Omaha Red Sox wrote: Art Vandelay wrote: Omaha Red Sox wrote: Tavish wrote: Omaha Red Sox wrote: Art Vandelay wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:The real question should be, "Do you believe we have been torturing our captives?"
And if you believe we have, what evidence, besides blatant speculation, do you have for this.
There's far more evidence than just "blatant speculation." The CIA has admitted to waterboarding, and using other interrogation tactics in their secret overseas prisons. Even the Vice President went so far as to ask congress to make CIA operatives exempt from the anti-torture legislation they were working on.
Torture is one thing, but I can't believe that the Senate basically tossing the constitution down the drain yesterday hasn't become a bigger story.
How, exactly, are they defining torture? I consider torture pulling out toenails, burning, etc. If obnoxious music and lack of sleep is considered torture than we've come a long way down the wrong road.
Waterboarding is absoultely torture, along with beating, sexual abusing, humiliation, and induced hypothermia.
These practices have not been condoned or practiced because of procedure, if that makes sense. These stories that are run are isolated incidents. Far from the norm.
How do you know this, besides blatant speculation?
And I'm almost positive that induced hypothermia and waterboarding, at least, have been admitted to have been used regularly as methods of interrogation.
If these were widely practiced, don't you believe we'd be hearing it all over the place, including from the lips of soldiers we know? To me, it appears as this is another desperate attempt at undermining the actions taken by our military. I'm all for free-speech and disagreeing with whatever you may, including the war, but grasping at straws is not constructive, and that's how I perceive this to be. I'll be honest, I haven't been keeping up with this like I usually would. Been very busy. But I get riled up when someone brings accusations upon honorable men and women.
These are documented cases all over the place. Not accusations. Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other places we took prisoners.
These were all widely practiced. This is not an indictment of soldiers. If a command is given, someone will follow it.
Bush said Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident undetaken by bad actors, but his attorney's, John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales, specifically opined that anything short of major injury, organ failure, or death is NOT TORTURE. The tactics I listed were authorized. And if something's authorized, it's going to happen.
The only reason this is not more widespread in the media is that Congress won't have hearings. Democrats have been pressing for them for some time, but the majority Republicans won't allow it.
The reason Bush is pushing for this bill is that the Hamdan Supreme Court decision struck down his ability to interpret what torture is and forced him to defer to Geneva. The bill once again leaves interpretation fully up to the president. So if he deems waterboarding as "not torture" than it's not, and CIA and military personnel can use it. Sure, he may decide it is torture, but he hasn't to this point. Since when do the laws of the US get defined by one person?