policy by the way, and I do not remember any uproar.


My question is, if 'vigorous' interrogation was justifiable, ethical and acceptable, why is the Bush administration needing to pass a law to allow it? And there, ladies and gentleman, lies the rub.

It is because the Geneva Convention has all kind of rules about what you can and cannot do to prisoners. When the Courts mistakenly gave terrorists the right of solders, the actions of the Administration became illegal. (see parts of the treaty below)


There is no such thing - psychological torture and physical torture are both torture. You either accept torture, or you don't.

For example, sleep deprivation is not something you can just shrug off. Forced sleep deprivation is even worse. If psychological torture didn't fuck with people in seriously disturbing ways, they wouldn't use it.

I guess we should just give them tea and dumplings.


Nothing was gained from their maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners, no valuable information about anything.

And how do you know this?


From Amnesty International:

"1. What is torture? What is ill-treatment? What’s the difference? See above…

Instead of Amnesty International lets us look at the Geneva Convention.



Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavor to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.


But wait there is more…how do you qualify?

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favorable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favorable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

In conclusion, pay attention to the highlighted portions. My reading of this means that terrorist and Iraqi insurgents to not fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention. However, the Courts, in their infinite wisdom, put them under the Convention which means that “outrages upon personal dignity” or not allowing terrorist contact with their buddies is a violation of the law. If you read this differently then please post your opinions.

So why did the administration feel that they had to protect themselves? The reason is that the Courts mistakenly made their actions illegal. If you read the Geneva Convention, it seems to me that they were within the rules and that terrorist and Iraqi insurgents do not qualify for protection. If Bush is guilty of war crimes then so is Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, and Truman. If we were to go back before 1949 (the year the treaty went into effect) then almost every wartime American president should have left office and been moved immediately into a jail cell. So, please I beg of you, try to come back from the brink of paranoid insanity.

WarPhalange
3rd October 06, 11:41 PM
This was a President Clinton policy by the way, and I do not remember any uproar.

It is because the Geneva Convention has all kind of rules about what you can and cannot do to prisoners. When the Courts mistakenly gave terrorists the right of solders, the actions of the Administration became illegal. (see parts of the treaty below)

You were doing well up until that point.

Ok, I lied. Even up to that part your post was sucking.

Regardless of legality, are you saying that it's OK to torture some people but not others? Are you saying it's OK to torture any person, as long as they did something bad enough?

Zendetta
3rd October 06, 11:48 PM
Soooo, then Olorini.... you are for torture then?


While I don't disagree with this point:


TSo why did the administration feel that they had to protect themselves? The reason is that the Courts mistakenly made their actions illegal.

... let me suggest you tell it to this guy:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18316511.htm

Olorin
3rd October 06, 11:50 PM
Poopy,

You read everything I posted and wrote a response in less than a minute?

Where you camp spawning me?

WarPhalange
3rd October 06, 11:52 PM
Poopy,

You read everything I posted and wrote a response in less than a minute?

No. I got to that point and thought "wow, he can't possibly recover from this in the rest of his post, so I might as well stop reading here."

So.... torture. As long as it's legal, it's ok? Or... as long as it's done on terrorists and not "real" soldiers, it's ok?

Olorin
3rd October 06, 11:58 PM
No. I got to that point and thought "wow, he can't possibly recover from this in the rest of his post, so I might as well stop reading here."

You should read it all and then respond.

WarPhalange
4th October 06, 12:02 AM
I did. It just made you look like a bigger dumbass by saying "no, the rest of the post will redeem me" and instead it wasted my time.

Are you or are you not condoning torture as long as it is either:

A) "Legal"

B) Done to someone who "deserves" it?

EDIT:

By the way, saying "how do YOU know we didn't get any good info from torturing is what I was referring to as "making you a bigger dumbass". If I torture you for information that you REALLY don't have, what will you do? Keep denying it or make shit up in hopes of it all stopping? I thought that as a historian the Spanish Inquisition should ring some bells.

ThaiBoxerShorts
4th October 06, 12:11 AM
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favorable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favorable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Shit! I meet none of those criteria. I'm fucked.

Olorin
4th October 06, 12:21 AM
I did. It just made you look like a bigger dumbass by saying "no, the rest of the post will redeem me" and instead it wasted my time.

I just told you to read my post before you wrote a response, and yes you responded before you read what I had to say.


Are you or are you not condoning torture as long as it is either:

A. "Legal"

I am saying that Bush did not break the law, read the treaty and try again…


B) Done to someone who "deserves" it?

Where did I say that?


By the way, saying "how do YOU know we didn't get any good info from torturing is what I was referring to as "making you a bigger dumbass."

I did not argue that we gained intelligence from such actions so I do not have to defend the question I asked to Shawarma. He made the statement and I am sure that he will back up his claim with evidence.


If I torture you for information that you REALLY don't have, what will you do?

I would wonder why I am being tortured by Poop Loops.


I thought that as a historian the Spanish Inquisition should ring some bells.

Do you really want to talk about the Spanish Inquisition? I will give you the short and dirty. It was massively overblown. All you had to say was “ya I was wrong, please forgive me” and you walked.


Shit! I meet none of those criteria. I'm fucked.

Off to Gitmo with you…

Bwaaaahhhaaaaa!!!!

WarPhalange
4th October 06, 12:24 AM
I just told you to read my post before you wrote a response, and yes you responded before you read what I had to say.

I later read the rest of the post and regretted it.


I am saying that Bush did not break the law, read the treaty and try again…

And I am saying the law means shit. Condoning torture is bad regardless of who allows you to do it.


Where did I say that?

I am asking. I have been asking for I think 3 posts now. Answer.



I did not argue that we gained intelligence from such actions so I do not have to defend the question I asked to Shawarma. He made the statement and I am sure that he will back up his claim with evidence.

I won't speak for him. But the Salem Witch Trials and Spanish Inquisition should be part of your territory, correct? Why aren't you connecting these incidents together?


I would wonder why I am being tortured by Poop Loops.

Because it is not against the law, therefore it is moral.


Do you really want to talk about the Spanish Inquisition? I will give you the short and dirty. It was massively overblown. All you had to say was “ya I was wrong, please forgive me” and you walked.

Cool. I hereby declare you a pedophile. Admit it or I will torture you.

ThaiBoxerShorts
4th October 06, 12:37 AM
Off to Gitmo with you…

Bwaaaahhhaaaaa!!!!
I realize that you're joking (probably), but do you at least see my point? Are you honestly defending the torture of civilians on the grounds that might be terrorists? What if they're not? What if somebody made a mistake? What if someone mistakes you for a terrorist, and then tortures you on the grounds that you're not a member of an enemy military and therefore not protected by the Geneva Convention? Too bad, better luck next time? I know I'd be a hell of a lot more pissed than that.

Olorin
4th October 06, 12:53 AM
And I am saying the law means shit. Condoning torture is bad regardless of who allows you to do it.

So, are you admitting that Bush did not break the law? I posted the pertinent sections of the treaty and so far, no one has challenged my interpretation. If the law means shit then consider the fact that each individual hold his or her own morality, there are about 300 million people in United States and six billion people in the world. Each of whom hold their own interpretation of morality. Secondly, what is torture?


I am asking. I have been asking for I think 3 posts now. Answer.

Asking who? Not me. I have not been posting about that.


I won't speak for him. But the Salem Witch Trials and Spanish Inquisition should be part of your territory, correct? Why aren't you connecting these incidents together?.

Well, the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials are not related to the topic at hand. In fact, the Spanish Inquisition is not related to the events in Salem. Please, I do not tell you about physics do not try to enlighten me about history.


Because it is not against the law, therefore it is moral.

Would you argue that because something is against the law that is it immoral?


Cool. I hereby declare you a pedophile. Admit it or I will torture you.

Quit being an idiot, I know you are smarter than this.

Stick
4th October 06, 01:10 AM
Modern interrogation techniques- food and sleep deprevation, temperature extremes, altering perception (drugs, quick day/night progression, other tricks), the carrot- do not particularly bother me.

The fact is, if you catch someone you believe or know has information you have to get that information, and you will not get anything without technique, and no that technique is not to offer him tea and a handjob.

The definition of torture has truly expanded since the Geneva Convention. I somehow doubt the veterans of WWII, on all sides, are particularly impressed by what some people think torture is.

Now what goes on in Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan..... well, good luck gusy, you're gonna need it.

ThaiBoxerShorts
4th October 06, 01:13 AM
Let's forget about the Geneva Convention for a second and look at the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/No%20one%20shall%20be%20subjected%20to%20torture%2 0or%20to%20cruel,%20inhuman%20or%20degrading%20tre atment%20or%20punishment.%20In%20particular,%20no% 20one%20shall%20be%20subjected%20without%20his%20f ree%20consent%20to%20medical%20or%20scientific%20e xperimentation.%0Ahttp://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm) (which, yes, the United States did sign). Specifically, Article 7:


No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. Hmmm... Just says "no one." Doesn't specify "enemy combatant," or give a list of criteria, or offer any further clarification at all. Just "no one." I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that means "no one."

edit: typo

Olorin
4th October 06, 01:17 AM
I realize that you're joking (probably),

I already called Chaney. Enjoy your topical island vacation.


but do you at least see my point?

Yes I do, and I appreciate that you did not respond with “OMG…IDIOT!!!! I got the 411 on Bush and his band of criminals” + Rep coming your way…


Are you honestly defending the torture of civilians on the grounds that might be terrorists?

I am only stating that Bush did not break the law. International or otherwise.

Stick
4th October 06, 01:20 AM
Let's forget about the Geneva Convention for a second and look at the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/No%20one%20shall%20be%20subjected%20to%20torture%2 0or%20to%20cruel,%20inhuman%20or%20degrading%20tre atment%20or%20punishment.%20In%20particular,%20no% 20one%20shall%20be%20subjected%20without%20his%20f ree%20consent%20to%20medical%20or%20scientific%20e xperimentation.%0Ahttp://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm) (which, yes, the United States did sign). Specifically, Article 7:

Hmmm... Just says "no one." Doesn't specify "enemy combatant," or give a list of criteria, or offer any further clarification at all. Just "no one." I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that means "no one."

edit: typo


Pretty much meaningless, a document that says "thou shalt not kill or hurt", and yet here we all are at war.

Love the bit about medical and scientific experimentation, I'm sure there's a more meaningful document out there expressly forbidding this.

DAYoung
4th October 06, 01:34 AM
In conclusion, pay attention to the highlighted portions. My reading of this means that terrorist and Iraqi insurgents to not fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention. However, the Courts, in their infinite wisdom, put them under the Convention which means that “outrages upon personal dignity” or not allowing terrorist contact with their buddies is a violation of the law. If you read this differently then please post your opinions.

Olorin, what specifically about the Taliban fighters (e.g. David Hicks) failed to fulfil these criteria?

Sun Wukong
4th October 06, 03:32 AM
I got a fresh thought on this subject (forgive me if it's crazy, i'm on medication right now).

If this kind of treatment of "enemy combatants" and terrorists isn't immoral... then would it then be equally moral to lend that power to our own domestic police force?

Isn't that justifiable?

I mean, essentially, isn't an enemy combatant or terrorist just another name for a criminal of a different kind?

Isn't this a question that people should ask themselves before letting this go?

Do you really, in your heart of hearts believe that people, without due process and justifiable burden of evidence should be subjected to this kind of treatment for information?

Think about this:

1. Currently detainees do not have the right to face their accuser in court when they actually go to trial. Dumb people think that this merely protects the identity of informants and government agents.

The truth:

- it means the person or persons acting as agent or informant have no real accountability.

-Not only could that informant be lying, but the factual information they may have given may have been altered by someone else inside the executive branch without that agents knowledge when it is presented at trial.

- Neither the agent cited nor the defense attorney will have any way of verifying "secretly obtained" testimonies from their original sources; effectively, there will be no real cross examination except by the prosecutor against witnesses who've been "coerced"... which is now LEGAL.

- The defense, nor the judge have any way of determining if the prosecution or executive branch is telling the truth; the executive branch in this regard becomes accountable only to itself and whistle blowers.

-The agent or informant cited may not even exist.

-Defense and fair judicial deliberation becomes nearly impossible; the trials effectively become witch hunts.


2. Prisoners on trial may be "coerced" into talking.

-that means the prosecution team effectively get's to work over the guy they are about to put on trial for maybe months of sleep deprivation, starvation, and psychological torment to the point of turning him into a mental and psychological wreck unfit to defend himself and do the same to anyone they think they can defend him or that they can get to claim he's guilty of anything.


Does this paint a picture for you yet?

Does the phrase, "KANGAROO COURT" MEAN A GOD DAMN THING?


Now ask yourself this:


How long before they start doing this to regular citizens?

If you think the answer is never, think again. Politicians and office holders will stretch their powers far beyond what they were rationally meant to have when they can get away with it. Everytime the government expands their powers, you are effectively opening a floodgate.

And this shit right here? This is much scarier shit than gun control or prohibition or fucking tax hikes. This shit effects how the executive branch controls PEOPLE.

Read this clearly: if the executive branch gets to call anyone they want a "terrorist" without burden of evidence, arrest people without charging them with a crime, TORTURE people freely just to see if they might know something for as long as they want, and hide them so that no one ever get's to regulate how they are treated it set's a very dangerous legal precedence. Terrorist is just another word for criminal.

Right now, this administration has sidestepped the judicial branch through the legislative branch and sidestepped the legislative branch through expansion of the executve branch.

If this doesn't worry you, you've got shit in between you ears.

Shawarma
4th October 06, 05:41 AM
And how do you know this?
I don't. But did the stupid photos out of Abu Ghraib really seem to you as effective interrogation techniques rather than just some utter, utter dumbasses messing about with people they were in a position to bully just for laughs?

"Hey Achmed, we're gonna pile y'all up in a big fag-pile!"

"Oh no, anything but the fag-pile, please, let me tell you where Osama Bin Laden is hiding!"

It doesn't seem that likely to me, which is why I don't classify Abugate as being torture. Criminal maltreatment of prisoners, yes, torture, no. There is a point to torture.

In addition, I feel that Lyndie England should be executed.

kungfujew
4th October 06, 05:43 AM
In addition, I feel that Lyndie England should be executed.

Too late, she has already spawned offspring.

Iscariot
4th October 06, 08:33 AM
I am only stating that Bush did not break the law. International or otherwise.
Then why is he seeking immunity to prosecution?

I haven't tortured anyone and thereby break laws, international or otherwise. Therefore I'm not spending my days seeking to make sure my ass is covered.

It seems odd that he is........

Shawarma
4th October 06, 09:54 AM
Just covering his bases, probably.

Sun Wukong
4th October 06, 02:29 PM
In addition, I feel that Lyndie England should be executed.


I cannot disagree with you enough here.

These kids that join the army usually know and understand very little at the time of entry into service. The IQ and educational requirements for putting on the uniform are NOT very high. Think about how impressionable you were at 18.

If she joined as a fresh faced kid, believing everything that the military and the government told her from there on out she was doomed. I've covered this before on an old thread, but I still to this day believe that girl and the rest of those soldiers were ordered to soften up detainees for interrogation. The people who gave the order are more responsible than she is and I believe that order came all the way down from the top.

I believe they were told to treat those prisoners as they did and the only thing they are guilty of is following bad orders. The CIA contracted interrogators were never questioned or identified in court. They never testified though they were EXTREMELY IMPORTANT witnesses. The government hid their identities in the name of secrecy, but the writing is on the fucking wall here: this was a trial against crimes WAR CRIMES and VERY important.

You can get new interrogators that's for damn sure in the name of "justice;" knowing the truth about such a monumentally defining case is alot more important than keeping such a relatively minor thing secret.

This soldiers were hung out to dry, scapegoated and locked up in the most disgraceful of manners. I can tell you that from the very bottom of my heart, those guys have been through enough and the treatment/betrayal they've recieved already out weighs the sins they've committed.

The military can order a pilot to drop a 2000lb bomb on a populated area he knows will probably have collateral deaths just to try and kill one guy... it's his duty and no one even stops to question it. Telling a bunch of guys on guard duty that they have to help interrogators to get intel and that they are helping win the war on terror can get even a reasonable average man to have moral "flexibility".

That goes double for soldiers, because they are already indoctrinated to follow orders: orders coming from a 'spook' who is buddied up with the highest levels of government carry alot of weight with grunts.

Zendetta
4th October 06, 03:29 PM
In addition, I feel that Lyndie England should be executed.

Being naked in the same room as that homely bitch is definitely torture.

Olorin
4th October 06, 10:59 PM
Olorin, what specifically about the Taliban fighters (e.g. David Hicks) failed to fulfil these criteria?

I cannot speak definitively, but I do not think that they wore “uniforms” which makes them ineligible for protection.

Also before we get ahead of ourselves can someone post the part of the law in which the congress pardons President Bush. I do not believe that congress has the power to pardon, that right is reserved to the executive branch. (Article 2 section 2)

DAYoung
4th October 06, 11:23 PM
I cannot speak definitively, but I do not think that they wore “uniforms” which makes them ineligible for protection.

From what I can tell, there is nothing about uniforms in the Third Geneva Convention. Militias must have insignias, but there are other categories of protection, including citizens who take up arms, and soldiers loyal to a state.

I can't see any reason why Taliban soldiers wouldn't fall into these categories. Any thoughts?

Olorin
4th October 06, 11:41 PM
I overstated my point when I said “uniforms.” I drew that conclusion from this section of the treaty.

b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

But keep in mind that in order to be eligible one must also…

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

And what does that mean? Fuck if I know! It is a very vague statement.

I want to see exactly what the new law says before I comment further. I will try searching for an online version of the law, but this is not my thread, so I am not going to bust my ass looking for it. However, congress does not have the power to pardon anyone so I am curious about what the law says.

DAYoung
4th October 06, 11:47 PM
I overstated my point when I said “uniforms.” I drew that conclusion from this section of the treaty.

b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

But keep in mind that in order to be eligible one must also…

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

And what does that mean? Fuck if I know! It is a very vague statement.

I want to see exactly what the new law says before I comment further. I will try searching for an online version of the law, but this is not my thread, so I am not going to bust my ass looking for it. However, congress does not have the power to pardon anyone so I am curious about what the law says.

Fair enough. For the record, I think the Taliban are in (de jure if not de facto)

Olorin
4th October 06, 11:56 PM
Fair enough. For the record, I think the Taliban are in (de jure if not de facto)

Did the Taliban ever ratify the treaty? If so, they are de jure, but then they had to abide by the treat to be de facto. That is if I understand your meaning.

If I am misunderstanding then please explain.

ThaiBoxerShorts
5th October 06, 12:06 AM
The full text of the law is available at http://thomas.loc.gov. The bill itself can't be linked directly, unfortunately, so that's as close as I can get you. From there, do a search for H.R.6166.

DAYoung
5th October 06, 12:44 AM
Did the Taliban ever ratify the treaty? If so, they are de jure, but then they had to abide by the treat to be de facto. That is if I understand your meaning.

If I am misunderstanding then please explain.

It suffices for only one of the combatants to be a signatory (i.e. the US).

In any case, my point was they they are protected in law, but not in fact.

Sun Wukong
5th October 06, 04:31 AM
I wish we could get a legal personality in here to look at this; after all, this is a legal document and legal language has more than conversational implications... Sam's probably busy doing something he'll get paid for... darnit.

DAYoung
5th October 06, 04:36 AM
The Geneva conversation is pretty plain, but I'm assuming you mean the US document (whatever it is), or International Court laws.