Torture and Dick Cheney

[Dan Conner]

I read this very interesting column written by Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State in the Bush Administration. The column detailed how the Bush Administration used torture, not to lead to valuable intelligence in our war against Al Qeada, but instead to link Al Qaeda to Iraq. These tortures were not intended to save American lives. Instead, almost 5,000 Americans have died in a futile war in Iraq. I thought this article was interesting because it was coming from a Bush Administration Republican.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/05/the_truth_about/

Isn't this revealing about Bush Administration motives?

[Dan Conner]

Dick Cheney has made many statements that he authorized torture. Judge Bybee has even recanted his advice that waterboarding was not torture. Then to find out that waterboarding was used to get lies, instead of the truth, is diabolical and loathsome.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Agreed! An investigation / prosecution is warranted.

[Howard Dittrich]

Liz,

We agree again, there should be an investigation. Unfortunately there probably will not be one or if there is one it will be nothing more than a white wash. The politicians in Washington will protect each other and I’m afraid nothing will come of this. Nancy Pelosi (and many others on both sides of the aisle) was made aware of the use of torture in February of 2003 and did nothing. Both democrats and republicans have too much to lose. This will be a hot topic for awhile then we will not hear anymore about it; or if we do hear about it, one side will be bashing the other and questioning who knew what and when they knew.

And yes, don’t care what any Washington lawyer might say, water boarding (both types) is torture.

[Bob Jentges]

Liz,

We agree again, there should be an investigation. Unfortunately there probably will not be one or if there is one it will be nothing more than a white wash. The politicians in Washington will protect each other and I’m afraid nothing will come of this. Nancy Pelosi (and many others on both sides of the aisle) was made aware of the use of torture in February of 2003 and did nothing. Both democrats and republicans have too much to lose. This will be a hot topic for awhile then we will not hear anymore about it; or if we do hear about it, one side will be bashing the other and questioning who knew what and when they knew.

And yes, don’t care what any Washington lawyer might say, water boarding (both types) is torture.

Personally, I am not completly convinced that any of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute torture. If they do, as a general rule I do not support torture. Having said that, being willing to jeopardize ones own life to spare a terrorist from experiencing physical and/or mental distress is one thing. But when one is charged with protecting the lives of many Americans from the disaster of another serious terrorist attack on the homeland is a different situation, in my view.

I think FDR understood that when on September 7, 1942 he said : "I cannot tell what powers may have to be exercised in order to win this war." I would expect that Harry S. Truman had similar thoughts before he ordered the use of nuclear weapons against Japan to essentially end WWII.

I trust leaders of our country, now and in the future, will be able to seperate national defense responsibilities from politics when the rubber hits the road.

PS--Since my above post yesterday, this morning The Free Press carried Cal Thomas' "Cheney Was Right" article. Interesting.

[Howard Dittrich]

Bob,

Was not sure if water boarding was torture myself until I researched it and made up my own mind and as my earlier post indicated I came to the conclusion that it is torture.

Just because it is torture does not meant I believe we should not use it. I believe we should not use torture because we (the U.S.A.) said we would not. The mistake was made when the U.S. agreed not to use torture. I believe war should be so horrific, devastating and terrible nobody in their right mind would start one and if your potential enemy is willing to use torture that should also give a crazy man pause.

There is conflicting reports on the effectiveness of torture as a means of extracting information, but it does have a deterrent factor. It is as a deterrent that torture has its biggest benefit. Of course if we are dealing with religious zealots and their only goal is martyrdom, then there is not much we can do.

I believe we share a very similar point of view on this topic.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob,

Was not sure if water boarding was torture myself until I researched it and made up my own mind and as my earlier post indicated I came to the conclusion that it is torture.

Just because it is torture does not meant I believe we should not use it. I believe we should not use torture because we (the U.S.A.) said we would not. The mistake was made when the U.S. agreed not to use torture. I believe war should be so horrific, devastating and terrible nobody in their right mind would start one and if your potential enemy is willing to use torture that should also give a crazy man pause.

There is conflicting reports on the effectiveness of torture as a means of extracting information, but it does have a deterrent factor. It is as a deterrent that torture has its biggest benefit. Of course if we are dealing with religious zealots and their only goal is martyrdom, then there is not much we can do.

I believe we share a very similar point of view on this topic.

It seems we do share a "very similar point of view on this topic", Howard.

It might be a stretch of rationalization, but maybe our government used waterboarding, the last time was back in 2005 I beleive, is because they did not consider waterboarding torture then, and the reason they said "we do not tourtue" after that is because they were no longer using waterboarding when that statement was made.

I also agree that there are differing opinions on the effectivness of waterboarding in extracting accurate information. Cheney says it did in this particular case and says there are memo's to prove his point. I read yesterday that Sen. Carl Laven (D MI) said he has read the memo's and they do not support Cheney's arguement. Seems the dispute, in this particular case, could be easily resolved by simply releasing the memo's in question. The administration already released memo's to make other arguements about EIT's. If the remaining memo's will establish that Cheney is wrong, as much as they seem to like to make Cheney the bad guy, it would seem they would use the memos for that purpose. If they could establish that Cheney is wrong it might keep Cheney out of the media spot light, where I for one think he is winning the arguement.

[Howard Dittrich]

Seems the dispute, in this particular case, could be easily resolved by simply releasing the memo's in question. The administration already released memo's to make other arguements about EIT's. If the remaining memo's will establish that Cheney is wrong, as much as they seem to like to make Cheney the bad guy, it would seem they would use the memos for that purpose. If they could establish that Cheney is wrong it might keep Cheney out of the media spot light, where I for one think he is winning the arguement.

Believe you might be on to something here. Unfortunately for all of us, the politicians (both Democratic and Republican) in Washington manipulate the situation by selectively releasing information to the public. It is done to best suit themselves and not always in the best interest of the rest of us.

I’m very cynical when it comes to the federal government, don’t believe much of what is said; I try to watch what they do. You get a more accurate picture of what is going on at the Federal government that way. Washington is just too big and too far away and those politicians whom work there are too insulated from the rest of us for any real accountability.

Generally, local government politicians do a better job listening and acting on the wishes of their constituents. One voice is much louder at the local level than in Washington. Better end here as I have got way off topic.

[Bob Jentges]

Believe you might be on to something here. Unfortunately for all of us, the politicians (both Democratic and Republican) in Washington manipulate the situation by selectively releasing information to the public. It is done to best suit themselves and not always in the best interest of the rest of us.

I’m very cynical when it comes to the federal government, don’t believe much of what is said; I try to watch what they do. You get a more accurate picture of what is going on at the Federal government that way. Washington is just too big and too far away and those politicians whom work there are too insulated from the rest of us for any real accountability.

Generally, local government politicians do a better job listening and acting on the wishes of their constituents. One voice is much louder at the local level than in Washington. Better end here as I have got way off topic.

You say "...way off topic". I say your post is one everyone should read!

[Dan Conner]

Personally, I am not completly convinced that any of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute torture. If they do, as a general rule I do not support torture. Having said that, being willing to jeopardize ones own life to spare a terrorist from experiencing physical and/or mental distress is one thing. But when one is charged with protecting the lives of many Americans from the disaster of another serious terrorist attack on the homeland is a different situation, in my view.

I think FDR understood that when on September 7, 1942 he said : "I cannot tell what powers may have to be exercised in order to win this war." I would expect that Harry S. Truman had similar thoughts before he ordered the use of nuclear weapons against Japan to essentially end WWII.

I trust leaders of our country, now and in the future, will be able to seperate national defense responsibilities from politics when the rubber hits the road.

PS--Since my above post yesterday, this morning The Free Press carried Cal Thomas' "Cheney Was Right" article. Interesting.

Waterboarding is considered torture in the Geneva Conventions. The US was a signatory to that convention. In fact, the US was the primary proponent of all countries signing on to it. In addition, the US prosecuted Japanese soldiers for torture who used waterboarding. Consequently, the US considers waterboarding torture and we have prosecuted people in the past for using it. It is grossly hypocritical to determine it is not torture now. It seems like a convenient change of mind.

The purpose of the Geneva Conventions was to protect the American soldier from torture. If we condone and practice torture, then I guess you give a "green light" for it to be used by other countries. While you might be willing to have it used, the American soldier, who faces reciprocity, doesn't.

So far, there is not one scrap of evidence to show any lives were saved by using torture/waterboarding. In fact, there is documentary evidence to show the Bush Administration used torture to get prisoners to lie, by saying there was WMD in Iraq and that Al Qaeda was working with Iraq.

It must be remembered that waterboarding has been shown to fail at extracting the truth and only gets the prisoner to tell the captors whatever they want to hear to stop the torture.

[Howard Dittrich]

The purpose of the Geneva Conventions was to protect the American soldier from torture. If we condone and practice torture, then I guess you give a "green light" for it to be used by other countries. While you might be willing to have it used, the American soldier, who faces reciprocity, doesn't.



Please don't blame Bush the next time some terrorist group post a video online showing the beheading of a U.S. solider or some journalist. It will not be his fault.

When did al Qaeda sign the Geneva Convention? Of course they did not, just because the U. S. A. did sign it does not guarantee that our troops will be treated according to the Geneva Convention. During World War Two the U.S. and German signed the Geneva Convention. The USSR did not, U.S. POW's were treated better than those of the USSR by the Germans because both German and the U.S. signed the treaty. No such benefit awaits any U.S. solider captured by al Qaeda.

As a reminder, I agree with you that water boarding is torture.

[Dan Conner]

Please don't blame Bush the next time some terrorist group post a video online showing the beheading of a U.S. solider or some journalist. It will not be his fault.

When did al Qaeda sign the Geneva Convention? Of course they did not, just because the U. S. A. did sign it does not guarantee that our troops will be treated according to the Geneva Convention. During World War Two the U.S. and German signed the Geneva Convention. The USSR did not, U.S. POW's were treated better than those of the USSR by the Germans because both German and the U.S. signed the treaty. No such benefit awaits any U.S. solider captured by al Qaeda.

As a reminder, I agree with you that water boarding is torture.Howard, I thought you would have known that Al Qaeda never signed the Geneva Convention, but we did. WE promised not to use torture. By Al Qaeda not signing the Geneva Convention does not empower us to disregard it. We agreed to follow the convention.

I don't understand the logic you are using to justify breaking a US obligation. Are you saying two wrongs make a right? Oh, you are saying that because you assume our soldiers will be ill treated by Al Qaeda that we are now justified to use whatever torture tactics available? Come on, that just lowers us to the same level as Al Qaeda. Then, we are no better than them. In fact, we are also liars, becasue we say we won't do things we do. Then, why should any country believe what we say? Signing an agreement will just be a convenience of the time.

[Bob Jentges]

Waterboarding is considered torture in the Geneva Conventions. The US was a signatory to that convention. In fact, the US was the primary proponent of all countries signing on to it. In addition, the US prosecuted Japanese soldiers for torture who used waterboarding. Consequently, the US considers waterboarding torture and we have prosecuted people in the past for using it. It is grossly hypocritical to determine it is not torture now. It seems like a convenient change of mind.

The purpose of the Geneva Conventions was to protect the American soldier from torture. If we condone and practice torture, then I guess you give a "green light" for it to be used by other countries. While you might be willing to have it used, the American soldier, who faces reciprocity, doesn't.

So far, there is not one scrap of evidence to show any lives were saved by using torture/waterboarding. In fact, there is documentary evidence to show the Bush Administration used torture to get prisoners to lie, by saying there was WMD in Iraq and that Al Qaeda was working with Iraq.

It must be remembered that waterboarding has been shown to fail at extracting the truth and only gets the prisoner to tell the captors whatever they want to hear to stop the torture.

I have said most of what I have to say about waterboarding being torture in previous posts in this thread. I am not certain one way or the other. However, as I have stated previously in this thread their might be special circumstances i.e. the so-called "smoking gun" senerio where it is warranted. I think recent polls/surveys show the majority of Americans agree.

I am not looking to argue, but for my own satisfaction can you provide me with some concrete evidence or document from the Geneva Conventions that specifically states the type of "waterboarding" used at Gitmo is torture; or specifically says any type "waterboarding" is torture?

Additionally, it should be understood that there were four (4) Geneva Conventions. The third dealt with treatment of prisoners of war, but the treaty's protections do not apply to members of al Qaeda because, as I understand it, they do not meet the treaty definition of prisoners of war.

[Dan Conner]

I have said most of what I have to say about waterboarding being torture in previous posts in this thread. I am not certain one way or the other. However, as I have stated previously in this thread their might be special circumstances i.e. the so-called "smoking gun" senerio where it is warranted. I think recent polls/surveys show the majority of Americans agree.

I am not looking to argue, but for my own satisfaction can you provide me with some concrete evidence or document from the Geneva Conventions that specifically states the type of "waterboarding" used at Gitmo is torture; or specifically says any type "waterboarding" is torture?

Additionally, it should be understood that there were four (4) Geneva Conventions. The third dealt with treatment of prisoners of war, but the treaty's protections do not apply to members of al Qaeda because, as I understand it, they do not meet the treaty definition of prisoners of war.

Bob, it isn't important what you think, as far as waterboarding is concerned. Our country determined that when we prosecuted war criminals for waterboarding. We, us, the United States, have already determined it was torture after WWII. Also, we accused N Korea of using it in the Korean War. We said it was torture back then.

It is irrelevant about whether Al Qaeda signed on to the Geneva Conventions. We did. Besides, Al Qaeda is not a country with a representative government. It would be impossible for them to sign on the the Geneva Convention. They were never asked to sign on to it. I'm sure they aren't prisoners of war because they don't represent a sovereign nation. However, we do, and we signed onto the conventions.

THe Geneva Conventions never meant that we can committ horrific acts of torture and violence, against the code of conduct for a war, simply because we fight someone who never signed the accords. We have agreed to abide by the accords. Our signing didn't mean we get to pick and choose who we can commit atrocities against.

Waterboarding has already been determined torture, both in Nuremburg and the trials of the Japanese after WWII. Most every GI in service and former GI's consider it torture. Ask Jesse Ventura and John McCain, they underwent waterboarding. It is not simulated drowning, it is drowning very slowly. It will kill you if done long enough. Many people have died while being waterboarded. I wouldn't doubt prisoners have died from it while in our custody.

You can debate whether waterboarding is torture all day, but it was already decided in the courts. It is torture. If you don't think it is torture, then maybe you wouldn't mind being waterboarded? Also, were you are military veteran? Did you ever serve in combat? I think you might look on these issues differently if you were subject to being captured.

One last thing. I have never heard in the media that any of our servicemen have been waterboarded by Al Qaeda.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, it isn't important what you think, as far as waterboarding is concerned. Our country determined that when we prosecuted war criminals for waterboarding. We, us, the United States, have already determined it was torture after WWII. Also, we accused N Korea of using it in the Korean War. We said it was torture back then.

It is irrelevant about whether Al Qaeda signed on to the Geneva Conventions. We did. Besides, Al Qaeda is not a country with a representative government. It would be impossible for them to sign on the the Geneva Convention. They were never asked to sign on to it. I'm sure they aren't prisoners of war because they don't represent a sovereign nation. However, we do, and we signed onto the conventions.

THe Geneva Conventions never meant that we can committ horrific acts of torture and violence, against the code of conduct for a war, simply because we fight someone who never signed the accords. We have agreed to abide by the accords. Our signing didn't mean we get to pick and choose who we can commit atrocities against.

Waterboarding has already been determined torture, both in Nuremburg and the trials of the Japanese after WWII. Most every GI in service and former GI's consider it torture. Ask Jesse Ventura and John McCain, they underwent waterboarding. It is not simulated drowning, it is drowning very slowly. It will kill you if done long enough. Many people have died while being waterboarded. I wouldn't doubt prisoners have died from it while in our custody.

You can debate whether waterboarding is torture all day, but it was already decided in the courts. It is torture. If you don't think it is torture, then maybe you wouldn't mind being waterboarded? Also, were you are military veteran? Did you ever serve in combat? I think you might look on these issues differently if you were subject to being captured.

One last thing. I have never heard in the media that any of our servicemen have been waterboarded by Al Qaeda.

I never suggested al Qaeda signed the Geneva Conventions. The conflict with al Qaeda is not "war" as defined in the Geneva Conventions so technically the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the USA or al Qaeda in this conflict. My statement should not be construed as an endorsement of torture i.e. waterboarding except in the very rare situations I mentioned previously.

I seldom ask questions of you, but I did in in the second paragraph of my post #13. You have not answered the question; obviously you do not have to. I am not asking for your answer again.

I consider the three questions you posed to me personal and not relevant to the discussion, and choose not to answer. But I do have some other Non-personal questions I do consider relevant, which obviously you can choose whether or not you want to answer: 1) Can you identify when and where "we prosecuted war criminals for waterboarding"? 2) Can you cite specific evidence that the type of waterboarding used on the three al Qaeda members at Gitmo was "determined torture, both in Nuremburg and the trials of the Japanese after WWII"? As I said before, I do not want to argue; I just want to learn.

Maybe the type of waterboarding conducted on the three al Qaeda people at Gitmo "will kill you if done long enough". I do not know; I do not care to learn. But I have heard that during the waterboarding at Gitmo there were medical personell present to protect against something like that from happening.

I like you have not heard "in the media" that any of our service people have been waterboarded by al Qaeda, but I have heard "in the media" that some of our military personnel have been waterboarded as part of their training. I have also heard "in the media" of acts by al Qaeda that I would consider far more dispicable than waterboarding.

If this conflict continues I expect to hear more dispicable acts by al Quada whether we waterboard members of al Qaeda or not. Terrorists are by definition not humane people. For the sake of national defense they must be stopped, to the extent we can stop them.

[Dan Conner]

I never suggested al Qaeda signed the Geneva Conventions. The conflict with al Qaeda is not "war" as defined in the Geneva Conventions so technically the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the USA or al Qaeda in this conflict. My statement should not be construed as an endorsement of torture i.e. waterboarding except in the very rare situations I mentioned previously.

I seldom ask questions of you, but I did in in the second paragraph of my post #13. You have not answered the question; obviously you do not have to. I am not asking for your answer again.

I consider the three questions you posed to me personal and not relevant to the discussion, and choose not to answer. But I do have some other Non-personal questions I do consider relevant, which obviously you can choose whether or not you want to answer: 1) Can you identify when and where "we prosecuted war criminals for waterboarding"? 2) Can you cite specific evidence that the type of waterboarding used on the three al Qaeda members at Gitmo was "determined torture, both in Nuremburg and the trials of the Japanese after WWII"? As I said before, I do not want to argue; I just want to learn.

Maybe the type of waterboarding conducted on the three al Qaeda people at Gitmo "will kill you if done long enough". I do not know; I do not care to learn. But I have heard that during the waterboarding at Gitmo there were medical personell present to protect against something like that from happening.

I like you have not heard "in the media" that any of our service people have been waterboarded by al Qaeda, but I have heard "in the media" that some of our military personnel have been waterboarded as part of their training. I have also heard "in the media" of acts by al Qaeda that I would consider far more dispicable than waterboarding.

If this conflict continues I expect to hear more dispicable acts by al Quada whether we waterboard members of al Qaeda or not. Terrorists are by definition not humane people. For the sake of national defense they must be stopped, to the extent we can stop them.

I will gladly answer your question, but I will not go back to your post #13. Ask your question again, instead of referring me back. First, I suggest you read the following Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

This article was the first that came up in my search. There are many others too. It explains that Japanese soldiers were charged and convicted with inflicting torture (waterboarding) some time after WWII. This was accommplished by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, also called the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.

In 1898 US soldiers were court-martialled for waterboarding Filipino guerrillas. Some similarities here, right? The Filippino guerrillas did not sign the Geneva Conventions either, and they are commonly called terrorists today.

In 1983 Texas sheriff deputies were sentenced to 10 years for waterboarding US prisoners in the jail. Again, they didn't sign Geneva Conventions either. Heaven knows many US criminals have committed crimes every bit as bad Al Qaeda, but they can't be waterboarded to get infomation. In fact, courts have held that evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible in court.

I'm not going to pull further references to the Geneva Conventions because it is very common knowledge that waterboarding is torture. International courts have ruled so, and so have our own domestic courts. I was in the service during Vietnam and many of us feared being captured by the North Vietnamese because of the torture they could do. If there were no laws protecting soldiers, it would probably be far worse.

The Geneva Conventions also limited use of poison gases and other WMD. Do you also suggest that it is OK for us to use them in the fight against Al Qaeda?

I think your arguement that waterboarding is not torture is totally contrary to law and history.

Here are several more articles, including one that stated Nazi's were also tried in torturing because they used waterboarding:

www.truthout.org/042709J

www.sptimes.com/2006/10/22/Columns/We_sentenced_Japanese.shtml

www.theothereveningnews.com/2007/11/waterboarding-is-still-illegal.html

[Bob Jentges]

For the sake of space I will not preview my post with a "Quote" of your last post in this thread, Dan. You can scroll back to review if you feel the need.

Thank you for the references. I read them and they track very close to what you have been contending. But if the waterboarding that was done at Gitmo was torture, there are at least a few things I find difficult to understand.

First, it is my understanding the CIA devised the EIT's (including a type of waterboarding) to be used, and asked the office of legal counsel for opinions on their legality before they were used. Apparrantly the opinion was waterboarding did not constitute torture because it did not inflict physical damage or long lasting phycological harm. But right or wrong, I agree that opinion goes against previous opinions on certain types of waterboarding and torture.

Second, after waterboarding had been and was being used at Gitmo and congressional intelligence comittees had been briefed a number of times, why no committee members insisted it be stopped.

I do not know the answers to my two rhetorical qusetions. But I will speculate the office of legal counsel might have concluded that under the special circumstances of the times, the president had authority to authorize use of the EIT's (including waterboarding) and the congressional joint intelligence committee agreed.

In concluding, a few additional observations come to mind. 1) The use of EIT's (including waterboarding) at Gitmo was not for the purpose of punishing for past deeds, or for obtaining a confession, it was to try to gather information that might assist in stopping other possible pending catastrophic terrorist events. 2) A presidents first responsibility is to protect the citizens of the country i.e. national defense. 3) In critical situations a leaders responsibility, I think including the president with respect to national defense, is to do what he/she thinks is right and be willing to risk the consequences.

[Dan Conner]

For the sake of space I will not preview my post with a "Quote" of your last post in this thread, Dan. You can scroll back to review if you feel the need.

Thank you for the references. I read them and they track very close to what you have been contending. But if the waterboarding that was done at Gitmo was torture, there are at least a few things I find difficult to understand.

First, it is my understanding the CIA devised the EIT's (including a type of waterboarding) to be used, and asked the office of legal counsel for opinions on their legality before they were used. Apparrantly the opinion was waterboarding did not constitute torture because it did not inflict physical damage or long lasting phycological harm. But right or wrong, I agree that opinion goes against previous opinions on certain types of waterboarding and torture.

Second, after waterboarding had been and was being used at Gitmo and congressional intelligence comittees had been briefed a number of times, why no committee members insisted it be stopped.

I do not know the answers to my two rhetorical qusetions. But I will speculate the office of legal counsel might have concluded that under the special circumstances of the times, the president had authority to authorize use of the EIT's (including waterboarding) and the congressional joint intelligence committee agreed.

In concluding, a few additional observations come to mind. 1) The use of EIT's (including waterboarding) at Gitmo was not for the purpose of punishing for past deeds, or for obtaining a confession, it was to try to gather information that might assist in stopping other possible pending catastrophic terrorist events. 2) A presidents first responsibility is to protect the citizens of the country i.e. national defense. 3) In critical situations a leaders responsibility, I think including the president with respect to national defense, is to do what he/she thinks is right and be willing to risk the consequences.First, the CIA never requested the legal opinion. The Bush Administration pushed that on the CIA using White House legal advisors and the WH attorney. The last I heard was that Cheney's office orchestrated the torture by directing the legal staff to find a "legal loophole" to justify the torture because the CIA wouldn't use torture without the legal cover. However, it wasn't the CIA that directed that effort. Even the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" was a political fabrication of the Bush Administration to try and reframe torture into something that didn't sound so objectionable. However, "EIT" is political cover for torture.

Jon Woo (sp) was the WH attorney who devised the memo about torture being defined as organ damage or death, but he might be looking at disbarrment or prison. Same with two other WH attorneys. They obviously lied. People speculate it was Cheney who provoked the whole thing because of his desire to use torture. When you talk about legal opinion, you are talking about WH attorneys doing what they were instructed to do by the politicos.

It is next to impossible to determine what happened in these Congressional briefings. Notes were not allowed and there are no minutes. It all ends up one person's word against another, but there is an increasing amount of evidence supporting Nancy Pelosi that she was never briefed on the torture tactics used, or that it had been used at all. Also, no Congressperson was allowed to divulge anything abouot what transpired in these intelligence briefings under penalty of law.

The purpose of the waterboardings was to try to get lies from the detainees. One of the CIA torturers admitted to such. The Bush Administration tried to get evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Qaeda and that there was WMD is Iraq. The CIA torturers were instructed to get the two high profiloe prisoners to testify to such. That's why they were waterboarded more than 200 times.

I suggest you read more about the chronology of the torture events of the past, who was involved, and the whys. Fox News is hardly a good source. There very well might be prosecutions in the future and some high visibility atorneys losing their law license.

[Bob Jentges]

I do not place anymore stock in your senerio than you place in mine.

I watch very little of "Fox News" (which I have read has more viewers than CNN & MSNBC combined) just as I watch very little of the three major network news programs. My TV news watching is pretty much limited to statewide news on KSTP and local news on KEYC. I get most of my information from reading, but not from reading opinions of individual political bloggers or the talking points of any political party.

What might happen to Woo and the others is speculation by you, but my speculation is nothing will happen to them. If the government starts punishing lawyers for their legal (right or wrong) opinions, it's almost over!

It has been said by members of the intelligence committee's that in the past, if a member objected to activities during the briefings the CIA and/or administration would cease and decist. I have no way to confirm the accuracy of that, but I heard it and read it.

But enough on that. The crux of the matter here, as I see it, is contained in the "observations" included in the final paragraph of my last post in this thread. Not everything should be decided on politics---elections probably, but actual governing when it comes to national defense, no!

[Dan Conner]

I do not place anymore stock in your senerio than you place in mine.

I watch very little of "Fox News" (which I have read has more viewers than CNN & MSNBC combined) just as I watch very little of the three major network news programs. My TV news watching is pretty much limited to statewide news on KSTP and local news on KEYC. I get most of my information from reading, but not from reading opinions of individual political bloggers or the talking points of any political party.

What might happen to Woo and the others is speculation by you, but my speculation is nothing will happen to them. If the government starts punishing lawyers for their legal (right or wrong) opinions, it's almost over!

It has been said by members of the intelligence committee's that in the past, if a member objected to activities during the briefings the CIA and/or administration would cease and decist. I have no way to confirm the accuracy of that, but I heard it and read it.

But enough on that. The crux of the matter here, as I see it, is contained in the "observations" included in the final paragraph of my last post in this thread. Not everything should be decided on politics---elections probably, but actual governing when it comes to national defense, no!

Politics--that's just what you used in making your decision. It's funny how you acknowledged the illegality of waterboarding because it is torture, but then you use hearsay to mitigate it, when you say any member who objects will cause things to cease? There is already much evidence showing Pelosi and others were not told about the waterboarding and that it had already been used.

As far as your "crux" is concerned, I don't understand what you are saying. However, I would appreciate it if you would attach a reference to your reading describing the functioning of the intelligence committee. Ceertainly if you read it, it must be available. However, you forget the scenario of when intelligence members are not told about torture or waterboarding.

The biggest point that you have already conceded is that waterboarding is torture and that both have been illegal in and out of the US. People in the US have been prosecuted in the past for it. If you just stop and think---American enlisted personnel were prosecuted for stripping Iraqi prisoners naked, mocking them, making them perform hideous acts, pose with leashes, etc. That was a crime that didn't involve severe phyical abuse, but they were sent to prison. Why shouldn't Dick Cheney be imprisoned for authorizing far far worse?

Any reasonable person will acknowledge waterboarding as torture and that it is illegal. We have already punished people for far less. Attorneys who justified waterboarding were trying to legalize and hideous and brutal torture tactic to please their boss (Cheney). That's not the act of a capable attorney. It's the act of a sycophant. They need to be disbarred at the least and imprisoned at worst. What Woo and the other attorneys did was far worse than an opinion. They legitimized and illegal act. One of the attorneys has already recanted what he did and wished he could have it back---too late.

I suggest you read some more about the US waterboarding.

Here's another reference explaining waterboarding is illegal:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/05/rice-waterboarding-and-accountability.php

Here's one explaining that waterboarding was used before anyone was told:

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/05/bush-failure-to-disclose-waterboarding.html

Here's another about waterboarding:

www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/26569.html

Here's another article recounting a New York Times article requesting the impeachment of Jay Bybee

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/19/jay-bybee-nyt-calls-for-i_n_188680.html

I know you say you get your information by reading, well hereis some reading for you. Oh, and by the way, it was Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee who wrote the secret memo authoizing torture. He said he wishes he could retract it. He acknowledged it was not good work. He might yet be impeached as a Federal judge. President Bush personally authorized the torture.

[Bob Jentges]

I know you have indicated you do not like to scroll back to earlier posts, but I do not know how how to make my "crux of the matter" comments any clearer than I did in the final paragraph of my post #17 and/or the last 10 words in my post #19.

Some members of the intelligence have stated publically that they were briefed in committee that waterboarding had been used and was still one of the EIT's that might be used in the future. Since Pelosi's position on whether she was briefed or made aware of the briefing has changed a number of times it is difficult to know what her final position might be. She was a member of the intelligence committee at the time in question and it is my understanding her name was on the roster of those in attendance at the briefing. If she was and did not hear what was said about waterboarding she apparrently was not paying attention. Not good!

Obama's CIA director, Leon Panetta, has said the CIA does not lie at briefings. If Pelosi was not actually at the briefing, I think on something as important as a CIA briefing she should have been. She has said she was busy working on increasing the number of Democrats elected to the U.S. House at the time. Politics over national defense? Good grief!

If you think the three al Qaeda terrorists were waterboarded for political reasons this discussion is over from my standpoint.

[Dan Conner]

I know you have indicated you do not like to scroll back to earlier posts, but I do not know how how to make my "crux of the matter" comments any clearer than I did in the final paragraph of my post #17 and/or the last 10 words in my post #19.

Some members of the intelligence have stated publically that they were briefed in committee that waterboarding had been used and was still one of the EIT's that might be used in the future. Since Pelosi's position on whether she was briefed or made aware of the briefing has changed a number of times it is difficult to know what her final position might be. She was a member of the intelligence committee at the time in question and it is my understanding her name was on the roster of those in attendance at the briefing. If she was and did not hear what was said about waterboarding she apparrently was not paying attention. Not good!

Obama's CIA director, Leon Panetta, has said the CIA does not lie at briefings. If Pelosi was not actually at the briefing, I think on something as important as a CIA briefing she should have been. She has said she was busy working on increasing the number of Democrats elected to the U.S. House at the time. Politics over national defense? Good grief!

If you think the three al Qaeda terrorists were waterboarded for political reasons this discussion is over from my standpoint.

Your account of being briefed about torture was refuted by the CIA employee briefing the Congresspeople. Also, a Republican and Democratic Senator refuted the claim. There are many people who dispute your account of the briefing. Also, CIA briefing notes were reviewed and found to be recently altered. Consequently, the CIA records are suspect. At this point I trust Pelosi. She has always been against torture. There was no motive for her to lie about it. Pelosi's account has always been that she was never briefed that torture was being used. That has never changed. If so, please furnish me the reference.

The prisoners were waterboarded for political reasons. That was stated by a Republican administration official. What are you reading?

[Bob Jentges]

Your account of being briefed about torture was refuted by the CIA employee briefing the Congresspeople. Also, a Republican and Democratic Senator refuted the claim. There are many people who dispute your account of the briefing. Also, CIA briefing notes were reviewed and found to be recently altered. Consequently, the CIA records are suspect. At this point I trust Pelosi. She has always been against torture. There was no motive for her to lie about it. Pelosi's account has always been that she was never briefed that torture was being used. That has never changed. If so, please furnish me the reference.

The prisoners were waterboarded for political reasons. That was stated by a Republican administration official. What are you reading?

Since you apparently think the three al Qaeda terrorists were waterboarded for political reasons, and since I have tried to make my thoughts clear throughout this thread, I intend to follow through as indicated in the final sentence of my post #22 and end this discussion from my standpoint.

Because this will be the end of my discussion, I will first address the end of your above post i.e. "What are you reading?"

I do read a lot, but I do not read everything, nor do I keep an index of what I have read for future use in the Forum. But if you were referring to the Lawrence Wilkerson article referenced in your opening of this thread, I did read it then and read it again twice this morning. The only part of the article that, in my opinion, might be stretched to suggest the waterboarding was political would be: "Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002...it's principle priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq to al Qaeda."

I believe Wilkerson was an Assistant Secratary of State under Colin Powell. If what he said is correct (I am not certain he could have known that for certain but he certainly is entitled to his opinion) and you think that qualifies as being political, fine. I think it might have been more in the interest of determining if al Qaeda had access to WMD's, which intelligence agencies from most of our allies were convinced existed in Saddam Hussain's Iraq at the time. That being the case I would consider it in the interest of national defense.

Our positions on the CIA briefings differ and I doubt any amount of back in forth will change either of our positions. Maybe some future developments might, but not now. Therefore I see no purpose in beating that "dead horse" any longer now.

Although I do not base my opinions on polls/surveys often if at all, I did check a couple of recent polls on "torture", waterboarding, etc., this morning. You have probally seen them but I here are just a few statistics/opinions from the April 22/26 CBS News/Gallop Poll: 62% of all Americans do not think Congress should investigate the Bush Administration. Included in that 62% total was 89% of Republicians; 60% of Independents; 51% of Democrats.

Finally, the other poll was a May 29/31 Gallop Poll on the popularity of Cheney and Pelosi. Neither was very popular, but Cheney's favorable ratings were slightly higher than Pelosi's. Cheney's favorable ratings were on the upswing from earlier polls, while Pelosi's were dropping.

Since you like to strike the last word on topics, here is another oppertunity to do that.

[Dan Conner]

Since you apparently think the three al Qaeda terrorists were waterboarded for political reasons, and since I have tried to make my thoughts clear throughout this thread, I intend to follow through as indicated in the final sentence of my post #22 and end this discussion from my standpoint.

Because this will be the end of my discussion, I will first address the end of your above post i.e. "What are you reading?"

I do read a lot, but I do not read everything, nor do I keep an index of what I have read for future use in the Forum. But if you were referring to the Lawrence Wilkerson article referenced in your opening of this thread, I did read it then and read it again twice this morning. The only part of the article that, in my opinion, might be stretched to suggest the waterboarding was political would be: "Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002...it's principle priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq to al Qaeda."

I believe Wilkerson was an Assistant Secratary of State under Colin Powell. If what he said is correct (I am not certain he could have known that for certain but he certainly is entitled to his opinion) and you think that qualifies as being political, fine. I think it might have been more in the interest of determining if al Qaeda had access to WMD's, which intelligence agencies from most of our allies were convinced existed in Saddam Hussain's Iraq at the time. That being the case I would consider it in the interest of national defense.

Our positions on the CIA briefings differ and I doubt any amount of back in forth will change either of our positions. Maybe some future developments might, but not now. Therefore I see no purpose in beating that "dead horse" any longer now.

Although I do not base my opinions on polls/surveys often if at all, I did check a couple of recent polls on "torture", waterboarding, etc., this morning. You have probally seen them but I here are just a few statistics/opinions from the April 22/26 CBS News/Gallop Poll: 62% of all Americans do not think Congress should investigate the Bush Administration. Included in that 62% total was 89% of Republicians; 60% of Independents; 51% of Democrats.

Finally, the other poll was a May 29/31 Gallop Poll on the popularity of Cheney and Pelosi. Neither was very popular, but Cheney's favorable ratings were slightly higher than Pelosi's. Cheney's favorable ratings were on the upswing from earlier polls, while Pelosi's were dropping.

Since you like to strike the last word on topics, here is another oppertunity to do that.

You're right. I will strike the last words on this. Wilkerson was one of the key people pointing out that waterboarding was done for political reasons. I think you have missed much by only reading what he said. He was also interviewed several times on MSNBC. In those interviews he emphatically stressed the tortures were done for political reasons. Both to link Iraq with Al Qaeda and that Iraq had WMD. Those interviews did a lot more to emphasize the writings. And by the way, Wilkerson was referring to briefings ha attended with the President and Vice President. His was not speculation. He reported facts in briefings and discussions with the Pres. and VP. Also, he talked with many others in the White House.

You are a lttle hilarious about how you add your speculation about what transpired in Presidential conversations, as if you were an insider, and disregard the statement of others, who were part of the conversation. Wilkerson regularly attended Presidential intelligence briefings and now you ascribe interpretations to him he never intended. He knew what he knew because participated in these briefings. In a couple of them he voiced his objections. Also, he resigned his position because he believed the administration was wrong.

Now you bring up polls? Justice is not determined by polls. Morals and values are not determined by polls. However, if you feel it is important to protect your favorite President because 62% feel he shouldn't be investigated, I sense you are looking to paper over his failed presidency. I think the Bush Administration should be investigated because that is the right thing to do, not because I'm looking for a poll to justify not doing it. Certainly, Bush shouldn't mind a chance to vindicate himself.

I imagine you were a proponent for impeachment of Clinton because of sexual tryst, but don't feel actual Presidential job performance, treason, and deception are impeachable offenses? Your Republican threads are showing.

Comparing Pelosi and Cheney is laughable. Cheney has yet to face his day in court. He still defends torture, which he said was the proper thing to do, but emphatically denied using it when the public didn't know he authorized it. He was the same guy who watched while enlisted military soldiers were prosecuted for torture and sent to prison, while he tortured prisoners to a far greater magnitutde. He always was a coward when it came time to serve in the military and he still is.

[Dan Conner]

I suggest youy read some of the attached websites for information about the Bush Administration torturring for political reasons. I don't feel that issue is in doubt anymore:

http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2009/05/did-bush-torture-for-political-reasons.html

http://vodpod.com/watch/1630629-are-we-a-nation-that-lets-its-leaders-torture-for-political-reasons

http://politicalclassdismissed.com/?p=6613

http://www.docudharma.com/diary/13171/the-torture-was-political-the-politics-was-personal

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/ten_reasons_why_a_torture_probe_is_more_likely.php

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/reframing-debate-torture-correct-way

I think that if Bob reads as much as he says he does, he will read these links, but I suspect he won't. Why be confused by the facts.

[Mary Peterson]

I think you think tooooo much of yourself, Dan. You only know what you are reading & seeing on controlled TV. If you think otherwise, you truly have your head in the sand. Get over yourself.

[Bob Jentges]

Mary, if you click-on the link below I think you will find the article informative, including the facts in the supporting documents mentioned in the article.

More evidence that Cheney was right when he said Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EID's) were very successful in preventing further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil after 911.

http://www.frontpage.com/realArticle.aspx?ARTID=36237

[Dan Conner]

I think you think tooooo much of yourself, Dan. You only know what you are reading & seeing on controlled TV. If you think otherwise, you truly have your head in the sand. Get over yourself. While I understand we are to refrain from name calling, I will simply state that you are wrong. You have no idea where I obtain my knowledge. However, I think you need to better evaluate where you get yours. A prominent general just recently retired, who commanded all the troops in Iraq just stated that Cheney's condoning of torture greatly hurt the US, soldiers over in Iraq, and our image around the world. He felt too intimidated by the Administration to state this whil in the military. I've gotten over myself long long ago. I think you need to focus a little less on me and more on the facts. You might learn something. P.S. Have you ever been in the military and what do you know of the Geneva Conventions? Was it by reading? I'm sorry, but try switching from FOX.

[Dan Conner]

Mary, if you click-on the link below I think you will find the article informative, including the facts in the supporting documents mentioned in the article.

More evidence that Cheney was right when he said Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EID's) were very successful in preventing further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil after 911.

http://www.frontpage.com/realArticle.aspx?ARTID=36237I'm sorry Bob, but you need to read the article written by the recentoly retired General in charge of soldiers in Iraq. He said Cheney was wrong. He hurt the US war efforts and the fighting men in the military.

[Bob Jentges]

I'm sorry Bob, but you need to read the article written by the recentoly retired General in charge of soldiers in Iraq. He said Cheney was wrong. He hurt the US war efforts and the fighting men in the military.

There are probably others who have a different opinion than the "General" you mention, but as the old saying goes: Opinions are like noses; every body has one.

[Dan Conner]

There are probably others who have a different opinion than the "General" you mention, but as the old saying goes: Opinions are like noses; every body has one. Yes, but he was in the military, unlike many others with an opposing point of view, and that includes the former Vice President, Dick Cheney. Not only was Dick Cheney wrong, I think he will eventually be prosecuted. He told way too many lies, enabled Haliburton to profit at our country's expense, and is really only a "chicken hawk." It was easy for him to talk tough, as long as he didn't have to do the "dirty work" or risk his life. I think he was really a low light in our country's history. He is a patriot without any patriotism.

[Dan Conner]

Here's an article about what two very prominent Geneerals recently said about Cheney - that he was dead wrong. These are two general's criticism added to a chorus of other generals:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/9/11/181431/384

Cheney was a paranoid megalomaniac.

[Bob Jentges]

I do not like war!

But, considering history, it is unrealistic to think that the peoples of the world will ever reach a state of no war. So when at war I say fight to win, and win early. After that there may be peace, at least for a short period of time.

The article "Obama wisely backs away from closing terror holding pen" I think gives some insight to what politicians often do when the campaign is over and reality sets in.

This administration has approved of "Drone" attacks. Maybe the next thing will be that they agree to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" in some situations.:rolleyes:

What I wonder about is where are all the war protestors now? If they are still out there and active where is the media coverage? :confused:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/06/04/2010-06-04_reality_time_at_gitmo.html