Of course they are. Loud music most especially so because it can cause permanent hearing damage and tinnitus.
You should really explain why not.
I just wonder how easily Mr. Moto would be to dismiss these allegations if he was taken prisoner by a band of “enemy combatants” and subject to the same treatments.
Because he realized he’d get whupped inside of five minutes? “Moral values” and “torture is okay” are two thoughts that don’t usually go together – at least, I hope they don’t…
Thank you for the cite. I can’t seem to get into it. Can you tell which email they are refering to?
Thank you very much indeed for pointing this one out. It clearly points to a dispute between FBI agents and DOD personel concerning interrogation techniques. It uses the phrase “non-confrontational” to describe the FBI techniques. It doesn’t really seem to say “torture” to describe the DOD techniques. But such words migh fit into the blanks.
Well, I did say that I agree with you that torture is an ineffective interrogation technique. And I did not argue with your cites, so much as with your interpretation. Yes, the word “torture” is used. Read the email again. Can you really say it is read in an eye witness sort of way? The email refers to a specific prisoner and a specific allegation. It is worded in such a way that it might refer to some more expansive policy. But it could simply be an email which refers to this one case also.
Let me ask you the question from another angle. You did not answer my question about whether or not everyone who uses the phrase “sleep deprivation” meant weeks. Can you claim that every time someone uses the term “torture” in an email they mean the same things we would associate with war crimes or illegal behavior? Can you not recognize the possiblitiy that reasonable people might disagree if a specific activity is torture or not?
Really, I’m not trying to deny any particular accusation. I’m just trying to get at the standard of evidence that we are using. I don’t have much of an interest in promoting one standard over another, I just want to understadn what standard we are using.
I agree that the emails the ACLU has made public seem to indicate a profound difference of opinion between the DOD and the FBI as to what are and what are not effective interrogation techniques. A couple of the descriptions are even disturbing. But the only descriptions which you and I would agree are torture are not FBI eye witnesses. The only mentions of “torture” refer to such descriptions. The point being that there is at least some question as to whether or not “torture” happened.
I’m not trying to deny that torture happened. I’m not even trying to deny that Bush himself authorized the use of torture. I’m just questioning whether or not these emails prove this one way or the other. More importantly, I’m trying to combat the notion that these emails represent proof that the FBI has concluded that torture is occuring.
In any modern conflict, rjung, I’m sure I’d have fared far worse than that. Remember John McCain? Both of his shoulders were dislocated when the North Vietnamese bound his arms behind him and then hung him by his wrists.
Remember the prisoners Hussein paraded before the cameras in the first Gulf War? They wore fresh evidence of their beatings.
I don’t dismiss anything. But it helps to keep some perspective on these things. I have to say I found Mark Bowden quite persuasive on this matter. Have you read that article?
Well, then, let’s consider the alternative scenario. It’s all a bunch of lies cooked up by people who hate our freedoms, etc. All of the detainees are being treated with entirely scrupulous regard for thier human rights, but people persist in making shit up.
Why, then, the reluctance on the part of the Admin to allow supervision and inspection by such as the Red Cross and Amnesty International? If there is nothing whatever to hide, wouldn’t be enormously to our advantage, at least in terms of image and propaganda, to make these facts known? Wouldn’t we be pleased, nay, eager to throw open our doors and prove our entire innocence?
If no such abrogation of human rights was even considered, why the excercise on the part of Mr. Gonzales to limn a rationale to permit such a thing? Was his valuable time to be squandered in a purely speculative fashion? Why would be asked to offer a supporting rationale for something that would never be considered? Does his job description entail the production of legal science fiction, tales of an alternative universe? I think not.
Head.
In sand.
Buried.
Good for you!
:rolleyes:
If Mr. Bush actually issued an order, it is absolutely an impeachable offense, and, absent some compelling reason I can’t even imagine, I would support his impeachment.
However, the evidence for the existence of such an order seems thin.
I don’t see the relevance of the “We’re better than Saddam Hussein” argument. Torture commited in the past or present by the tyrants of the world is completely irrelevant to how the U.S. treats prisoners/detainees.
The moral failings of our enemies, past, present, or future, has no bearing on our own. The NV, VC, nor Husseins thugs did not draw their pay from my taxes, nor wear my uniform, nor act in my name. Surely you are not suggesting that we are engaged in some sort of retribution for crimes committed thirty odd years ago? And just as surely, you are not putting forth the morally bankrupt notion that if other men behave in an evil and despicable fashion, this absolves us of any ethical responsibility for our own behavior. I would never have insulted you by suggesting such an outlook as reflecting your own, I pray I am not mistaken. For your sake as much as mine own.
I see. So, you had a certain view of things, but Mr. Bowdern convinced you otherwise? Or did you, in fact, find in his words a reflection of a conviction already held?
Thin? You mean, like, not-in-your-hands-before-your-very-eyes-so-that-you-can-no-longer-wave-some-magic-rhetorical-wand-and-make-it-disappear-thin, or maybe like deliberately-forged-documents-about-yellowcake-from-niger-to-get-us-into-a-war thin? I mean, what would it take for you to recognize an “impeachable” offence, Bush riding Saddam in buttless chaps and whipping him with a leather crop on Fox News?
I mean there’s no direct evidence of the order’s existence, merely a vague and self-serving reference by a person not subject to cross-examination concerning exactly what he meant.
Or to out it another way, I mean Bill Burkett thin, which means that True Bush Haters will spend days discussing the possibility of 1970s National Guard units having five thousand dollar typewriters rather than confront the truth.
Huh. I thought you might mean “thin” as described by the OP:
Whether this order exists or not, the Bush administration has been appallingly cavalier in its attitude toward the basic rights of prisoners. I’ll be surprised if Bush signed the order himself, but even if he didn’t, as head of his administration, he bears responsibility for the horrors that he’s allowed to happen.
Daniel
I tend to agree with **Bricker **on this. If the E.O. exists, then throw the bun out (although I doubt it would actually happen). But here are the questions regarding the E.O.:
-
Does it actually exist? What evidence do we have that it does?
-
If it exists, what specifically does it say. If it says what the quote in the OP says, that does not in and of itself consitute authorizing torture. All it says is that the techniques are beyond normal FBI procedures. I don’t think anyone should be surprised if the limits are pushed further on the Gitmo detainees than they would be for a US citizen in the custody of the FBI.
I never liked the idea of the Gitmo set-up. There isn’t enough oversight and the idea of keeping people indefinitely w/o being charged is a recipe for disaster. It would be the rare individual who, operating as a jailor in Gitmo, would not at some point go “over the line” in treatment of prisoners. From that standpoint, Bush needs to own up to whatever happens there whether directly authorized or not. Whether owning up = impeacment is something for Congress to decide.
Funny, every thinking person I knew dismissed Burkett as a lying sack as soon as the evidence of his wrongdoing came to light. And funny how none of us are beating our breasts over Rather’s ignominious announcement of retirement. Please, don’t smear the left with accusations of having ethics comparable to Republicans. Lying liberals go down, as is appropriate, because they lose the support of their peers. Lying Republicans get asked back for a second term because to the “right” facts are only to be used when they serve their aggenda, and trodden upon when they are “biased” against it.
I won’t hold my breath for the usual “Clinton lied about blowjobs” retort. I’d hyperventilate.
So you’re saying this could be a setup: Fake emails leaked to the ACLU, produced to innoculate the public against any actual evidence that may exist. Let this float around for a while, leak the proof of its fakeness to Drudge or Powerline or some such trusted outlet, and suddenly the ACLU’s credibility is shot and any actual evidence of Executive Branch involvement in authorizing toture is either ignored by news editors afraid of getting burned again or, if it ever does see the light of day, no one will believe it.
“Oh, Bush approved torture? Fox News said that was a lie!”
“No, there’s new evidence that’s not a lie.”
“Sure there is…Why do you hate America so much?”
If it exists, it isn’t in isolation. We *do * have the memo from WH counsel describing what constitutes torture and what a court defense against a torture charge might be, along with the one dismissing the Geneva Conventions as “obsolete” and “quaint”. Those were done, as you know, under the cognizance if not direction of the next Attorney General, at the time of the so-called “Gitmo-ization” of Abu Ghraib. If those are not direct authorizations of torture, there’s no other reasonable inference about their meaning.
It pretty much doesn’t matter if there’s an actual document on file somewhere with Bush’s actual signature on it; that would matter only in a court of law. It seems pretty much inescapable already that, even without an investigation that this Congress would never authorize, *and even without this alleged E.O., * that there was an intention by the Commander in Chief or persons he delegated to to authorize torture.
True, but also true it won’t happen with this Congress. Any criminal prosecution would have to wait until he leaves office, and then it pretty much wouldn’t matter even if it did happen. But you never know, there might be a blue dress out there somewhere.
(My bolding) Nope. Look up the definition of “direct” some time. Hint: it doesn’t mean “indirect”.
But it’s entirely unclear whether that memo is even an indirect authorization of torture. Given that we are sailing in uncharted waters, it’s very reasonable for WH cousel to counsel the WH on where the shoals and treacherous waters are.
I don’t agree that Congress won’t authorize an investigation. If there are serious enough allegation, then Congressional hearings might very well be initiated. Congressmen have to be concerned with their own hides, too, and if the press does its part, they’ll hold Congress’s feet to the fire until it becomes politically unpalatable for hearings NOT to be held. But there has to be real evidence for that to occur.
If real torture occured, there are reasonable explanations other then the direct authorization of Bush or his delegate (I assume this means Cabinet level post). Simple pressure from higher-ups to “get some results” might induce a senior level military person to authorize extreme measures of interrogation.
In the end, though, I still hold Bush responsible even if the orders were not from him. As I said in my first post, the whole situation at Gitmo lends itself to abusive actions by the jailors-- I would be very surprised if illegal acts did NOT happen there. The whole idea was bad from the beginning.
Granted the person that wrote the e-mail has not been “subject to cross-examination”. (Which seems to me to be an unrealistically high standard of “direct evidence”). However, we do have the consistent use of the term “Executive Order” (note the initial caps), the use of the words “authorized by the President under his Executive Order”, and the words “an Executive Order signed by President Bush.” I don’t see how you can call that a “vague” reference. Whether it is “self-serving” is hard to say, but not really relevant to this discussion.