Did Cheney confess to war crimes? | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Michael Haley

Did Cheney confess to war crimes?

Monday, December 29, 2008

Comment

By MICHAEL HALEY

Napablogger

October 28th, 2009

One final thought before signing off

September 23rd, 2009

Time for local economic stimulus

August 31st, 2009

Community in a world of chaos

August 20th, 2009

Schwarzenegger finally proposes pension reform

I was stunned when I saw this, because Cheney has directly admitted to doing something that is not only illegal, but is a major crime. In an interview with ABC News he almost casually admitted "getting the process cleared" and supporting it. He was still lying, because he pushed for "taking the gloves off" with captured enemy combatants early on and was the main driver of the program of torture that was instituted beginning back in 2001.

Here is a link to the relevant parts of the transcript as posted by Andrew Sullivan:

Note that Cheney admits to approving all the tactics, all the various torture techniques, and not just waterboarding which is what gets focused on so much. It is one thing to read a list of these techniques, and another to read what actually happens to detainees when they are used.

These were done not only to really bad guys like Khailid Shiek Mohammed, but to at least some innocent people as well. We do not know how many innocent people or under what circumstances yet, but we do know it happened.

Mohammed was severely and repeatedly beaten, the authorization to give them drugs was used to repeatedly slam drugs rectally into him in what could only be considered sodomy, was held for months in isolation in the nude in freezing cold rooms, had a dog collar attached to him and it was used to slam him repeatedly into the cement walls of his cell. He spent most of his time chained to a metal ring on the cell wall, and held in stress positions for hours on end. Stress positions are extremely painful and were what made John McCain have the shoulder injuries that he maintains to this day. All of these techniques were learned from the Soviets and Communist Chinese and incorporated into CIA practice.

There is more, but the point was to totally humiliate the person and to put them into physical distress so severe that it went right up to the point of death. Some one hundred detainees actually did die in custody. I mention some of what went on because I don’t think most Americans really understand what Cheney is admitting to when he says he authorized this. They still seem to think it is loud music and pouring some water on someone’s face.

We also had the release of the Senate Armed Services Committee report on "detainee abuse" i.e. torture, and one key finding was that the abuse did trace back to orders from the White House. I guess if you have been following this and getting news from any other source besides Fox News this is no surprise. What it does do is make it official, as the Senate Committee has access to CIA and other government documents and interviews of participants in the process that reporters can only quote anonymously at best. In fact, Senator Carl Levin said that they had access to confidential CIA material that has never before been reviewed, and that there is more that will come out later.

Here is the full Senate report, read it, it is not long.

Also, here is one of the better commentary articles describing it along with various reactions if you are interested, from Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post:

We are now at a real crossroads with this due to these two new pieces of information. There is no way that Cheney can now say he did not knowingly violate a major U. S. law. Any sense of fairness requires that he be prosecuted.

We also know that Lyndie Englund and the other soldiers described by the Bush administration as "a few bad apples" at Abu Ghraib were trained in these techniques by their superiors. This was not a few bad apples but soldiers who were following orders and taking the fall for those way up the line, in contrast to the way the military has always worked. This is court martial territory.

This news has not made as major a splash as it ought to. There could be a lot of reasons, one being that most of this has already been out there more and less and people are apathetic, another is that we already have so much to worry about right now there isn’t enough room left in our heads to start on yet another major problem.

Criminal proceedings against any Vice President or President is such a drastic step that it could tear the country apart. We do not need another Kangaroo impeachment proceeding such as what happened to President Clinton. On the other hand, these are major crimes that cannot be ignored. What we need to do is a very judicious step by step legal process that relies not on anonymous sources from a reporter’s book, but actual on the record evidence conducted by a legitimate legal institution. The Senate took the first step in this process.

It is time for an independent prosecutor to be appointed to look into this and gather evidence, and it is time for the country to participate in this process and really look deeply and fully into what the Bush White House has done.

We simply cannot afford to let this pass on by.

214 comment(s)

sickothis wrote on Dec 17, 2008 1:29 PM:

" In our lifetimes, people have been hanged for waterboarding.

Cheney better not leave to country. "

Paddy wrote on Dec 17, 2008 2:56 PM:

" "There is more, but the point was to totally humiliate the person and to put them into physical distress so severe that it went right up to the point of death."

All this while their fellow ji-sadists killed, maimed and murdered allied soldiers and innocent children. Poor babies! "

a teacher wrote on Dec 17, 2008 5:36 PM:

" Paddy (and the others who will chime in in his vein), you really are missing Mike's point. This is not about coddling terrorists. This is about the rule of law. This is about effectively fighting terrorism and protecting the country. This is about effective intelligence gathering. This is about right and wrong.

The techniques used in "enhanced interrogation" are considered torture in most countries of the world, including ours. The Bush administration twisted and manipulated the law to cover their actions, but I doubt that any of their opinions would stand up in court.

The irony of this is that mush of the evidence obtained through "enhanced interrogation" is being questioned and used in the defense of people who are undoubtedly guilty of real crimes.

Torture is also a poor way to get accurate information. The reason that the Spanish Inquisition used water boarding is that it was very effective in obtaining confessions, many false. Many of the techniques used by interrogators were invented by the Soviets and the North Koreans to pressure false confessions. It's interesting to note that the Bush Administration has yet to offer much evidence that torture has prevented an attack.

Torture is morally wrong. You only have to think of the reaction if an enemy water boarded a captured GI. The United States prides itself in having a society where even a criminal who has committed a heinous crime will have a fair, transparent trial. The evidence will be clear so that even a layman can judge guilt. A fair and appropriate punishment will be administered. Torture flies in the face of that. When we torture, the terrorsist win. "

krusty wrote on Dec 17, 2008 7:11 PM:

" Paddy, you should check out How To Break A Terrorist by Matthew Alexander. He describes how he has been able to find out important information by using respect, hope and deception. He interrogated five captured al-Qaeda members and tracked down Abu Musab Al Zarqawi's personal spiritual adviser, who unwittingly led U.S. Special Forces to Zarqawi's hideout. He shows that torture is not the only way to get information. He also tells the story of a man who told him he would slit Mr. Alexanders throat right then if he had a knife. Mr. Alexander eventually ends up getting key information from this man. "

napablogger wrote on Dec 17, 2008 8:08 PM:

" paddy, teacher, I also have to think about where do we draw the line? If terrorism is that evil, why don't we just nuclear bomb the middle east? We could take out Iran and Saudi Arabia, and at that point perhaps the rest would fall in line. If not, we could wipe out Pakistan too, and others, Syria, etc. We have enough nuclear weaponry to do it.

Or we could go about capturing the chidren of people who live in the middle east, a lot of them, and we could try to get some that are children of terrorists if we can, but if not, whatever. We could execute them on television until the terrorists we wanted to capture turned themselves in, perhaps we could slowly mutilate them. We could capture their whole families and cut their heads off on television. It might work, why not take a shot if we are torturing some terrorists and a lot of others now to achieve the same goals, if "the gloves are off" and our behavior has no limits and no moral consequences, why not?

I mean, they are evil and want to kill us, right? Since we are right and they are wrong, we are entitled to act anyway we want to, right? "

a teacher wrote on Dec 17, 2008 9:40 PM:

" NB: There is the crux of the matter, in my opinion. Militarily speaking, we could rule the world. We could be Rome. We have the power, but power corrupts.

I think that is what happened to this administration, they realized that they had a blank check from the American public and that no one in the world could stop them. It's a very sobering moment that Americans should ponder.

If we talk the talk, will we walk the walk? Or not? "

napablogger wrote on Dec 18, 2008 2:27 AM:

" teacher, true I agree. I don't really totally understand what happened to Cheney and Bush, how they could so misunderstand what it means to be an American.

I guess I have to accuse them of not being patriotic! Being an American means that you are a decent person and do the right thing as a matter of course to me.

True, we haven't always done that, but that is our ideal and we always strive for it. What they have done, even in the face of many insiders telling them it was wrong, is incomprehensible.

Now that I am thinking about it, I think they thought that they would be heroes for going the extra mile to save America from terrorism. But even in the face of that, there is a too far you can go. Their egos got away from them, their own sense of historical importance and desire to appear heroic, and they lost their good judgement. That is what I think.

They are also too ideological. They wanted to out Reagan Reagan. A republican mantra is that you have to be tough, you can't let down your guard militarily. They were going to live that ideal to the biggest degree ever, and prove their ideology correct.

They have done the opposite. "

misfit wrote on Dec 18, 2008 8:47 AM:

" Krusty...The interrogation techniques you describe require skill, patience and intelligence. These are things our administration doesn't support. Torture being a lazy mans version of interrogation also satisfies the torturer's (Bush, Cheeeney) need for vengeance. "

a teacher wrote on Dec 18, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Misfit: It's not about being lazy or expedient. The decision to torture was political. The Administration wanted to put forth a macho, robust image. They wanted the world and their enemies to believe that we would do what it takes to win, even if we have to fight dirty.

They also wanted to contrast against the "Law enforcement" strategy of former administrations, particularly the Clinton administration. It plays well with their base who apparantly believe that Jack Bauer is a real person. "

Paddy wrote on Dec 18, 2008 11:44 AM:

" We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and probably saved millions of lives by doing so. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Not that I'm able to justify we "just nuclear bomb the middle east". A little more intense persuasion (it's not "torture") might be the alternative in trying to extract the information needed to save many thousands of lives.

This is my third attempt trying to express my concern over the "feminization" of America in a world that mostly remains firmly entrenched in it's "masculinity". I'll stop providing my real life examples. They're apparently too difficult for the Register to deal with. "

Raven wrote on Dec 18, 2008 1:21 PM:

" the feminization of America?...oh please, paddy...do tell..I am sure you can find way. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 18, 2008 2:14 PM:

" Paddy you hit em right where it hurts….….‘The Sissy’s Manuel to National Security….why is this not too surprising…? Because those criticizing have the luxury of doing so without risking life, limb or sons and or daughters…..Armchair generals LOL>>>>>experts in outrage but lacking in stones.

Anyone who has followed Islamic terrorism would think twice about defending KSM….a very brief resume.

Kaled Sheikh Mohammed (KSM)….AKA’s too numerous to note

Attended US college, Engineering Major, known for partying, drinking and chasing blonds…and hatred of non-Muslims.

Beheaded Daniel Peral live on video, which is probably the #1 recruiting tool for al Qaeda today.

Solicited Saudi Air Force pilot to bomb Israeli city Eilat…

Mastermind Bojinka plot, planned hijacking 11+ US airliners simultaneously in hopes of murdering 30,000 US Citizens…completely ignored by the Clinton Administration, even after the Philippine Government provided detailed plans which included an ingenious undetectable miniature explosive device that was used on a trial run to blow in half an innocent Japanese engineer nearly downing a 747 in the process...the device was suppose to blown into the center fuel tank of Boeing 747 causing the plane to disintegrate...

Mastermind 9/11 attacks…without KSM 9/11 would have been impossible.

Uncle to WTC #1 mastermind Ramzi ‘The Iraqi’ Yousef who was provided extensive support by Saddam…traveled on Official Iraqi passports

Osama bin Laden confident extraordinaire…

It has never been proven that KSM was beaten by US interrogators….but why bother with fact when jumping to conclusions serves the purpose. "

Bill wrote on Dec 18, 2008 2:49 PM:

" Jeez, NB have you been reading my posts just turn the middle east into a sea of glass and stick a straw in it.

Refugees? oh well Empire has its price. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 18, 2008 3:05 PM:

" The Japanese were pretty tough and they fought ferociously to the death against capture.

When they found out we would not torture them, they were shocked and became very docile and cooperative. At least that's what my US Marine uncles told me about the Pacific Island hopping campaign.

Nobody could accuse my uncles of being girly-men.

It's not tough to torture prisoners, it's UN-American, and counter productive.

The Germans ran to the American and British lines to surrender because they knew what the Soviets would do.

The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Gonzales torture people actually cost lots of American troops their lives by making more fighters rise up when they found that the American policy of treating prisoners decently had been changed for the worse.

Cheney needs to see a courtroom if there is justice in this nation. If we don't try them, then we need to extradite them to the same place that tried Milosevic.

~Ruff "

krusty wrote on Dec 18, 2008 3:40 PM:

" Paddy wrote on Dec 18, 2008 11:44 AM:

" We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and probably saved millions of lives by doing so."

Not exactly. Japan was already down but they refused to surrender. American bombers had destroyed Japanese cities and American submarines cut off Japanese imports. Japan had no more power. I don't think taking the lives of 200,000 Japanese citizens saved millions of lives. "

Sickothis wrote on Dec 18, 2008 3:54 PM:

" Paddy - waterboarding is torture, and we hanged people in the 70's for doing it to our guys. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 18, 2008 4:10 PM:

" NB - I've got to hand it to you, NB, you have not backed away from this issue.

I've noticed that the tenor of the die-hard torture supporters comments is gradually starting to reflect the feelings of the bulk of America.

Polls have never shown a majority support for torture that I am aware of. And the Republicans support withers the more they push UN-American activities like torture and murder.

NB, You still lean Republican, but your heart and mind just can't go on being supportive of D*ck Cheney's criminality.

You pretty much want to see D*ck go to trial, while I have been demanding it for years.

Welcome back into the light! It's good to see you renounce at least the very DARKEST SIDE of Neo-Connery.

Kudos, NB!

Now how about putting spending power back in the hands of consumers without raising their debt load??? ;o)

~Ruff "

a teacher wrote on Dec 18, 2008 4:50 PM:

" With GlenRoy and Paddy's responses, I rest my case. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 18, 2008 8:47 PM:

" This is a whopper even by your standards… ‘Japanese surrender incentive‘…..

There are only a thousand books on the subject…most of our adult family, father‘s side, parents and uncle fought the Japanese, I worked many years with Japanese companies after their industrial base recovered….you might say it is a culture thoroughly understood.

The fact is the Japanese surrendered rates remained miniscule right up to the USS Missouri formalities … good treatment ’surrender incentive’ is a myth, unless ‘summary justice’ can be considered incentive….

Sissy’ism applies to those oblivious towards the policy failures that led to this war yet, incessantly whine about the treatment of terrorists…..perhaps shorten to partisan malcontents.

I never intended broaching this but, you’ve implied disrespecting veterans which touches too close to home around here……I was named after a Fly Boy fighter pilot, awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross posthumously, the first Marine Aviator squadron stationed at Henderson Field, shot down and lost at sea 2 weeks short of his 22nd birthday, I spent several summers in the 1960s with his mother, at her request witnessing enduring agony to her dying breath… Her other son, happened to be my grandfather was awarded valor as an original frogman, the knife used to avenge his little brother resides in my gun safe. Our step-grandfather, a Marine who also fought in this war was awarded Bronze Stars (3), last August he was given a Marine Honor Guard Memorial Service…moving beyond description. By the way, all Truman Democrats…perhaps we’re genetically predisposed to respect sacrifice…our family goes back to serving under General Washington in the Revolutionary War….documented…..War’s of 1812, Civil (North), WW1&2 Korean, Vietnam, Gulf 1.… "

Hear Ye wrote on Dec 18, 2008 10:37 PM:

" It's pretty sad that torture has become a Republican vs. Democratic issue. It should be about American values, ideals, and the very foundation on which this country was made so great. Based on their platform I would think that the Republicans would fall on the correct side for this issue. Guess not. "

napablogger wrote on Dec 18, 2008 11:57 PM:

" Paddy, this whole notion of feminization, anything short of nuking everyone who says something we don't like could be considered being a sissy by somebody. That was my point in my earlier post, there has to be some limit.

You even mentioned that even you couldn't justify nuclear bombing the entire middle east. Does that mean you are a sissy according to your own definition? Where do you draw the line?

What makes a response that says we are going too far into cruelty and violence still a "manly" one?

One point is that we have very specific laws, very specific military rules about what the line is and it is clear that those were violated by the Bush Administration without changing the laws.

Another point is that the US has never allowed torture or cruel or degrading treatment to prisoners, at least legally. I am proud of that and it makes me feel good about being an American.

I am proud of the fact that when the American soldiers got into Germany at the final stages of WWII they stopped the Russians from raping women. Those were the real men, if you want manly.

Real men don't mistreat captured people under color of their authority, ie prisoners, even if they deserve it---because real men are better than that. "

napablogger wrote on Dec 19, 2008 12:13 AM:

" Ruff, if what we know is true about Cheney is verified by independent investigation he has to go to trial. Period. Dan Ross changed the title of this article to a question, Cheney admitted it flat out in my view. He maybe left himself slight wiggle room.

I will get to the other issues as time goes on, I can only write so much and I like to be clear and give enough detail and reason when I do. Some of these topics are big, but you are correct, I am still a Republican.

To me torture is a non starter from the git go, period. It is like sayhing they are going to rape children to save America. They have actually done things like that in Serbia, there is a too low that you just cannot go and not lose your soul and very reason for being who you are.

Glenroy, first of all your are repeating some of the lies KSM told under torture, he did not kill Daniel Pearl, for instance, but starting admitting to anything and everything to get them to keep from killing him.

But this is about the torture of a lot more people than the 13 or 14 major figures--we have tortured thousands.

And in the end it is not about how bad they are, it is about how good we are. It is about us, and what standards we hold for ourselves.

KSM deserves to be killed, no doubt about it. But how we do that defines our character, and our morals. Torturing someone who is under your total control is a heinous act, and devalues us as persons. "

napablogger wrote on Dec 19, 2008 12:22 AM:

" Ruff and Hear Ye, I am not so sure that Americans are totally against torture, but I think it is because they don't know what went on. Even the interrogation of KSM that Glenroy and I discussed, that is from anonymous sources mostly, and what really happened needs to get on the record.

Also, people read this list of things that were allowed, slapping, temperature variations, loud music, forced standing, and it really doesn't sound all that bad.

Then when you read about a specific individual and what happened and realized that those techniques can make someone commit suicide or become psychotic, and you read how those techniques really were applied, it becomes quite something different.

What we also need to find out is how effective they really were. They have claimed success, then when Bush listed one person who was tortured and the three big pieces of intelligence they got form it, turns out we had all that anyway. And two of them were obtained prior to the torture.

I think what we will find is what the military has already known for years anyway, it is not very effective. I will bet anything we have gotten very little from torture other than besmirching our own character. "

a teacher wrote on Dec 19, 2008 6:39 AM:

" So your family served in America's wars, so did mine. What's your point?

The Bush administration and it's surrogates regularly used the tactic of beating the drums and wrapping themselves in the flag whenever they were questioned. They thought nothing of questioning the patriotism and manhood of anyone who dared criticize our course.

That used to shut up critics, but I'm not falling for it. "

Bill wrote on Dec 19, 2008 9:08 AM:

" Sissy'ism? Ah yes the appearance of being soft because you refuse to tear the legs off a live frog.

Torture is more a reaction, intimidation and revenge than a useful information tool. Has it been used in the past by the U.S.? Yes. Was it an official policy? No.

Its ugly head has popped up in our foreign policy on many occasions past and present. Its practice by angry and emotional U.S. combatants is well documented but not generally condoned. Some, specifically and especially in lower ranks, have actually been punished for it. There are numerous instances of its supervised use in many Latin American countries and I will note that the first Director of National and former Ambassador in central America (Honduras) Mr. Negroponte was quite adept at turning a blind eye to its use.

As a tool it is useless. As terror it is a potent weapon. To ignore U.S. historical un-acknowledged participation in the practice of torture is also a risky tract for those of us who would like to believe that there is an ethical thrust to our republic. Perhaps it is our past collective policies that have brought about the current wave of terror as Gilroy suggests. I have the feeling he would lay fault at the feet of those regarded by certain people as Sissies instead of analyzing the errors of previous policies in order to develop better current ones, but then that might be viewed as America bashing not self analysis.

There is sufficient record and evidence of Our governments involvement in torture to prosecute Many more than Mr. Cheney. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 19, 2008 9:30 AM:

" Peter Bergen’s Memoirs has several pages dedicated to KSM, he‘s no fan of US Policy..… he spent the 1990s trying to tell Americans a threat was developing and if we didn’t take OBL seriously we would pay a horrible price. Many of us knew that long before OBL….

I think objective, or even subjective intelligent readers, might conclude whether or not KSM cut Pearl’s head off is less a concern than being the facilitator of 9/11. How anyone can tell who is cutting his head off with those hoods is beyond me….perhaps your sources might enlighten us?

Your comments about macho Republicans is pretty funny….as opposed to wimpy Democrats? Liberal Democrats disproportionately avoid serving in our military services but, that doesn’t mean they’re wimps….not all macho Republicans served….not all Republicans who served are macho…so how would you define macho?

Just for the record…. I have many liberal friends who actively support all aspects of this war, some who are hawkish beyond what I consider reasonable….but then again I didn’t support removing Saddam with conventional forces.

Here’s the bottom-line…there are many insightful PoliSci Professors, leading Middle East experts, high level anti-terrorist intelligent personal, who argue that Americans still don’t recognize the severity of this threat, and that those who spend inordinate time and effort on isolated abuses are a large part of the problem playing into al Qaeda’s hand. Many Americans understood the severity of this threat and opposed the policies that caused this threat to become what is has…and with Obama’s advisory staff employing the same policy advisors….it’s simply a matter of priorities, you prefer going after those who have to date successfully protected us….others prefer keeping those who caused this mess from doing it again. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 19, 2008 9:32 AM:

" Read the post…it’s pretty clear…. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 19, 2008 9:48 AM:

" NB….you have conclusive evidence that thousands were tortured?….The overwhelming majority of the interrogators dispute torture was used on a wide spread basis….where‘s the beef? So far all that you have given leads back to sources that lack credibility by any standard of objectivity.

I would remind anyone who wishes to understand this debate that the American Trial Lawyers and Jihadist donations is what funds this disinformation campaign, in fact they’re registered as a foreign lobbyist, they have spent millions hiring public relations firms and in every instance confessions were retracted and then abuses were claimed.

For every ‘alleged instance of abuse’ there have been thousands questioned and released without any claim of abuse….and at the end of the day the Geneva Accords does not even consider weatherboarding torture! "

athought wrote on Dec 19, 2008 9:54 AM:

" To the author- I tried to view your the transcript linking to this page but the link didnt work. However, the quotes you provided ("take the gloves off") don't sound as damning as you make them out to be. Perhaps your bias, and we all have them, is anti-Cheney?

I just finished a work of fiction by Vince Flynn on this very topic, and yes I know that it was fiction, but it still raised some interesting questions. One was that the terrorists never signed the Geneva Conventions, so should the rules of war apply to them? Another question dealt with polls, Ruff, and how important the wording is. If the poll asks, "Do you support torture," most will reply no. If you ask, "Do you support harsher interrogation techniques on high ranking Taliban or Al-Qaeda members," the results of the poll would be different. "

Raven wrote on Dec 19, 2008 10:39 AM:

" glenroy .. it is nice to be able to dismiss the opposition to torture as being funded by a group you dislike, makes it easier to not have to deal with the facts being presented. But you are in the vocal minority, Americans overwhelming detest the idea of using torture.

As for your poll question, when they follow it up with a description of those enhanced interrogation techniques, they again say no.

The bias here is against anything to takes America away from the path of rule by law, if that makes us anti-cheney, so be it.

oh, yes, please tell us what methods the Accords show as torture, glenroy. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Dec 19, 2008 10:43 AM:

" Glenroy writes, "Liberal Democrats disproportionately avoid serving in our military services." This is not true. According to the Military times, "by the end of 2006, the percentage of military Republicans plummeted to 46%." Republicans served more often than Democrats during most of the most recent thirty years, but for many decades Democrats served more often. Of course, support for the military can be displayed by other means. GOPers are no more patriotic than Democrats. Indeed, the Bush Administration has done a terrible job supporting our troops and veterans. And, of course, waterboarding is torture. Anybody who approves of torture---including the use of waterboarding---is not worthy of my contempt. "

napablogger wrote on Dec 19, 2008 11:27 AM:

" glenroy, my concern is that the torture spread far and wide beyond the few high level terrorists, like I said 13 or 14 of them that have been captured. Abu Ghraib and the abuses there that I have discussed in the past are part of this.

To everyone, I don't think you can intelligently argue the evidence until you have read "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer. That is where the evidence is brought together best.

It is true that a lot of the evidence comes from lawyers and the Red Cross, but it also comes from the FBI and CIA, informers who talked to Mayer.

If you read the Senate report by McCain and Levin's committee and you have read Mayers book, you will see that a lot of the evidence quoted by both is identical. That suggests that Mayer was getting authentic information.

If that is true, then we have a massive amount of torture going on, not just the high level targets. It has reached deep into the ranks of our military like never before.

It is pretty clear that everyone who was brought into a US prison overseas, ie Iraq and Afghanistan, was routinely tortured. A lot of it was done by military contractors. A lot of those captured were taken because a neighbor complained about them for one reason or another. Lt Gen Janet Karpinski, who was in charge of the prison at Abu Ghraib, said 90% of the prisoners were innocent.

We need to do an official investigation so all this will be on the record to end the "it is all ACLU lawyers" excuse. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 19, 2008 11:27 AM:

" I missed the videos where Cheney sawed off someone's head and dragged their corpse through the streets...

How quickly the girlie men forgot the tortured deaths of three thousand of our innocent citizens on 9-11... Were they captured combatants with vital information about future attacks...???

The feminization of America...??? That's why we are being conditioned to cower under a table and wait to be murdered in a school or mall by a terrorist shooter, instead of fighting back...

Why do liberals ignore reality...??? "

krusty wrote on Dec 19, 2008 12:18 PM:

" Dwayne, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. We can't commit terrible crimes against humanity and then use the "well they did it first" excuse. That doesn't fly, in my opinion.

The key to bringing down organizations like Al-Qaeda is to take out their leaders. Torturing a prisoner until they confess to something they truly have no knowledge of does not help the situation. If we're going to stop Al-Qaeda, we need to find Bin Laden first. We're not going to find him through false confessions. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 19, 2008 12:30 PM:

" What false confessions...???

Numerous planned attacks have been thwarted through interrogation at Gitmo...

People who refuse to fight back deserve to die... Ask any cop...

You're not one of those who thinks this country deserved 9-11, are ya, Krusty...??? That's Reverend Wright hate-America stuff... "

Bill wrote on Dec 19, 2008 12:45 PM:

" And Duuwane finds the aversion to torture an effeminate trait.

I wonder where the sisterhood is on the testosterone of torture? Especially as women are a prime target of torturers wold wide. "

Raven wrote on Dec 19, 2008 2:19 PM:

" dwayne, no one ever deserves to die, for anyone reason....and again we have the 'you disagree with me, you must hate America argument'

Where is the evidence that all the attacks have been thwarted?...

btw... it was Falwell and his ilk who first said that the US deserved the 9/11 attacks as a punishment from god. Need to keep your extremist ministers inclusive of all, dwayne "

a teacher wrote on Dec 19, 2008 4:24 PM:

" Dwayne, where do you get this stuff from?

"People who refuse to fight back deserve to die... Ask any cop..."

Cops usually tell you to cooperate, except in the case of rape or kidnapping. I doubt ANY police officer would say that a victim deserved to die.

Honestly Dwayne, think before you type. "

krusty wrote on Dec 19, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Dwayne, if questioning the United States foreign policy makes me anti-American, then go ahead and put that label on me. I refuse to believe that the United States always acts in the best interest of the world as a whole when it comes to it's actions abroad. I would never say innocent people deserved to die, under any circumstance.

Al-Qaeda was originally formed when the U.S. kept its troops in Saudi Arabia long after they were no longer needed. Counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke said in his book, Against All Enemies, that U.S. foreign policy decisions including "confronting Moscow in Afghanistan, inserting the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf," and "strengthening Israel as a base for a southern flank against the Soviets" contributed to al-Qaeda's motives.

You only need to look to the European Union to see a good example for the United States. They have the ability to defend themselves if needed, but they only use that power when absolutely necessary. They don't go out forcing their ideals on the rest of the world, but they will step in when crimes against humanity are being commited. That is the policy I believe our country needs. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 19, 2008 6:16 PM:

" Nb….You’ve based all these claims on her one book? You’ve got to be kidding…..Jane Mayer is no more qualified to analyze interrogation reports than Al Gore would be teaching ’climatology’ …. she’s as much a partisan hack as his is…..her fist hack:

“David Addington, Cheney’s legal counsel, is “a loner” with “rigidly conservative views” who “seemed to revel in being anonymous and abstemious,” so indifferent to the opinions of right-thinking people that, according to a colleague, he “didn’t care about advancement in the Washington world.” Another administration attorney, deputy White House counsel Timothy Flanigan, is a “Mormon and anti-abortion activist” who was “involved in the politically divisive legal investigation of Bill Clinton’s sex life.” …egads….

And how she portrayed committed enemies. …

“John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban who was picked up by U.S. military in Afghanistan, is portrayed as a man who won friends among the Taliban for his skill at “cooking macaroni.” To his misfortune, Lindh “came to the region to study Arabic,” but “got caught up in a religious cause.” Mayer seems unaware that the closest Arabic-speaking area to Afghanistan is many hundreds of miles to the West. …”

Not exactly a ringing endorsement….’the so-called American Taliban…I suppose he was tortured too? Anyone who has paid any attention to this war would know ‘Jihad Johnny’ proudly claimed to be a dedicated Jihadist….yet Jane Mayer implies he’s just another victim rounded up by brutal American forces…‘a loving and caring pasta chef no-less‘….no wonder KSM is so near and dear.

I’ll try and stomach her book…but I’d recommend finding a few qualified and objective sources…. "

Bill wrote on Dec 19, 2008 6:38 PM:

" Of course new qualified and objective sources would need to be vetted by Gilroy. No mainstream lefty stuff but information from the prism of reaction. "

Raven wrote on Dec 19, 2008 7:23 PM:

" matches the description I saw of Addington on PBS's frontline....ooops, must have been part of the lefty media "

pharper wrote on Dec 20, 2008 12:03 AM:

" Feminization????

Girlie men???

How OLD are you people?? Those terms have got to be the most second-grade words I've heard in a long time!

I had hoped we'd gotten over that. It astonishes me that people can defend torture in the same breath (or post, as it were) as they disparage the entire female gender.

Well, maybe not, coming from some of you.... "

Raven wrote on Dec 20, 2008 1:24 AM:

" I think they were channeling SNL, pharper "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 20, 2008 10:22 AM:

" Virginia Tech was only one example of the fem9inization of America... 33 executed while cowering (cooperating)...

Why didn't some of these students fight back? How do you line students up against a wall and start picking them off one by one without the students turning on you? You have a choice. Try to rush the killer and get his gun, or stand there and wait to be shot. I would love to hear from some of you who have insight into situations such as this. Was there just not enough time to react (one hour)? Were they paralyzed with fear (athletic males in their 20's)? Were they waiting for someone else to take action (cops)? Sorry ... I just don't get it...

Cops run toward gunfire, not away from it... Even the suggestion that young adults should actually engage in an act of self defense brings howls of protest from liberals... Wow...

Maybe Napa can become a famous sanctuary for Gitmo terrorists when they are read their rights and released on their own recognizance... Regardless that most of them would kill you without a second thought, perhaps some of you bleeding hearts would like to sponsor them in your home and show them the good life...

It's fine to sit and talk of your idealism for this country, when your life is not on the line...

Eight hijack attempts, and others, were thwarted as a result of intelligence gleaneded from Gitmo terrorists... Google it....

Reality check.... "

Raven wrote on Dec 20, 2008 11:26 AM:

" explain to us again how a mad man shooting up a college campus has to do with Cheney and his war crimes?

and those 8 attacks were? i see none on legitimate objective sites. "

Paddy wrote on Dec 20, 2008 12:07 PM:

" Torture is relative. In the eyes of the Muslim world one of the worst things we could do would be to place pork entrails, fat or blood in the missile and bullet casings being used to fight ji-sadists. How about pouring a little pig blood into an open wound? That would be a far worse offense to them than waterboarding. Times have changed. Why continue to use WWII examples? That was a generation of real men and real women. "

krusty wrote on Dec 20, 2008 12:55 PM:

" Sorry, Dwayne, but I have never seen an instance of a cop running towards gunfire. When they get out of their car, the first thing they do is use their vehicle door as a shield.

I guess you're saying running towards a man firing a semi-automatic weapon makes you a man. Well, it also makes you a dead man.

I still don't see how this point you're making means it's ok to torture people. "

izzy wrote on Dec 20, 2008 1:18 PM:

" Well raven, first off Cheney didn't commit any war crimes.
In order to have a war crime under the Geneva Convention, you have to have a warrior with allegiance to a particular country. Most of the terrorists captured or killed have NO allegiance to anyone except Allah! Ergo...no war crimes committed by Cheney or anyone at Gitmo!
How does a madman shooting innocent people on a college campus relate to Cheney?
It goes to attitude raven! The attitude that men have to be castrated to interact in this world! A feministic ideology..........Can't fight back, must cower under desk and can't use whatever means necessary to illicit a confession from enemy combatants!
Girlie men abound......Do you get it yet??? "

Raven wrote on Dec 20, 2008 2:43 PM:

" izzy...it must be nice to live in a world so black and white....first, the Taliban was the recognized government of Afghanistan prior to our justification, so members of the Taliban armed forces had allegiance to their government, and by definition, were covered by the Geneva Convention. Just having a memo say it doesn't apply is not following the rule of law we all must abide by.

as far cheney, if the allegations are proven, he just may be guilty....we shall have to wait and see

So to be a man you have to take up a gun and slaughter innocent people? I will pass then. And no cop I know of runs blindly at a man wielding an automatic weapon, they have a name for that, it's called suicide.

As far as it being a feminist ideology to not fight back, some of the fiercest warriors I have ever seen or read were women, I wouldn't want to face them.

And paddy, why not use the examples of 'the greatest generation'....are there better examples to use? "

izzy wrote on Dec 20, 2008 3:02 PM:

" Well pharpy, youth has it's advantages, but not necessarily when it comes to logical thought!
We've gotten past nothing! Do you really think if you close your eyes and think thoughts of sugar plums dancing in your head, that the world will magically be better and the evil people in it will just evaporate? "

glenroy wrote on Dec 20, 2008 4:09 PM:

" Bilco...I wouldn't waste my time....

NB: The congressional DOD Report as opposed to Jane Mayer:

““Of the 50,000 detainees processed between September 2001 and August 2004, 300 allegations of abuse have been made. After 150 investigations, 66 cases have been confirmed – (that's 0.132 percent). Two-thirds of the 66 confirmed abuses occurred at the point of battle, not during the interrogation process.““ …without my calculator that’s about 0.043% of all interrogations, a net 22 confirmed.…were they even entitled to GCA protection?

The GC Accords…incidentally, it wasn’t a convention per se, it was a process that began about 1864 and continued through the First World War…..evolving with WMD use and terrorist tactics…

Geneva Accord Quote:
“"Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups – and thus endanger the civilian population – are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention."“

What the 'few legitimately concerned' fail to understand is Congressional Reps like Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, Frank, Murtha and Kerry over the past decades have used similar ‘media myths’ to eviscerate the intelligence agencies tasked with protecting us andthen they‘ve turned around and blamed the agencies for failing to protect! You know life the financial meltdown and our energy mess...
If history is any indication of the onsequence….this band of partisan attack dogs will pander to the squeaking wheel and revert to gutting the intelligence agencies for a 3rd time and we’ll be right back where we were on 9/12/01.…completely dependant on convention forces to fight an intelligence war. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 20, 2008 4:27 PM:

" ....well that would explain a whole lot of the bewilderment.....'Frontline' is a front for Bill Moyer's leftist agenda....the Line is between legitimate reporting and his paranoia...

Moyer was thee instrumental activist for abandoning the Shah running constant anti-Shah Frontline hack jobs....spaced doesn't begin to permit the consequences of that policy failure and the many subsequent policy failures that followed... "

Bill wrote on Dec 20, 2008 6:16 PM:

" Les see Duuwane Virginia tec eh? they did not fightback because they were all feminists? or they were all feminized?

I wonder if there are any feminine cops? That could be called on to explain this? "

pharper wrote on Dec 20, 2008 8:40 PM:

" Ah, yes. I'd forgotten that my ability to think logically was inhibited by my age....

Izzy, I have no illusions about society, nor do I have illusions about how far we've come. But does it really seem logical to you to use terms like "feminization" and "girlie men" in order to describe your perceived notion that refusing to use torture makes us weak? That's called sexism, in case you're unfamiliar with the term.

I guess you don't know any female cops or soldiers, because to use such terms is to disrespect each and every woman who has ever served her country with as much (or more) bravery than her brothers-in-arms.

You should be ashamed.

But then again, I am young. What do I know? "

izzy wrote on Dec 20, 2008 8:47 PM:

" raven, don't hold your breath on Cheney getting charged with anything....

Bill, they did not fight back because they were defenseless. Why were they defenseless? Because liberals are more afraid of law abiding citizens with a gun, then they are of heinous criminals. The anti gun movement consists of irrational liberals, who want to pass more and more restrictive laws concerning firearms. These laws do nothing to stop crime because if a criminal is willing to murder, rape and rob people, an additional penalty for packing heat is just about meaningless!
The only people penalized by gun laws are law abiding citizens that just want to defend themselves. We have too many gun laws on the books now.
Libs don't seem to realize that the police can't really protect you, they can deter crime, but if you are a target of a criminal, you most likely will be the victim of a criminal act.
Sure, there is a chance that the cops can catch the perp, but you as a victim, will already have been raped, robbed or murdered. "

izzy wrote on Dec 20, 2008 8:59 PM:

" Yes pharper, you appear to be young and full of hope. Hope is like a fleeting rain cloud that disappears. Sometimes it leaves behind moisture for the betterment of man, sometimes it leaves nothing!
Obie preached "hope" for all of us for the past year......I'm not holding my breath on that one either.
I have known some great women, both in the military and police service and I have trained many women in the use of firearms. However, the majority of these women think logically and realize that the enemy is who he is and have no illusions about how to deal with them! "

Bill wrote on Dec 20, 2008 9:31 PM:

" Er, sicko who got hung in the seventies for torture? The School of the Americas was in full swing with the techniques it had borrowed from the North Koreans and the Russians. "

krusty wrote on Dec 21, 2008 1:10 AM:

" Izzy, how did the person who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech get a gun in the first place? He went to a store and purchased them just like any of us would. A more stringent gun law would have prevented him from purchasing one based on his history of mental illness. "

athought wrote on Dec 21, 2008 9:33 AM:

" Hear Ye- who are you to scold people for not falling on the "correct" side of this or any issue? For some reason I thought it was okay to have different ideas and opinions.

Glenroy- thanks for sharing the quote from the GA. Both relevant and enlightening. "

Raven wrote on Dec 21, 2008 10:10 AM:

" >>and thus endanger the civilian population<

glenroy, does that mean Americans who attack and kill afghan and iraqi citizens as they go after taliban soldiers or al qaeda lose the protection of the Geneva convention?

and what about this part? from part III

<<Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.>> "

glenroy wrote on Dec 21, 2008 10:56 AM:

" Intelligence is the operative word in all respects…perhaps on this we can agree.

… I stomached the first half of Jane Mayer‘s book……an echo in my Christmas Cheer impaired brain keeps hounding me to ask ‘why the usual congressional grandstanders haven’t jumped all over these ‘sweeping conclusions sprinkled thoroughly with vitriolic personal characterizations‘… anyway folks save the twenty something clams and read from those who were there…..

Read…. “”THE INTERRORGATORS”” by Chris MacKey and Greg Miller…. This book is beyond objective….it is the uncut written history as it occurred, in the field by the interrogators, taken form their daily diaries. These guys and gals explain how woefully unprepared our nation was for war….how few linguists were available, the pressure to obtain actionable intelligence, how chaotic all wars are…ultimately they have been credited with rewriting the manual on interrogation techniques…..and it all revolves around TORTURE…..or read Peter Bergen….The Osama bin Laden I Know…

It is impossible to understand this threat without being consumed with hours of weekly reading….only then having a better understanding of Islam than most libs have of Christianity…let‘s face the facts…modern day Jihadist view Americans through Hollywood productions and sensationalist journalists like Jane Mayer…80 to 90% of them are virtually illiterate.

I’ll loan “’THE INTERRRORGATORS”” or “”The Osama bin Laden I Know’ to ‘anyone’ promising to return these books..….there isn’t better sources on this subject.

Merry Christmas! "

glenroy wrote on Dec 21, 2008 10:59 AM:

" Thank you ‘athought‘….it is time consuming…. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 21, 2008 12:54 PM:

" “So what about it?”

Part #1
Your question is beyond ambiguous….the only answer to whatever it is you’re attempting to imply is….you and those in power who ’think’ as you, were the ones who decided to gut our intelligence while simultaneously reducing our conventional fighting capacity by 40%, without consideration to what the rest of the world had already took notice….an obvious rapidly growing unconventional threat….whatever we deal with today is the direct consequence. Before you get too huffy there is more…

I opposed the conventional aspect of removing Saddam writing several commentaries before it started, a couple in the Register and another under pen name in on the History Channel website, not because Saddam should not be removed but, because recent history left no doubt in my mind that partisan liberals would undermine the effort at the first opportunity, and if necessary create their own opportunity fabricating and/or exaggerating events. It’s there in the achieves….not withstanding the fact it was Democrat legislation that initially authorized unilateral removal and leading up the invasion virtually all the Democrats were flying around the country tripping over each other demanding President Bush take action. As I have disclosed, I worked with many of them on the inside so the modus is no mystery…

The war we fight today was predicted 30 years ago by not so right-wingers as Patrick Moynihan and Sam Nunn. It was predicted in the 1990s by President Johnson’s son in-law…who incidentally single handedly fought off Obama, Pelosi, Murtha and Reid to get the Surge approved….I’ll let you figure it out.

Merry Christmas all the same. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 21, 2008 12:56 PM:

" Well Raven, if you had a terrorist who knew details of an impending attack that would kill hundreds of people, would you buy them dinner and a movie, or beat the crap out of them until they talked... "

glenroy wrote on Dec 21, 2008 12:58 PM:

" Bill…if you’re referring to who I think you are…thank the NY Times for leaking his name…which came out the Carter Administration. "

Bill wrote on Dec 21, 2008 2:19 PM:

" So, enlighten me. Who Am I referring to or to whom do you think I am referring?

All the acronyms being used through this thread has made it very convoluted and still has not persuaded me that torture has any intelligent use for gaining intellligence or that anyone is a Sissy for opposing its use.

Did president Carter hang someone and I missed it? "

Raven wrote on Dec 21, 2008 3:23 PM:

" Dwayne, I would find a way to stop the attack without torture like any well-trained interrogator would, because beating the crap out of them, despite what you have seen in the movies, is rarely effective, and would take up time that could be used more effectively.

Apparently we all did Bill. "

krusty wrote on Dec 21, 2008 6:17 PM:

" Dwayne, going in, you're not even sure if that "terrorist" has knowledge of an impending attack. You can get more knowledge and more likely accurate knowledge through interrogation than you could through torture. Maybe you should ask John McCain if torture leads to a false confession. From an article in the Arizona Republic that appeared on March 1, 2007:

McCain's will had finally wilted under the beatings. Unable to endure any more, he agreed to sign a confession.

McCain slowly wrote, "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors."

He would never forgive himself.

"I had learned what we all learned over there," he would write later. "Every man has a breaking point. I had reached mine." "

sickothis wrote on Dec 21, 2008 6:30 PM:

" Bill, sorry, my mistake. Believe hanging was after WWII. Thought I read Vietnam and Korea as well, but did some digging so can't back myself up. "

izzy wrote on Dec 21, 2008 8:09 PM:

" krusty wrote on Dec 21, 2008 1:10 AM:
" Izzy, how did the person who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech get a gun in the first place? He went to a store and purchased them just like any of us would. A more stringent gun law would have prevented him from purchasing one based on his history of mental illness. "

Well krusty, the guy was adjudicated mentally ill and should have never been allowed to purchase any weapon.
The gun dealer had no way of knowing that, because some clerk in the courts or in data entry didn't get it into the system! The laws are already more than sufficient....it was human error! A more stringent law? It already existed!
Funny how the media just kind of dropped the ball on the Govt. agency or person that didn't follow through and do their job, wasn't it? Instead they tried to persecute the innocent gun dealer. Resulting in many angry letters and phone calls to his business, including many "death threats".
Once again...there are plenty of gun laws on the books already, some dating back 60 years or more...we don't need any more!
What we need is to stop the liberal insanity of coddling kids who grow up without respect for their fellow humans and are not afraid of penalties, because there are few of any consequence any longer! Whipping their butts with a razor strap is loooong overdue! "

Raven wrote on Dec 22, 2008 8:27 AM:

" Izzy, if he was able to purchase the gun legally, then the law was inadequate, wasn't it...since the massacre both VA and the feds have changed the state and fed laws to cover the loop hole.

And don't be ridiculous, trying to tie a lack of corporal punishment, and a 'coddling' of kids to the massacre to put it bluntly, absurd. The shooter had mental problems and slipped thru legal loophole...using a strap won't help anyone with those problems but good mental health care might. "

izzy wrote on Dec 22, 2008 9:55 AM:

" It was human error...the laws were on the books...What Loop Hole are you talking about?
The violence in the schools and most of the school shootings can be tied to lack of parental controls and the lack of corporal punishment at an early age!
Fear of your Mom or Dad is a big deterrent in misbehaving! It worked fine for me and fine for all my 5 kids! They are all very successful as am I and we are all free of illegal drugs, trouble with the law, etc.
Mental Health care is Greatly
Exaggerated! "

napablogger wrote on Dec 22, 2008 10:12 AM:

" glenroy, at least I finally have you reading Mayer's book. Let me know what you think when you finish. And no, that isn't the only source I go by, I have been reading every article and other books I come by for several years now. Mayers' is the best to start because it summarizes everything related to the torture issue.

And they all say the same thing about Addington, and all the info about Addington was garnered from conservative loyalists within the Bush administration, after all they are the only ones that can observe his behavior--he doesn't do interviews. So Mayer got that straight from people like William Haynes, very conservative lawyer, and a number of others.

I agree with Raven on claiming someone is not credible just because they are liberal, or conservative for that matter. "

napablogger wrote on Dec 22, 2008 10:22 AM:

" Izzy, Cheney is subject to prosecution both under the War Crimes Act which is US law, and also the Convention Against Torture which the US ratified as well. So it is just not the Geneva Conventions he has to worry about. He may be able to get off on a technicality under the Geneva Conventions, but not either of the other two. "

napablogger wrote on Dec 22, 2008 10:33 AM:

" Raven, izzy, the authorities are notorious for not enforcing gun laws, and izzy is right, they were lax on reporting this mental illness. Mentally ill have sued to keep their mental illness private, and it has aided the efforts to keep that out of public records.

I do think liberals have been the source of the problem. Conservative gun right supporters have shown over and over that if you enforce the gun laws, the problem goes away. Liberal judges let those convicted of gun charges out of jail over and over. Liberals pushing laws like the "rights of the mentally ill" have contributed to those people getting guns as I mentioned above.

You can pass all the gun laws you want, but if the authorities won't enforce them then they are useless. "

izzy wrote on Dec 22, 2008 11:08 AM:

" napablogger...some good points!

Do you really think the Demos have the stomach to charge Cheney with anything?
I think they have more important fish to fry right now...the economy, bogus global baloney, entitlements and possibly our gun rights.

You are right on the money about the gun issue! "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 22, 2008 11:18 AM:

" napablogger wrote on Dec 22, 2008 10:22 AM:
" Izzy, Cheney is subject to prosecution both under the War Crimes Act which is US law, and also the Convention Against Torture which the US ratified as well. So it is just not the Geneva Conventions he has to worry about. He may be able to get off on a technicality under the Geneva Conventions, but not either of the other two. "

That depends on the definition of torture... If you're a Bush-hater, then you make it up as you go...

You are clearly more sensitive about waterboarding than our soldiers being decapitated and having their corpses dragged through the streets being spit upon...

This a war... Have you considered which side you're on...??? There's a name for those who give aid and comfort to the enemy, and it's far worse than "liberal"... "

izzy wrote on Dec 22, 2008 11:38 AM:

" Right On Dwayne!!!! "

glenroy wrote on Dec 22, 2008 12:06 PM:

" NB….the line is drawn at ‘competency’ regardless of political leanings.

Jan Mayer has developed a niche specializing in Republican hit pieces….not one article pulled out her archives questioned Democrat policy or individuals…

When have you ever heard a political journalist who was successfully sued for Defamation of Character? Mayer had to fork out $600,000.00 in a settlement… the threshold of proof for Defamation is the most difficult to prove of any claim of damage requiring intent to HARM against the right of free speech which if you ask any lawyer is almost impossible to prove.

Searches cross referencing Jane Mayer, public speaking, speeches, political and culture….turns out her disciples are a rather long list of extreme leftists including Scott Ritter, Max Cleland, Cindy Sheehan and Teresa Heinz Kerry who regularly use Jane Mayer as their primary source…you judge a person by the company they keep and Mayer’s circle reeks.

The silliness of Mayer’s attack is that when in our history, or mankind, has a war ever been fought granting the advisory constitutional rights? As defined in the Geneva Accords these combatants are entitled to a military tribunal and a choice between hanging or firing squad.

The harm being caused by blowing these abuses out of proportion is and will continue to be far more damaging than the acts….of course to understand that you need to understand the enemy and that’s something the left has never been capable of doing…… "

krusty wrote on Dec 22, 2008 12:18 PM:

" Dwayne, you portry torture as the answer to our global problems. Sorry, but torture is not going prevent the hatred towards America that causes the disrespect of our soldiers. It's going to make it worse! Again, I'll bring up John McCain. We all know what he went through. I'm sure the torture of John McCain helped the Vietnamese tremendously, right? It's much easier to advocate torture when it's not happening to your side.

Beating the enemy senseless helps no one. The fact that it has no more benefits than interrogation does is just one more reason to be against torture. "

Raven wrote on Dec 22, 2008 1:05 PM:

" It was a reporting loophole that the Gov of VA closed by executive decree and the Feds did by congressional action to speed and make sure all persons judged mentally unfit were sent to the database without delay. "

izzy wrote on Dec 22, 2008 1:50 PM:

" raven, that's what's known as a procedural change to an existing law, it's NOT a new gun law!
That change affects all types of other laws involving mentally ill persons....
Once again, we don't need anymore gun laws, just enforce the ones we have....
That change would have no effect on the same lunatic today, if he wanted to buy a gun on the street via a private party sale...nor would it have any effect on the same lunatic if he went to Mexico and bought a gun and smuggled it back into the U.S.
You see raven, some laws are not worth the paper they are written on, nor are they totally enforceable...like restraining orders for instance. They are totally worthless in most cases. They are very much like a padlock, designed to keep most law abiding citizens in line. A true criminal or madman will ignore all laws, the restraining order and break the padlock!
Bottom line here, if the guy in Va. had been flagged as mentally ill, and couldn't have purchased a gun legally, he would, if desperate enough, buy or steal one illegally! "

Hear Ye wrote on Dec 22, 2008 2:32 PM:

" Dwayne-

That's unfortunate that you subscribe to that way of thinking. Since when is it un-American to speak out against actions that historically are themselves un-American. Torture isn't "American".

It is interesting reading these comments and seeing this unfold as a Conservative vs. Liberal issue. I never knew that torture had a party affiliation. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 22, 2008 2:51 PM:

" The issue of war with all its parts has always been a contentious issue with liberals….historically libs have blown isolated incidents completely out of proportion for political gain….you probably haven’t noticed, but those fighting the war do. "

Raven wrote on Dec 22, 2008 3:21 PM:

" Don't belive I said it a new law, izzy, just that they made changes.

But you raise another point - if he was going to get the gun anyway,

<... and couldn't have purchased a gun legally, he would, if desperate enough, buy or steal one illegally! >>

If the law were followed to the letter, and he still gets a gun, how effective does that make the current gun laws then izzy? "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 22, 2008 4:21 PM:

" Hear Ye wrote on Dec 22, 2008 2:32 PM:".....seeing this unfold as a Conservative vs. Liberal issue"....

It isn't... It's kill or be killed... You choose...

Support our troops or abandon them, you choose... I was spit on as a Viet Nam vet... I know your kind... You live here and condemn the very freedoms that you enjoy... Nice and safe behind your keyboard, isn't it....

Get this straight: We are NOT the bad guys... Wake the hell up... "

izzy wrote on Dec 22, 2008 5:17 PM:

" Hear Ye, torture has been used all over the world for hundreds of years and by the US for decades......stop sticking up for those terrorists!

raven, you are really stuck on more laws aren't you?
Remember when I said some laws are unenforceable? Making more unenforceable ones is just plain stupid and every time one is thought up by some liberal, the law abiding citizen gets penalized because of it!
Face it, if a madman or heinous criminal wants a gun, they will get one....the black market alone has plenty.
One armed and trained citizen in Va. may have stopped most of the deaths there! Just one...several would have been even better!
In states where available, Concealed Weapons permits are in high demand and instructors are giving classes right and left.
Because of Obie and the Libs, guns and ammo are selling out!
I tried to buy two different ones the other day and all suppliers were sold out! "

Raven wrote on Dec 22, 2008 6:51 PM:

" Izzy, the cases where the US legally used torture were? Even George Washington prohibited the use of torture despite the fact that the British were using it. What hearye and I and others are doing is sticking up for the US and it tradition of being a nation of laws, a nation that was above resorting to the basest of instincts. So yeah, Izzy, I tend to be stuck on laws because I believe as many others do that we are a nation of laws and not one of armed thugs who beat up prisoners. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 22, 2008 7:24 PM:

" In Isreael when teachers began carrying guns the terrorist attack went to zero.... "

Hear Ye wrote on Dec 22, 2008 7:43 PM:

" Dwayne-

again, it's unfortunate that you think that way. It's not so black and white. You can be against torture and still support our troops. I don't see the connection. It's awfully presumptuous (and absurd) to connect me with someone who spit on you as a Vietnam vet. I would have been far more likely to be the guy landing the forearm shiver to the guy that did that to you. As far as the other stuff you wrote about condemning the freedoms I enjoy blah blah... I don't even know what you're referring to.

I've never disrespected our soldiers on here or in the real world. As a young man I have many, many friends currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan most of whom are in special forces. Thankfully I'm not so naive to think that anyone who disagrees with me is anti-American.

Izzy- That's the difference, you call it sticking up for terrorist and the rest of us call it sticking up for America. One of the reasons our Country is the most powerful and respected nations on earth is because of the American Ideal and values, some of us want to keep it that way. I certainly don't want John Yoo rewriting our history "

Raven wrote on Dec 22, 2008 9:36 PM:

" Dwayne....you must mean a different Israel....terrorist attacks have never stopped in Israel. "

izzy wrote on Dec 22, 2008 9:45 PM:

" raven, laws are a good thing, we all need them...but....we have more than enough now! The CIA has been torturing people since the 50s......or so the rumor goes.
I don't like it anymore than I do war, but if it will save human lives and keep us from subjugation, then we need to use whatever works.
Now, bear in mind that torture has not been proven in a court of law and that's the only place that matters. Allegations don't get it... and I'd stand side by side with Mr. Cheney before I would stand side by side with some scumbag who has been indoctrinated from childhood to hate America....for ANY reason!
Too funny, the system won't let me use Cheney's first name....I guess that would go for Durbin too, but hey, that's what he is....
America First and Foremost! "

Raven wrote on Dec 22, 2008 11:30 PM:

" izzy, you seem awfully selective on which laws you want us to follow....yes for the ones on gun control, no on the ones for torture....and just because the CIA may have tortured someone in the 50s doesn't mean it was legal then or make it a good idea now.

Torture has never been shown to provide a source of reliable information, read the books, listen to the trained interrogators when they appear - someone being tortured will at some point tell the interrogator what he wants to hear.

When I went a USAF survival school in the early 70s, part of the school was a POW course, escape and evasion it was called....you tried to evade capture and when captured, and everyone was, you were to try and resist giving anything but the minimum of information to the 'guards'.

This was during the transition between the name rank and serial number days and moving to the resist as long as possible but survive days. Not sure if they even do that sort of training in today's military survival training.

No one in my class of nearly 30 people was able to withstand the abuse given us and all were ready to tell them anything to make them stop, which we had to do, because none of the class had the information they were looking for.

The point of the class was to show us all that everyone has a breaking point and to not be devastated if you did break. You were to do your best to survive captivity.

One of the best reason to not use torture is that it doesn't provide reliable information. "

napablogger wrote on Dec 23, 2008 12:18 AM:

" Hear Ye there are a lot of conservatives who don't support torture, such as myself. Andrew Sullivan spoke out about it early on, and there are many including many in the Bush administration who quit over it. "

asahigo wrote on Dec 23, 2008 4:34 AM:

" Raven what do you suggest be done to those that refuse to co-operate during humane interrogations? "

squidmond wrote on Dec 23, 2008 7:35 AM:

" Ok all...My first entry with the Register as a new web-reader...and a new returning resident of this beautiful City/Valley. I am surprised at the amount of interest this issue continues to solicit, and i was thinking that there sure are alot of people without much to do other than stare at their computer screens and await the next blog that raises the hair on their neck...then here I sit, doing the same...lol. Anyway, I may have missed it, but listen to the words of our former tortured Veterans from Viet Nam...or..well, pick your war. Sadly, they'll tell you that EVERYONE has a breaking point...and will provide any detailed information their captures request. Do I agree with torture? I'm not sure to what extent...but it absolutely is effective in gathering intelligence, in spite of what many would say. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 23, 2008 9:00 AM:

" Napablogger - Evidently there were not enough folks in the Bush administration willing to quit.

Now it's time to try the one's who shared Bush and Cheney's bad moral compass and authorized torture, promulgated the orders, and actually held meetings in the White House regarding which torture techniques to use on which prisoners.

Like any good prosecutor, I am more than willing to go easier on the 'little fish' go in exchange for rooting out the corruption at the top.

When you PUBLICLY remove and prosecute the torture-authorizing memo writers like John Yoo, and all of the folks who think a 'memo' provides cover from OUR laws, torture will occur far less often than when the torture kingpins go free while a few grunts rot in prison.

~Ruff "

Raven wrote on Dec 23, 2008 10:09 AM:

" ashagio, depends on the person but one thing that shouldn't be done is torture for the reasons I have stated but mainly because it doesn't work.

and squid, while they have a breaking point, relying upon the information given to stop the torture is dangerous as that info in notoriously unreliable. The prisoner's objective is to stop the torture. and the longer a prisoner is held the less valuable his knowledge becomes in any case, structures and plans change so often in war that being out of the picture for as little as 24 hours can make any information a person has worthless.

Esp in light of that even para-military groups change their operations once they find out a person with that info has been captured. "

Paddy wrote on Dec 23, 2008 10:15 AM:

" Again, "torture" is a relative term. Much of the arguement here is due to ones own view of what "torture" is. The use of pork products in missile casings would be considered one of the most inhumane acts possible to a muslim while to a ji-sadist it's acceptable to strap on a bomb and kill hundreds along with themselves.

Wars are fought by those who must understand their enemy or perish. If it's determined that 'waterboarding' might save the lives of 500 children it's no longer 'torture' in my mind. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Dec 23, 2008 10:29 AM:

" Torture is not a means; it's an end. Those who favor torture do so because they want to torture. Torture is not an effective or efficient method of gaining important information. Torture does not save lives. Torture is evil. Those who torture are evil. Those who support torture support evil. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 23, 2008 11:20 AM:

" Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Dec 23, 2008 10:29 AM:
" Torture is not a means; it's an end. Those who favor torture do so because they want to torture. Torture is not an effective or efficient method of gaining important information. Torture does not save lives. Torture is evil. Those who torture are evil. Those who support torture support evil. "

Define torture.....

Listening to Barry Manilow...??? Or whaaaat...??? "

glenroy wrote on Dec 23, 2008 11:48 AM:

" LOL…..with patriots like these who needs al Qaeda?

The best that can be said is this whole endeavor is little more than gotcha games.

The question….motivated by allegiance or the delusion of perfection?

Presuming the latter, if those ’claiming patriotic intentions’ spent a fraction of their efforts studying this threat they’d eventually see the potential devastation of their consequences….on the other hand they’ve never seen it coming before so what’s the likelihood now?

To most citizens of this country national security is about ‘protection’ and most intelligent people recognize wars and those tasked to fight them are not going to succeed errorlessly along the way. Either win imperfectly or lose....besides the hypocrisy of it all.

Had moderates/conservatives played this game they would be hounding for Clinton’s head because of his documented imperfection….they would be hounding for Gore’s too because of his imperfect Phased Airport Security program that allowed the 9/11 attackers to breeze right through…. they would be hounding for the heads of Gorelick and all the congressional reps who supported her grossly unnecessary and utterly incompetent ‘Intelligence Wall.’ These less than perfect policies directly led to nearly 4,000 American lives being lost here and abroad…

The charade: The first party that implemented the policies leading to the intelligence failures and ultimately the 9/11 attacks is attacking the second party who chose to focus on the third party attackers instead of and unlike the first party, because the first party doesn’t like how second party treated the third party in captivity….imagine where we’d be today if the second party would have acted like the first party on 9/12/01.

All too reminiscent of the Vietnam and our Civil War... "

Raven wrote on Dec 23, 2008 12:50 PM:

" I just love situational ethics.

glenroy, again that wall was not established by Gorelick but rather in the 70s after the work of the Church commission uncovered the numerous violations of the law that were done by the FBI and CIA in the name of national security. It was reaffirmed by each administration after including the current one.

Our civil war?

and unless you are saying the vast majority of people in the US are not intelligent, they disagree with you about torture, overwhelmingly. There is a big difference between an error and a deliberate policy to ignore our laws. "

sickothis wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:11 PM:

" Dwayne - waterboarding is torture. Period. By law.

Oh and regarding Israeli teachers carrying weapons - all able Israelis serve in the military, and are trained in weapons, are the not? "

a teacher wrote on Dec 23, 2008 3:02 PM:

" One can argue that a large part of our success in WW2 was due to superior intelligence. Battles were won, enemy plans thwarted, technologies gained all through intelligence.

The enemy was every bit more dangerous and as ruthless, fanatical and hardened as Al Queda is now. Yet, no one was tortured or poorly treated. All that was used was patience, persistence and good techniques.

I am struck by the contrast to today's intelligence gathering in an article I read about the men who were charged with interrogating captured Nazi officers in the USA. They prided themselves on never laying a hand on their prisoners. Their only tools were their wits and time. Now there is an example of how REAL Americans fight. It should shame us that we've sunk to such depths. "

izzy wrote on Dec 23, 2008 4:27 PM:

" raven, you didn't read my post very well...I didn't say in the 50s, I said since the 50s...they have been doing it for nearly 60 years...and probably will continue to do so....
I sure don't get worked up about anything I have seen or heard about at Gitmo...it pales in comparison to the way our troops have been treated by the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese and the Muslims.... You guys don't know what real torture really is...... "

izzy wrote on Dec 23, 2008 4:35 PM:

" raven.... I don't think it is overwhelming or a lack of intelligence......there are thousands who don't even speak up one way or the other...

sicko....I would like to see all Americans have to serve in the military, men and women, we'd probably see a lot more respect for each other with the disciplined learned instead of all the coddling that is done!
I don't think Dwayne was referring to those that served in the past and left their weapons at the armory, when done! "

Raven wrote on Dec 23, 2008 6:12 PM:

" izzy it doesn't matter how long they have been doing it and what others have done to our troops and until now, never had the blessing as official US policy...torture is still illegal. "

izzy wrote on Dec 23, 2008 6:25 PM:

" raven.....like Dwayne says, "define torture"!
Having ordered or condoned torture is still an allegation and ONLY an allegation! "

Raven wrote on Dec 23, 2008 7:55 PM:

" the legal definition can be found in any number of sources, like the army field manual of interrogation, izzy...and water-boarding is one of the outlawed methods there...and can also be found in the Geneva accords.

as for the allegations, maybe yes, maybe not, time will tell. "

skeptic wrote on Dec 23, 2008 9:19 PM:

" napablogger. i noticed nobody bit the bait but let's not forget that mutilating and raping children in front of their parents is part of our current torture technique. seymore hersh and others told us years ago that congresspeople were shown the tapes of iraqi guards under our supervision raping little boys in front of their mothers at abu ghraib. the mothers screamed for them to just kill them so they wouldn't have to watch. they ordered soldiers to stop taping, not stop raping.
the torture supporters actualy support child molesters and are proud to say so publicly . as long as they are "our" child molesters .
i don't blame the low level soldiers who were prosecuted at abu gharib because if i were in their place i might well have been corrupted by the unlimited amount of power they had over others.. they were following rumsfeld and cheney's orders. i used to agree that the germans were wrong to argue, "just following orders" as an excuse for war crimes but i think it's more important to prosecute the big fish than small fry in those cases. cheney is already indicted for crimes in his private prisons so we will see if there is any action on that soon.
it's true about washington being against torture and that's why the founding fathers put a prohibition in the constitution. they wanted us to be different than the Europeans of that age. the church used water-boarding in the inquisition and everybody called it torture. there is a museum in cambodia showing how low a dictator like pol pot would go. a water-board remains along with a few other of the most notorious torture devices .
100 cases of people tortured to death is just theiceberg tip. "

napablogger wrote on Dec 24, 2008 12:00 AM:

" skeptic, yes, and there is also the renditions to foreign governments ordered by Cheney and Rumsfeld for torture, which are illegal under US law.

For those Republicans who continue to act like torture is loud music and waterboarding is like swimming, a la Cheney, you need to read an actual description of what happened. I dont think if you do that anyone could disagree that this is torture.

The way that some Republicans keep hiding behind "it isn't so bad" just indicates that they don't really want to look. How does ending up dead mean it is not so bad?

Beatings to the point of broken ribs, being held naked in a stone cell with a dog collar on which is used to slam you up against a wall. Then laying naked in your own urine, not being able to move because you are chained to the wall, and being kept in a stress position as well at the same time.

And it is cold, so cold that a Dr. has to come in and take a rectal temperature now and then to make sure you don't freeze to death, but they keep you just right at the point of freezing to death at the same time.

In isolation for months on end, only talking to one person, "medicine" regulary slammed into your anus in a way that amounts to sodomy, being kept awake so you can't sleep to the point of active psychotic hallucinations.

And there is more, the worst is the psychological torture, not the physical, according to people who have been through it.

Anybody who is asking what is torture hasn't bothered to read about what we are doing to people. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 24, 2008 10:25 AM:

" …crowing into the wind….. Gorelick’s Wall is recognized throughout the government bureaucracy, FBI, CIA , DIA as ‘the cause’ for the intelligence communication breakdown. There are many books written firsthand by those who worked within or covered these agencies, 1,000 Years of Revenge, Inside the 9/11 Plot, the Man who Warned America, The Cell…unlike this GITMO gotcha every detail, every incident is corroborated.

The truth is the Gorelick Wall was a critical not exclusive cause, Clinton’s intelligence gutting save 2 of his 8 years in office played.

The 9/11 Final Report is a cruel joke on the gullible portion of the American public….an exercise in CYA‘ing from a political perspective. Instead of being charged with negligence for, Gorelock sat on the 9/11 Commission as a condition placed on President Bush by Democrats. There were numerous efforts by Commission members to bring Gorelick;s Wall up, every single time Democrats threatened to walk out. …more patriotism no doubt.

This all goes back to my previous post…had moderates/conservatives played these GITMO gotcha games after 9/11 they very well could have ruined the Democrat Party for decades at the price of dividing the nation. Don’t think Democrats didn’t know the potential wrath of the American public, they set a single day record in a special session immediately after 9/11 passing dozens of Bush’s security and intelligence appoints they had held up in committee for 7 months!

I would encourage anyone who really cares about this country to take a good hard look at the tactics these ultra libs, and their gullible supporters, are taking here….just read up on the Civil War Copperheads or the Anti-Vietnam War Movement…many of the latter involved today. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 24, 2008 10:42 AM:

" They can’t define it as torture under the Geneva Accords because it isn’t torture….and the bulk of these abuses/torture claimed isn’t beatings, isn’t water boarding or even prolonged confined imposition…..it is nothing more than “Sleep Depredation.”

I wonder why these ’terrorist humanitarians’ aren’t sticking up for the interrogators, they have get up prior to in preparation, through the process and stay up after writing triplicate reports? I remember…they’re on our side..

Keep peeling away the layers….there is nothing at the core but partisan hacks... "

Raven wrote on Dec 24, 2008 1:11 PM:

" No matter how times you repeat it, that won't make it true, glenroy.

The wall dates to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, written to protect citizens from overreaching federal agencies – the CIA and FBI alike – that might be tempted to use the particularly invasive investigative powers granted for certain intelligence-gathering operations in a far broader array of domestic criminal cases.

Each and every president and Attorney general since then, including Bush and Ashcroft, signed on to it. And if it was so onerous, why didn't Ashcroft and Bush seek to have it changed prior to 9/11, they had GOP majorities in both houses to back them.

Your recollection of the proceedings of the commission differ greatly from the versions presented by the two co-chairman btw. Threats of a walkout? Hardly. The people that had the most trouble with was the white house, which didn't want the commission in the first place, trying to get access to the information they needed to complete the mandate of the commission.

Re waterboarding, it doesn't matter if it is not listed specifically in the GA, it is against US law. It does however, along with sleep deprivation, fall within section three of the GA, namely "Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." "

a teacher wrote on Dec 24, 2008 1:49 PM:

" I prefer the "Darn right we're torturing, they deserve it and we'll do whatever it takes" to the "it's not really torture, it's a partisan attack". At least the former is honest, whilst the later is just excuses. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 24, 2008 1:57 PM:

" An excerpt from, “The left gears up to prosecute Bush officials for protecting the country” WJS 12/18/08... LAST WEEK!

WSJ:
“”Starting in 2002, key Congressional leaders, including Democrats, were fully briefed by the CIA about its activities, amounting to some 30 sessions before "torture" became a public issue. None of them saw fit to object. In fact, Congress has always defined torture so vaguely as to ban only the most extreme acts and preserve legal loopholes. At least twice it has had opportunity to specifically ban waterboarding and be accountable after some future attack. Members declined.

As for "stress positions" allowed for a time by the Pentagon, such as hooding, sleep deprivation or exposure to heat and cold, they are psychological techniques designed to break a detainee, but light years away from actual torture. Perhaps the reason Mr. Levin released only an executive summary with its unsubstantiated charges of criminal behavior -- instead of the hundreds of pages of a full declassified version -- is that the evidence doesn't fit the story. If it did, Mr. Levin or his staff would surely have leaked the details.

Not one of the 12 nonpartisan investigations in recent years concluded that the Administration condoned or tolerated detainee abuse, while multiple courts martial have punished real offenders. None of the dozen or so Abu Ghraib trials and investigations have implicated higher ups; the most senior officer charged, a lieutenant colonel, was acquitted in 2006.

Former Defense Secretary Jim Schlesinger's panel concluded that the abuses were sadistic behavior by the "night shift."“ (end quote)

So where is the Beef? Jane Mayer? ….Mayer’s not only a ‘partisan hack’ in the worse sense, she was successfully sued for “Defamation of Character“….which is almost impossible to prove… "

glenroy wrote on Dec 24, 2008 2:22 PM:

" Hold your donkeys crowing one....I wouldn't expect even expect gullible partisans to believe 9/11 wasn't an inside job...let alone the truth.

I haven't begun to start posting on this matter.....there is so much BS partisan hacking beneath and behind this that any semi-intelligent observer of the political landscape would LOL when those who are driving this mess are revealed....we can post the entire Senate Report...fine it exonerates the entire Administration.

The fact is, no substance, no corroboration just radical left accusations.... these are politically inspired triumphed up attacks based on bits and pieces of testimony taken completely out of context, nothing more. Whether it's Jane Mayer, The American Trial Lawyers and millions of Islamist's dollars pouring in for public relations and soon another national ad campaign...or....the congressional driving force behind this Levin and Durban. I suppose you've long forgotten what these two loser's said and did...I'll remind the readers...every action has a reaction...LOL....

The Emperor has no clothes, no substance and no corroboration, zilch...LOL>..... "

glenroy wrote on Dec 24, 2008 3:13 PM:

" Interesting comments from our very own Senator…favorite Daughter so to speak.

WSJ
12/18/08

“”Now that Mr. Obama is on his way to the White House, even some Democrats are acknowledging the complicated security realities. Dianne Feinstein, a Bush critic who will chair the Senate Intelligence Committee in January, recently told the New York

Times that extreme cases might call for flexibility. "I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible," she said (our emphasis). Ms. Feinstein later put out a statement that all interrogations should be conducted within the more specific limits of the U.S. Army Field Manual but said she will "consider" other views. But that is already the law for most of the government. What the Bush Administration has insisted on is an exception for the CIA to use other techniques (not waterboarding) in extreme cases.

As for Mr. Levin, his real purpose is to lay the groundwork for war-crimes prosecutions of Bush officials like John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Jim Haynes who acted in good faith to keep the country safe within the confines of the law. Messrs. Obama and Holder would be foolish to spend their political capital on revenge, but Mr. Levin is demanding an "independent" commission to further politicize the issue and smear decent public servants.””

Ms. Feinstein’s comments, not unlike all the other Democrat’s has changed considerably now that they’ve successfully undermined the Bush Administration…. "

Skip M. wrote on Dec 24, 2008 3:53 PM:

" Give it a rest! Lets turn to current events.

IMPEACH OBAMA! "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 24, 2008 4:30 PM:

" This thread is torture...... "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Dec 24, 2008 5:38 PM:

" Glenroy cites Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, the newspaper that has called for the pardon of convicted perjurer Scooter Libby. On its editorial pages, the WSJ has been consistently wrong on economic and political issues. Recently, it has also been a reliable parrot of GOP talking points. I'm guessing that its attempts to marginalize the views of Democratic Party senators and its defense of Bush Administration officials will not be considered very persuasive to most readers. "

Raven wrote on Dec 24, 2008 9:33 PM:

" glenroy, glenroy, glenroy....once again it doesn't matter who approved it or who knew about it...torture is wrong, and illegal. It has nothing to do with the intelligence failures, who was controlling what when. It is against the law, bot domestically and our international agreements....and now you say it wasn't the higher muckitty mucks who did or authorized the torture, just the lower ranking military...but wait...if they were punished and torture doesn't happen, what were they punished for?

btw, when he signed the bill passed two years ago, outlawing such things as water-boarding, Bush made a signing statement saying he was the one who would determine what was torture and what wasn't.....sounds like he was condoning the methods and directing them to me with a statement like that. "

napablogger wrote on Dec 24, 2008 10:11 PM:

" MJH, I have experienced the same thing you have with the WSJ, since Rupert Murdoch took it over it has become Fox News in print. I guess it is a good foil for glenroy's attack on Mayer as a liberal and therefore dishonest.

Glenroy--Since the WSJ is a conservative paper does not your automatic discount to partisanship apply?Or does it only apply to liberals?

Note even in the WSJ they have to discount the Senate report by saying they just gave their conclusions (which they obviously didn't like) and not all their documentation so they must be lying about their conclusions. Nice way to discount what you don't like. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 25, 2008 1:29 PM:

" NB…really? I suppose it’s irrelevant that the article quoted wasn’t written by WSJ staff or that it was written by a former Democrat? That moderates in both parties agree? “Of course not“…alright, the other problem with your inference is there isn’t a ‘reputable nonpartisan study’ that backs it up.

I’d be more than happy to quote Foreign Affairs, History Channel or even the ultra liberal Current History but few Register readers have access and it requires a lot more of my time pointing out policies and/or arguments and consequences….while the WSJ allows ‘guest use’ and usually provides the same links. Would it really make any difference with the lib mentality or moveon or nothing?

The UCLA Political Science Dept has a long history of ‘tracking’ media bias on a blind rating system, read it and rate it without disclosing publication, and the WSJ News across the board scores more liberal than the NY Times. Using the same method, listen and rate it, taking in all the major networks and cable news channels, only 1 rated balanced or close to middle of the political road …...care to guess?

I doubt seriously there’s a more respected newspaper in this country than the Wall Street Journal, whether liberal, conservative or moderate and there is no question which of all the media sources at least attempts to be objective.

Merry Christmas! "

pharper wrote on Dec 26, 2008 12:04 AM:

" Maybe this is youth speaking, but this is just stupid.

Are there people actually arguing that torture (no matter how you define it) is okay? The same people, I might add, who argue that homosexuality will be the downfall of our country? I can't believe this!

We live in the United States of America, in case you've forgotten. We are among the most honorable, noble countries on this planet, and we are that way because no matter what others may do, we strive to do the right thing, which, in this case, means not torturing others.

When the most powerful nation on the planet doesn't play by the rules, why should we expect others to? Sounds like blatant hypocrisy to me.

I wish I knew more about the specific politics of this particular situation, because it would be a lot easier if there were someone to blame. All I know is that I am sickened by the thought that people can actually justify - to themselves and others - the use of torture. It sounds to me like people are actually suggesting that torture (which has been proven to be unreliable and an inefficient way of gaining intelligence) is a path that United States should follow.

Jesus said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly." Maybe those who tout morality could take a page out of his book (no pun intended), instead of preaching that torture is okay, as long as we, "the good guys," are doing it.

You call that patriotism? I call that treason. "

krusty wrote on Dec 26, 2008 6:15 AM:

" Pharper, you make some good points.

The same people who use the bible when telling us gay marriage is wrong are the same ones trying to justify the torture of another human being. I must have missed the part about gay marriage being wrong and torture being good.

No one here who has promoted the use of torture against these rumored terrorists is also okay with torture being used against Americans. Well, you can't have it both ways. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 26, 2008 10:42 AM:

" NB…really? I suppose it’s irrelevant that the article I quoted wasn’t written by WSJ staff or that it was written by a former Democrat? “Of course not“…alright, the other problem with your inference is there isn’t a ‘reputable nonpartisan study’ that backs up your claims.

I’d be more than happy to quote Foreign Affairs, History Channel or even the ultra liberal Current History but few Register readers have access to, requires a lot more of my time pointing out policies and/or arguments and consequences….while the WSJ allows ‘guest use’ and usually provides the same links.…besides it wouldn’t make any difference to libs their mentality is moveon or nothing.’

The UCLA Political Science Dept has a long history of ‘tracking’ media bias on a blind rating system, read it and rate it without disclosing publication, and the WSJ News across the board scores more liberal than the NY Times. Using the same method, listen to it and it-rate it, taking in all the major networks and cable news channels, only 1 rated balanced or close to middle of the political road …...care to guess?

I doubt seriously there’s a more respected newspaper in this country than the Wall Street Journal whether liberal, conservative, or moderate and there is no question which of all the media sources at least attempts to be objective.

Merry Christmas! "

Hear Ye wrote on Dec 26, 2008 8:15 PM:

" GlenRoy-

If you're referring to the UCLA study by Tim Groseclose then it is obvious that you didn't actually read the study. If you're not referring to that report then can you tell me where i can find the one you speak of? "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Dec 27, 2008 9:00 AM:

" When discussing the WSJ, one should carefully distinguish between pages devoted to "news" and those devoted to editorials. The WSJ's news reporting is often quite good. The WSJ's editorial page reliably recites the GOP point of view. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 27, 2008 4:28 PM:

" hearnot
The conclusion is reached using various sources… weighting the corroborative data greater than opinions, and of course observations of the reference frequency to left, middle and right links….….standard polysci approach.

By the way…I think you need to re-read..…From the Businessworld; “”A study funded and conducted by UCLA led political scientists found that The Wall Street Journal’s news pages are the most liberal and that all but two major main stream media favor the left.”” This is corroborated in speeches and press release by the individual who conducted the study which can be found in a number of the references below.

The devil in the details…it can be misleading to the extent the data is program driven, the sum determines the bias. Since there was only one program, of one hour duration, to the right in the entire study, which is hosted by Fox, the data shows that the claim Fox is biased in either direction is purely opinion driven….no surprise here. The bottom-line is a liberal study shows Fox is the only network that comes close to being balanced….

If I had to weight the sources, as I recollect, the breakdown is somewhere along the lines....12.5% UCLA .... 12.5% Harvard... 6.25% LA Times .....6.25% AIM.....…..the balance using Pew archived data, Media Research Center achieves, American Enterprise Institute, cyber college, slate, American Conservative, National Review and of course the WSJ…. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 27, 2008 5:04 PM:

" Very good Madison....now the question is which were used? "

a teacher wrote on Dec 27, 2008 5:05 PM:

" Actually, Glenroy (are we going to follow jwk's charming example and give each other pet names. That's so middle school.), The News Hour is the most centrist, while Brit Hume's show comes in fourth. They didn't mention the entire FOX News news network, O'Rielly and Hannity would choke.

I actually read that study when it came out. It's not really very surprising to me, I know the Media is biased leftward. I just don't expect it to be otherwise. If I want an overview of an issue I go to multiple sources, left and right. I don't think it is possible to be objective.

I also question the central assumptions that the authors make in determining how to judge liberal vs conservative positions. Using "think tanks" is flawed. In my experience, think tanks stake out a position and then find evidence to support those opinions. How often do you read about a think tank reporting that they were wrong on something? "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 27, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Trials are for determining facts, not newspaper opinion pages.

Cheney deserves his day in court, as do his accusers.

Anything less is obstruction of justice.

~Ruff "

glenroy wrote on Dec 27, 2008 6:49 PM:

" I agree Teach….

I spend far more time reading articles from sources I tend to disagree with than those I would not….what is gained studying times tables after they‘ve been memorized.

With respect to Mayer, I did not reach a conclusion using sites like the American Thinker or whatever other conservative sites are out there. I went to moveon, and kos and started picking through Jane Mayer’s quotes/links. Using the links led to any number of articles she wrote hacking Republicans, which eventually led to her settlement of a Defamation of Character suit, and ultimately her vicious and classless attacks on Reagan after he was diagnosed with a terminal illness…. What a lovely and classless &*#ch….though on these sites she’s that ‘Ace NY Writer’….

I guess one’s ace is another’s joker. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 27, 2008 6:51 PM:

" They didn't mention a lot but other studies did.... "

glenroy wrote on Dec 27, 2008 8:04 PM:

" Teach…it is what it is and I wouldn’t argue with any of your comments…. There are any number of media bias studies and surveys and each leads to who knows how many interpretations? I’m of the opinion most Americans wouldn’t know the difference between blind study and an opinion survey. As for the other…what gain is there studying time tables that have been memorized…I prefer to read more material of those I tend to disagree than agree, most usually restate the facts correctly leaving the conclusions/opinions as the issue.

Moveon and kos were the sources used to find Jane Mayer’s bio…..it’s a heck of a lot quicker and there are infinitely more links using an advocating site than adversary. "

skeptic wrote on Dec 27, 2008 9:39 PM:

" pharper. this is the 2nd time this year that a young person has said something so profound on this blog that it was a cut above all the "adult" comments including my own. i am so happy to hear at least one person is shocked we are even having this conversation about torture as if it were just another topic to debate.
i can not imagine germans writing in to the paper about how jews and others should be tortured around the 1930's or 40's. they would be ashamed to be caught doing such things and even the open calls for the death of others like minority groups was not ever used as an open excuse to torture babies or rape children.
it has fallen to the people of the united states to make a public record of their descent below even the morality of the the nazis in a public way and many have come to answer the call , " how low would i descend in morality to prove that i hate the enemy ? "
on the other hand, if there are more young people like yourself, i have hope that this republic may yet regain it's moral compass and continue to be an inspiration to others that want freedom, justice, and civil rights. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 28, 2008 7:30 AM:

" The reason that the American public did not 'discuss' torture was because the American public abhors torture. I haven't seen one, not even one, opinion poll where the American public approved of torture or turning our military into torturers.

This 'discussion' was started by Republicans who wished to go against over 230 years of American law and against the spirit of the Declaration of Independence by writing 'memos' saying torture was OK.

Since the 'discussion' was started, the story of this 'discussion' has always been the same... a very small minority of people arguing that the vast majority of decent Americans should tolerate the hypocritical American government using despicable unproductive, immoral and illegal torture techniques just because the president 'got a memo' saying he could.

The conservative dominated US Supreme Court has already ruled against the torture-enablers, so taking the torture-enablers to court has a predictable outcome.

That's why the Republican-enablers are doing their darnest to prevent those trials from occurring.

It's also why those trials MUST occur or as soon as another bunch of morally-bankrupt liars with a penchant for secrecy will be back in office and pick up where the Bushite-Republicans left off in their attempts to destroy the US Constitution and the balance of powers.

~Ruff "

glenroy wrote on Dec 28, 2008 9:44 AM:

" This debate isn’t about torture…it‘s never been about torture…….it’s about partisan hacks who’s agenda it is to return this country to the policies that brought us 9/11.

It’s not about the few instances of torture…..it’s about protecting American lives and it’s about the thousands who died successfully keeping this country safe since 9/11.

It’s too bad there are still people around who haven’t figured out the cost of freedom has always been paid with somebody else’s blood….maybe if was their blood or their families blood they’d think of the forest instead a few rotten trees. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Dec 28, 2008 9:44 AM:

" So-called "centrists" and "moderates" are just as partisan as those described as "leftists" and "right wingers." "

napablogger wrote on Dec 28, 2008 11:32 AM:

" skeptic, I agree with you. After my first article on this, Ruff asked me why I hadn't written about it before, and I was always stuck with the question, how do explain to someone who thinks it is ok that it is not ok? How do you explain that it is not ok to have sex with children to someone who thinks it is ok? that it is not ok to rape someone?

It just seems like some things are fundamentally wrong, and as a Republican I expected my other Republicans, who have always championed eternal values, to understand that. And a lot of them do, but sadly the majority do not.

What I find is that on their pet issues of military and war, like the Democrats on their pet issues of welfare and greedy rich people, the eternal values fly out the window.

Not that I don't think there is sometimes room for flexibility, but some things are just wrong. Torture is one of them. "

Raven wrote on Dec 28, 2008 1:17 PM:

" actually glenroy....amazing how casually you dismiss but the physical and psychological abuse and the abuses of US and International law....you and yours are the ones moving the argument away from the obligation Cheney and the rest of the Bush admin had to obey the law... all of them. (Mighty free with other people's blood there too)

Btw Iraq and the lies that have gone with never had anything to do with 9/11... "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 29, 2008 8:41 AM:

" glenroy - So how much of your family's blood has been shed to protect George W. Bush's torture regime?

I'm a veteran and I come from a family with LOTS of veterans in it.

And NONE of the veterans in my family (still alive) is for Bush getting away with torturing prisoners.

The 'rotten trees' are the Bushite torture-enablers, and their apologists.

~Ruff "

jwk wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:51 AM:

" The Clinton Administration believed all the so called Lies way before Bush and Cheney. He just didn't have the Kahoenies to do anything about it even with all the attacks against us for his 8 years of Disaster. AND More people died in Ted Kennedy's Car than in War Crimes and Torture. The Domestic and Constitutional Crimes and Lies already in The Corrupt Obama Organization will make Bush & Cheney look like Church mice. Good luck with the next four years if we survive it you Hypocritical Dumocrats!! "

a teacher wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:55 AM:

" Glenroy. The biggest problem I have with your argument is a statement like this:

"It’s not about the few instances of torture…..it’s about protecting American lives and it’s about the thousands who died successfully keeping this country safe since 9/11."

Some how you have conflated the sacrifices of American soldiers with this administration's making torture official policy.

This administration made torture it's policy through "extraordinary rendition" (outsourcing torture - the CIA could play good cop/torturer), opening the prison at GITMO (a place where US law does not necessarily apply) and rebranding torture as "Harsh interrogation techniques" (and you guys accuse US on the left as being PC).

AND... This is not a partisan issue. There are lots of people on both sides of the aisle who have a problem with torture, in particular, the military. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 29, 2008 11:04 AM:

" Like I’ve said this isn’t about torture…it’s about partisan hacks and political opportunists…I pulled his off an AP story:

“”In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Yet long before “waterboarding” entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.
With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).”” "

mominapa wrote on Dec 29, 2008 2:05 PM:

" Out of 114 comments, napablogger has posted 13 times and I haven't even counted "glenroy". I have commented twice and have not seen my post here at all. What gives? "

Raven wrote on Dec 29, 2008 6:43 PM:

" okay jwk, what do Teddy's misdeeds have to do with torture...(BTW, it is cojones)

glenroy, it doesn't matter how many people they told about ... it was and is illegal. And apparently you haven't read Rockefeller letter to Bush objecting to the enhanced interrogation. "

jwk wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:27 PM:

" Rockefeller is as far left and wimpy as the rest of the Lib's including B Hussein Osamabama. You know the guy that said American Soldiers were raiding villages and killing innocent people in the dark of the night!! Think I heard something like that before from John "Limpwrist" Kerry. I'm sure you'll get your way soon enough though as There will be no GI's, Soldiers and Marines left once BO is The Commander in Chief..aka "Slanderer in MisChief" "

a teacher wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:35 AM:

" See folks, if you start giving people cute names you start sounding like jwk here. Is that what you really want? "

amh1960 wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:45 AM:

" Feminization of America? Insulting, as a female. I am a Republican, but I do not believe torture is the way. John McCain spent 5 years as a prisoner of war, all the while being tortured. He has come out against torture being used as a method to obtain information. It is illegal, and we cannot bend the law for our own personal agendas. Has anyone seen the trailer about the Frost/Nixon movie? Nixon says, when the President does it, it's not illegal...sounds familiar "

glenroy wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:09 AM:

" Well, I do read Rockefeller but only on days the sun rises….what‘s the difference Rockefeller, Pelosi, Durbin, Reid, Boxer?

Rockefeller jumped on every hack job that came down the ‘Pike‘….…including Murtha ‘s ludicrous claim entire villages were being slaughtered by our Marines. It was Rockefeller who led the House ‘cause international’ against the surge because the war was already lost… just goes to prove money can‘t buy brains.

The fact is that Bush, his Administration, didn’t authorize anything that wasn‘t thoroughly reviewed by congress before the policy was implemented. The fact is only a couple dozen were ‘tortured.‘ The fact is even after torture had ceased some Democrats questioned whether tactics had been harsh enough to be effective. Taking all the documented incidents into account, it equates to less than 1 in 1,000 detained, there are few country jails with a lower ratio. Neither Democrat or Republican who supported this effort should be faulted….they did what they felt was in our best interest and they saved lives doing it.

The real damage being caused to this country can be found on any number of Middle East media sources covering this myth of ‘widespread torture’ …. you want to preserve our way of life, educate yourself and get these idiots out of office before it’s too late, if it isn’t already.

Start is with Dr. Walid Phares….you’ll learn what the real world is about. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:17 AM:

" No doubt.... Clinton obstructed justice, tampered with witnesses, conspired to commit a felony and lied under oath.....Nixon obstructed an investigation of a 'political plumbing job' that both parties had been doing to each other since the Federalists were battling the Republicans....go figure. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:07 PM:

" krusty wrote: "I don't think taking the lives of 200,000 Japanese citizens saved millions of lives. "

Most historical analysts would disagree with you. The Japanese were fanatical, they were ready to fight door-to-door in their homeland. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:24 PM:

" Raven wrote "explain to us again how a mad man shooting up a college campus has to do with Cheney and his war crimes?'
If you can't see the connection, I feel sorry for you. The Virginia Tech event was cited as a prime example of the spirit of feminism or girly-ism (which was mentioned in quite a few prior posts). "

John Richards wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:46 PM:

" pharper wrote: "Jesus said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly."

That's a cite from the Sermon of the Mount. Biblical scholars agree that the purpose of that sermon was to show that we have all fallen short of perfection, and are therefore in need of salvation. Jesus was countering the Pharisees who taught that it was only necessary to meet the minimum requirements of the Jewish laws.
Jesus himself was not adverse to stirring up hate, as when he physically overturned the tables of the money changers; and when he said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household" (Matthew 10:34-36). "

Raven wrote on Dec 30, 2008 2:25 PM:

" Clinton was tried, Nixon was on his way to a trial, glenroy...why are you so adamant against Bush, Cheney and the rest facing their day in court, if they haven't done anything they have nothing to worry about...

JR, explain to all of us again then, because there is no connection...and being the scholar of all things Christian, you are also saying the Jesus would endorse torture against prisoners, that Jesus was stirring up hate, is that it, we want to be clear?

Bush and Cheney did less than the Pharisees, they have ignored the law in many cases completely and decided they were above the law. "

a teacher wrote on Dec 30, 2008 2:45 PM:

" JR. "Jesus himself was not adverse to stirring up hate"

That has to be one of the most mind blowing statements you've ever made on these boards. I have heard the Bible used to justify almost everything, but never that. It is true that Christ was capable of righteous anger, but stirring up hate is a new one. That puts you in the Rev. Fred Phelps territory.

Christ is called the "Prince of Peace". During the Sermon on the mount he also said "Blessed are the meek", "Blessed are the peacemakers". He counseled Peter to put his sword away with the words "those who live by the sword, die by the sword". How anyone could construe His words live together in peace and to treat each other decently is beyond me. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:28 PM:

" a teacher - I'm not surprised that the self-righteous would be OK with hateful attitudes towards fellow human beings.

They seem JUST FINE with Satan's works - the murder, the hate, the war, the death, the lying, the envy, the greed.

What's amazing to me is that they think that decent Americans will not be repulsed by their twisted view of the 'Prince of Peace'.

These folks are unwittingly doing the "Lord's Work" by coming out in the open so that the rest of us resolve to never let them near our government again.

~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:30 PM:

" NB - You still want to call yourself a 'Republican' and stand with these torture-enablers?

Ugh!

~Ruff "

pharper wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:46 PM:

" JR, you've said a lot of crazy things to "prove" your point, but that has GOT to be the craziest of all. Are you really going to try to argue the point that Jesus WASN'T for peace and goodwill towards men? Honestly? I'll just have to sit back and watch you bluster this one out, because that is seriously the most outrageous, out-there accusation I have ever heard on the Register website. "

a teacher wrote on Dec 30, 2008 5:19 PM:

" Ruff, these guys aren't Republicans. These guys don't represent the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt also had to deal with Water Boarding, his response:

"The president desires to know in the fullest and most circumstantial manner all the facts, ... for the very reason that the president intends to back up the Army in the heartiest fashion in every lawful and legitimate method of doing its work; he also intends to see that the most vigorous care is exercised to detect and prevent any cruelty or brutality and that men who are guilty thereof are punished. Great as the provocation has been in dealing with foes who habitually resort to treachery, murder and torture against our men, nothing can justify or will be held to justify the use of torture or inhuman conduct of any kind on the part of the American Army.”

Although the Army at that time exonerated the General under whose command such techniques were used, T. Roosevelt summarily fired the man.

Those were real Republicans, not these RINOS.

Teddy would have horse wipped them all. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:04 AM:

" LOL…. aren’t any Roosevelt Republicans….Lincoln Republicans are the same as….how on earth would a lib knowing little about free enterprise, geopolitics, Islamic history know? There are many Roosevelt/Lincoln Republicans around, most Napa Republicans are. We’ve been active in conservation causes long before the ’environmentalist’ arrived saving the valley, unlike Roosevelt Democrats, who’s solution to everything is more government… we have common ground just vastly differing paths…

Fair enough Raven…thought you’d never ask….….late in the evening on 9/11/01 President Bush conferenced with then Democrat Leaders who were petrified the President would call attention to the ‘policies’ that caused this mess, which of course everyone who paid attention to geopolitics knew, so an agreement was reached in the best interest of the country. In exchange Democrats promised to pass his security appointees without further debate, stand united refraining from public partisan criticism as long as our forces were overseas. So then Congress set a single day appointment record. Then along came the Pelosi/Reid Democrats banning together to dump Daschle who put this bipartisan agreement together, having reaped the benefits of the President‘s word remaining nonpartisan and despite virtually all the moderate Democrats remained loyal, it was time for the Pelosi Plan to make the country ungovernable....exactly what Copperheads attempted with our 16th President.

That’s why…so let us 'hang' those who implemented the policies that led to thousands of Americans being slaughtered... before to take the luxury to worry about how known terrorists are being treated. "

glenroy wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:30 AM:

" Teach……LOL….Roosevelt and Lincoln would have dealt with those who created this myth either by locking em up or having em exiled ….you really ought to bone up on History.

Leave it to libs to worry about how captured terrorists are being treated, but only by Republicans, after Democrats approved the process, so we all won’t worry about reversing their liberals policies which created this mess we’re fighting today and maybe to the end of mankind…

In the end war is always about priorities…. history is full of examples of liberal priorities and liberal jive talking tying to avoid their failures, but when the rubber meets the road and bullets and bombs are flying you’ll find em shivering in the TALL GRASS…while the rest of the world comes to grips with the consequences. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Dec 31, 2008 12:00 PM:

" I look forward to reading a recently published book called " George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes" by Mark Haas. "

Raven wrote on Dec 31, 2008 3:23 PM:

" glenroy, I would say it is you who heeds new history books.... Lincoln never banished anyone...he suspend habeus corpus because he could, in accordance with the constitution, the country being in a state of rebellion, the only condition where it is allowed, he stayed within the law...

and Roosevelt abhored torture..

regarding that meeting....no where can I find anything saying torture was discussed and frankly it doesnt matter because congress passed, and Bush signed, a ban on torture a couple years later, which the president ina signing statement said he would disregard as he felt necessary, putting himself above the law. And while the results of that meeting were that many laws were passed, some that people who voted for them have since publicly acknowledged were wrong or went too far, the Pres went beyond them himself in programs like the warrant-less wiretapping, only going to congress when it was revealed.

Your rabid disgust with all things you deem liberal or democratic is showing, glenroy. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 1, 2009 8:51 AM:

" Never banished anyone….read up on Copperhead for starters….LOL>>..

Little do you know.... "

glenroy wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:05 AM:

" Happy New Year to you too….

……you’re on to something there crow…maybe . Some 80 years after the progressive era it’s hard to find a single example where liberalism, as you define liberal, hasn’t ruined everything it attempted to create. It’s been 40 years since the War on Poverty was declared….we’ve spent this nation into bankruptcy and haven’t move the poverty level a percent…what $12-$15 TRILLION? Today 60% of the Federal Budget is being dumped into the big black self serving hole…

Where you are grossly wrong is Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower would have never allowed a few incidents that by definition are not even considered torture to overshadow the defense of the nation….Lincoln order how many Confederates to executed for every Union executed? Roosevelt allowed many Moros to be summarily executed?…your problem is you only read jingo.

It is disgusting to me, and many others I might add …...and to the extent it’s all the consequence of ignorance I’d have to agree whole heartedly there too…..where we differ is my disgust is the consequence of the ignorance that allows the perpetuation liberalism merely for the personal gain of holding an elected office without consideration for the intended beneficiaries……you know the ideological opposite of true selfless liberal…if there ever was one they’re long since extinct. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 1, 2009 11:45 AM:

" More relevant excerts....

It is more than 'merely' clear this is not about torture, this is about those who will say and do anything to reverse the policies that have indeed proven effective.

Quote:
""When the abuse scandal surfaced, it was the military that reported and investigated it, aggressively prosecuting the offending soldiers. Multiple investigations, including the bipartisan panel chaired by former Nixon, Ford, and Carter cabinet member James Schlesinger, have rejected the outlandish claim that President Bush installed a program of systematic prisoner abuse, much less a torture regime.

To be sure, the Schlesinger investigation also documented the exportation of interrogation tactics from Afghanistan to Gitmo to Iraq. This migration was attributable both to rotating personnel and to confusion about whether tactics approved for Gitmo had been approved for non-Iraqi detainees in Iraq. But this exportation in fact ran counter to official policy and, in any event, did not involve torture. The Schlesinger report also recounted that while U.S. forces had detained some 50,000 persons in the war on terror, there had been only 300 allegations of abuse, half of which had been investigated by late 2004. Those investigations produced 66 findings of abuse — and, significantly, only a third of those had anything to do with interrogations. There have been instances of abuse affecting about one-tenth of one percent of all detainees. This falls short of the standard of perfection but holds up well in any real-world comparison. President-elect Obama must be aware that the Cook County jail doesn’t have as good a record."" "

Raven wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:10 PM:

" re the copperheads, there was one, repeat one, by lincoln....On May 1, 1863, former Congressman Vallandigham declared that the war was being fought not to save the Union but to free the blacks and enslave Southern whites. The Army then arrested him for declaring sympathy for the enemy. He was court-martialed and sentenced to imprisonment, but Lincoln commuted the sentence to banishment behind Confederate lines.

As for the rest, Lincoln never endorsed torture of anyone, soldier or civilian, read his second inaugural address to get an idea of how he felt the south should be treated; Lincoln order regarding executions was after the Confederacy announced that any ex-slaves and their officers captured were to be summarily put to death; Roosevelt dismissed a general accused of authorizing torture even though the general had been found not guilty in a courts martial, and Eisenhower was firm that all prisoners be treated in accordance with the GA.

That jingo enough for you glenroy? "

Raven wrote on Jan 1, 2009 2:00 PM:

" glenroy, it doesn't matter if there was just one...it was and is illegal...and no report by anyone can make that fact disappear. "

Raven wrote on Jan 1, 2009 2:02 PM:

" and speaking of schelsinger, here is what he said on aug 4, 2004...

Abuses photographed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq represented "deviant behavior and a failure of military leadership and discipline" at the facility, but direct and indirect responsibility for those acts and others elsewhere went higher up the chain of command, an independent panel reported Tuesday.

The prison's weaknesses were no secret and they should have been fixed, said James Schlesinger, chairman of the four-member advisory panel appointed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in early May to investigate abuse allegations.

"We believe that there is institutional and personal responsibility right up the chain of command as far as Washington is concerned," Schlesinger told a news conference to release the 126-page report.

Former Republican Rep. Tillie K. Fowler of Florida, a panel member who was once a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, was more direct.

"We found fundamental failures throughout all levels of command, from the soldiers on the ground to Central Command and to the Pentagon. These failures of leadership helped to set the conditions which allowed for the abusive practices to take place," Fowler said. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 1, 2009 6:38 PM:

" Well…like I’ve said this isn’t about torture…it’s about political hacks and fruitcakes and losers... ….“”European Court of Human Rights and Israel’s Supreme Court have concluded that such tactics as the use of stress positions, hooding, diet manipulation, sleep deprivation, loud noises, and forceful shaking may be abusive but do not amount to torture.”” ……so the facts is that waterboarding ‘had’ never been defined as torture and sleep depredation is ‘still’ not considered torture.

Even with no less than a couple dozen investigative reports substantiating the Administrations claims that it indeed received bipartisan blessing prior to implementing interrogation procedures…the forces behind this are still stuck on partisan ignorance….had this been attempted under either the Lincoln or Roosevelt Administrations they’d been locked up for sedation or banished to Ethiopia.

How stupid is this? There has never been a war in the history of mankind where ‘criminal combatants’ received better treatment at hand of their captors.

While the rest of the country fights a war to protection future generations of Americans, libs fight from behind….…LOL…… "

Raven wrote on Jan 1, 2009 7:58 PM:

" glenroy, it is about torture....and what US law says about it....and those have been banned by US law....and Cheney office by his own words, originated the memos that found a legal justification for torture that was later refuted by the Justice department. Waterboarding has been declared a form of torture by the US and both the European Court of Human Rights and the Israeli High Court have also said that abuse of a prisoner is prohibited, whether it is torture or not.

And we are not under the Lincoln administration; a time when slavery was still legal, or the Roosevelt administration, when women could not vote; times change and societies evolve - those supporting torture need to evolve as well or those future generations will think the supporters of torture are just as savage. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:13 AM:

" "Teach……LOL….Roosevelt and Lincoln would have dealt with those who created this myth either by locking em up or having em exiled ….you really ought to bone up on History."

LOL ROTHLMAO. I think actually you need to read up on the history that doesn't quite fit your world view (less neocon revisionist history, perhaps).

As I recall from many of the books I read about the Civil War, Lincoln had to put up with quite a bit of public criticism about the way the war was conducted. I don't recall reading about masses of people being imprisoned for sedition.

It's a fact that the only person hung for war crimes after the Civil War was Henry Wirz, the Commandant of Andersonville prison. There 12,000 union prisoners of war died due to malnutrition, exposure, disease, etc. Americans were outraged by the treatment of prisoners even then.

Mr. Roosevelt also had to contend with several critics of the Philippines, prominent people, such as William Jennings Bryan, Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie. I don't recall Mr. Twain or Mr. Jennings being thrown in jail or exiled.

As far as I can discover the only way to be stripped of American Citizenship (if you are a naturalized - that is born here) is to serve in a foreign military against the USA and that was ruled unconstitutional in 1967.

So, I doubt very much that either Lincoln or T. Roosevelt would have jailed or exiled their critics (I'm sure Teddy would have loved to stick Mr. Twain in a dungeon, considering some of the things he wrote about him).

LOL... "

a teacher wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:25 AM:

" "How stupid is this? There has never been a war in the history of mankind where ‘criminal combatants’ received better treatment at hand of their captors."

LOL... Another case of go back to the history books, Glenroy. After WW2 the Allies (the USA, UK and French, that is) had thousands of prisoners who were legitimate war criminals on their hands. In no case was a prisoner mistreated or tortured (and certainly some of them deserved harsh treatment). In all cases prisoners were interrogated, cases were made and adjudicated, punishment was handed out where warranted.

The only cases where that was not the case was with prisoners captured by the Soviets. Shall we emulate them? "

glenroy wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:44 AM:

" LOL….lost my Cheerios laughing so hard…. ‘it‘s about the law‘ LOL>>>>…ok…to be fair…my 09 NY pledge ‘Fairness doctrine‘……

Here we go....excluding business ownership and management, economics, politics, government, US and world history, Presidents George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, geopolitics of all eras, war and republicanism, you libs got it, almost.

Do some homework….Democrat’s in prison for corruption out number Republicans 5 to 1.…and convicted of crimes while in office….more like 7 to 1.…sure it’s about the laws partisan hacks choose to use for partisan gain. LOL…good heavens before long they’ll claim it’s about defending the nation… "

a teacher wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:10 PM:

" Glenroy: I notice that you are very selective in your quotes. Here is a further quote from the article in the Washington Post that you quoted about Congressional briefings:

"U.S. law requires the CIA to inform Congress of covert activities and allows the briefings to be limited in certain highly sensitive cases to a "Gang of Eight," including the four top congressional leaders of both parties as well as the four senior intelligence committee members. In this case, most briefings about detainee programs were limited to the "Gang of Four," the top Republican and Democrat on the two committees. A few staff members were permitted to attend some of the briefings.

That decision reflected the White House's decision that the "enhanced interrogation" program would be treated as one of the nation's top secrets for fear of warning al-Qaeda members about what they might expect, said U.S. officials familiar with the decision. Critics have since said the administration's motivation was at least partly to hide from view an embarrassing practice that the CIA considered vital but outsiders would almost certainly condemn as abhorrent.

Information about the use of waterboarding nonetheless began to seep out after a furious internal debate among military lawyers and policymakers over its legality and morality. Once it became public, other members of Congress -- beyond the four that interacted regularly with the CIA on its most sensitive activities -- insisted on being briefed on it, and the circle of those in the know widened. "

cont: "

a teacher wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:33 PM:

" Cont:

Often you use the "congress was informed" line to defend your positions. However, you never include the fact that the Bush administration often classifies information that it wants to keep secret for political reasons. The law only requires that the top 4 law makers (2 democrats, 2 republicans) be informed. They are not allowed to discuss the contents of the briefings nor can they take notes. There is a legitimate question of who knew what and when they knew it. You tend to leave that fact out, LOL.

This administration has gone out of it's way to redefine the law and remove detainees from public scrutiny in an effort to hide what they intended to do. That, in my opinion, is a sign that they knew what they were doing doing was illegal and objectionable.

The excuse that they wanted to classify techniques so that their prisoners couldn't prepare for it doesn't hold water. Does the Bush administration really expect us to believe that Al Qaeda members, veterans of Egyptian, Syrian, Saudi, Yemeni interrogators (where we out source for serious torture), don't know what's in store for them?

LOL....

In the long run it does not matter to me that this is a result of political posturing. In my opinion the entire conduct of the war on terror has been about political posturing. Anyone in power who knew about torture and acquiesced deserves a day in court regardless of their party.

The only heroes here are Sen Rockefeller and the few members of the armed forces who have had the courage to speak out, often to the detriment of their careers. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 2, 2009 2:30 PM:

" Firstly teach…you’re wrong I didn’t quote the any newspaper….I quoted reports or part of, a couple dozen download from public records…where I added personal comments I specified…

Secondly…. your comments are opinions of a report, not a direct quote of the report, the fact is I wasn‘t selective at all I submitted the full report the Register chose not to post…

Thirdly….it’s not torture under any definition or in summation in any of these reports….which is the point…, nor in the Geneva Convention Accords or the European Human Rights Commission so what difference will it make…

Fourthly….if this isn’t a partisan Witch Hunt and the tactics used were approved by House Democrats, which they were proven to be in each report…why not include Democrats in this witch hunt…

Fifthly….the Vice President hasn’t any authority to issue policy and even if he did he did not change what Democrats had approved, so it’s a partisan witch hunt without including them…

Sixthly…applying domestic laws violates the Geneva accords…though I doubt you know reasoning behind it….it has to do with our guys being subjected to Islamic Law after capture, unfortunately they were all tortured to death before they could be tried….

Lastly….virtually every claim has proven without foundation…all the alleged abuses would amount to less than ‘one hundredth of a percent’ of those interrogated…..imagine the benefit to our security had this effort focused on bringing to justice those who dereliction of duty led to 9/11.…but that would require truth and fiction sounds better.

No matter how you slice it….it’s not about torture it’s about returning this country to the horrible policies that enabled 9/11.…and that’s a fact. "

Raven wrote on Jan 2, 2009 5:05 PM:

" okay Glenroy, from section three of the Geneva Convention

Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. Waterboarding certainly falls into that category, so it is outlaws by the GC as well as US law.

The report by Schlesinger was a democratic witch hunt?....and despite your attempts to the contrary it is about the rule of law, torture and that no one, including the president is above the rule of law.

And you are selective in picking parts of the reports, without including the fell passages that put them in context, glenroy. Face it, you are are the wrong side of the law and the wrong side of what is considered moral behavior by the vast majority of people in this nations and in western civilization as a whole.

As far as the entire report, you can post the link this way...www.xxx.com @ xxx.xxx and it will make it thru, and everyone can use the link, you just cannot use a direct link. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 2, 2009 5:13 PM:

" "Firstly teach…you’re wrong I didn’t quote the any newspaper….I quoted reports or part of, a couple dozen download from public records…where I added personal comments I specified…"

What are you talking about? You've quoted the Wall St. Journal twice and your comment on 12/24, 11:04 AM is word for word from a Washington Post Article 12/9 2007. If you didn't quote it directly, you quoted someone who quoted it.

"Thirdly….it’s not torture under any definition or in summation in any of these reports….which is the point…, nor in the Geneva Convention Accords or the European Human Rights Commission so what difference will it make…"

That's weaseling around. None of those documents attempts to name specific torture methods, for obvious reasons.

"Fourthly….if this isn’t a partisan Witch Hunt and the tactics used were approved by House Democrats, which they were proven to be in each report…why not include Democrats in this witch hunt…"

The house never approved of any interrogation methods. They were "informed" of those methods, which is different. And, as I pointed out, it is debatable who knew what, and when they knew it.

The rest is smoke screen.

Almost all of the policy decisions regarding interrogation seem to originate from Cheney's office. Your comments on the Geneva Convention (I actually do know why applying domestic law is a violation - LOL - continue to underestimate your opponents, please) are irrelevant, the Administration has repeatedly stated that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to the GITMO detainees.

"virtually every claim has proven without foundation" That's fantasy on your part. Name five reports that aren't the Bush administration investigating itself. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 2, 2009 5:17 PM:

" And as for:

"magine the benefit to our security had this effort focused on bringing to justice those who dereliction of duty led to 9/11.…but that would require truth and fiction sounds better.

No matter how you slice it….it’s not about torture it’s about returning this country to the horrible policies that enabled 9/11.…and that’s a fact. "

I would welcome that. The Clinton administration left Bush II a todo list that was topped with: Deal with bin Laden, which was promptly ignored. That is until bin Laden reminded of that he is still around.

Clinton might get a large amount of the blame, but Mr. Bush and his friends are due for big slice of the blame also. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 2, 2009 6:56 PM:

" Well now we’re getting to the heart of the real failures….

Wasn’t that mighty brave of Clinton? Dereliction of duty being ’one’ of his hallmarks he left the President Elect a “To Do list“ instead of doing what he should have done himself. Clinton eviscerated our intelligence services, spent more resources and effort trying to dismantle Microsoft than he did trying to dismantle al Qaeda, we were attacked every year Clinton was in office by al Qaeda, he missed at least half a dozen opportunities to kill OBL…but apparently he left a To Do List…LOVELY.

Now…Teach….I don’t expect math teachers to hang in the cut throat world of politics, and that‘s intended as a complement……but you failed to mention that every single Bush security appointee had been held up in Congress, actually Democrats holding up the floor vote in Committee…then miraculously the very next (Special) session after 9/11 Democrats helped Republicans set a single day congressional record of passing every Security Appointee without debate. Remarkable in many ways, not the least of which is how anyone with any common sense could imply a To Do list with any culpability while ignoring 8 years of documented dereliction of duty.

For over seven months after this President took the Oath of Office to protect this Nation, Democrats intentionally obstructed this Administration from even organizing a new National Security Team leaving us completely dependant on Clinton left overs who already failed for 8 years in a row….and all that can be said in defense of Clinton’s atrocious mismanagement is that he left a To Do List….pathetic. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 3, 2009 12:48 AM:

" "Wasn’t that mighty brave of Clinton? Dereliction of duty being ’one’ of his hallmarks he left the President Elect a “To Do list“ instead of doing what he should have done himself. Clinton eviscerated our intelligence services, spent more resources and effort trying to dismantle Microsoft than he did trying to dismantle al Qaeda, we were attacked every year Clinton was in office by al Qaeda, he missed at least half a dozen opportunities to kill OBL…but apparently he left a To Do List…LOVELY."

LOL... There you go again. It's all Clinton's fault. It's so distorted. Typically, Republicans, particularly the conservative ones try to shift the blame on to the "librulz".

Let's look at some history. At the end of the 80's and the beginning of the 90's, the Soviet Union, our chief adversary, disintegrated. The president at the time, Bush Sr. looked at our military, primarily designed to kill the Soviet Military, and concluded that we didn't need a huge force that no longer had an enemy. BUSH SR. downsized the military AND the intelligence services. He called it "The Peace Dividend".

When Clinton took office in '92, he continued the downsizing for the same reasons. Blaming Clinton for gutting the military and intelligence services is just a flat out lie.

As for Clinton vs Al Qaeda your comments reflect 20/20 hindsight and a desire to shift the blame. When Clinton took office few knew anything about Al Qaeda. AND, when the threat became apparent, they did try to get them. That the Clinton administration didn't really understand the nature and capability of bin Laden's organization is a fair critique. To claim they did nothing is not fair. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 3, 2009 12:53 AM:

" When you think of it, the records for Clinton and Bush Jr. are similar.

Both suffered attacks on US soil early in their administrations. Both suffered attacks on foreign soil. The difference is that under Clinton hundreds died, under Bush thousands died. Clinton had the handicap of having to learn about bib Laden and al Qaeda. Bush had it spelled out for him, yet chose to do nothing until 3000 people died on 9/11.

I think I'd rather have Clinton's record.

I'm sure you'll LOL... "

jwk wrote on Jan 3, 2009 8:45 AM:

" I Think I like "Slanderer in MisChief" over Barrack Insane Osamabama.. What do you think Libies?? Wonder what Our Awesome and Proud Military will call he who dissed them so many times???? "

John Richards wrote on Jan 3, 2009 10:03 AM:

" "Are you really going to try to argue the point that Jesus WASN'T for peace and goodwill towards men?"

I think the verses I quoted speak for themselves. I'm not making stuff up out of whole cloth. My point was to counter the oversimplified caricature of Jesus that libs like to portray. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 3, 2009 10:43 AM:

" JWK: How cute and classy.

JR: I almost passed scalding hot coffee through my nose at that one.

Most of what I learned about Christ comes from many hours of catechism classes in Catholic school (about the most conservative people you'll find in NYC are the Catholic church) and many hours sitting in Bible class in Middle Georgia (or as I like to call it, the Buckle of the Bible Belt). Hardly a hot bed of liberalism.

Keep the tap dance up though, that's entertainment... "

glenroy wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:44 AM:

" LOL….teach…al Qaeda is a direct consequence of a Democrat effort if you get to the heart of the matter….yea sure Democrats blame the CIA but that blamed the CIA for 9/11 and it was Democrats who put up both communication walls the 9/11 attackers exploited after the had eviscerated their ranks…. Democrat’s blamed Bush for Freddie and Fannie which were exclusive Democrat Fraternal Government agencies….anyway get a clue:

Clue # 1 Who authorized Stingers?
Clue # 2 Who approved hundreds of millions to fundamentalists?
Clue #3 Who ignored a decade of al Qaeda attacks?
Clue #4 Who gutted our intelligence agencies twice?
Clue #5 Who removed the Western World’s staunchest ally and replaced with a fundamentalist terror dependant Islamic Republic?

….tell those DNC teachers to keep their hand off your kids….next thing you know 2 plus 2 will be Bush’s fault…. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:56 PM:

" "Clue # 1 Who authorized Stingers?

Clue # 2 Who approved hundreds of millions to fundamentalists?"

Didn't that happen during the Regan Administration? Are you seriously trying to blame the Democrats for that? Right now I'm reading an article by James A. Phillips from the Heritage Foundation (you know, that bastion of liberal thought). In 1984 he advocated exactly what you're trying to pin on Democrats, give them money, give them Stingers. Are you trying to argue that the Regan Administration was NOT fully behind kicking Russkie butt, especially if American soldiers didn't have to do it? LOL ROFLMAO!

From the rest of your post I can see that apparently you are unconcerned with facts.

"Clue #3 Who ignored a decade of al Qaeda attacks?"

No one. Clinton actually did try to combat Al Qeada, as detailed in Richard Clarke's book. How effective he was is another question and a fair point.

"Clue #4 Who gutted our intelligence agencies twice?"

That would be Bush Sr. Followed by Clinton. Perhaps you forgot the "Peace Dividend".

"Clue #5 Who removed the Western World’s staunchest ally and replaced with a fundamentalist terror dependant Islamic Republic?"

The only person removed from power by the US (recently) would be Saddam Hussein. Was he an ally, I must have missed that.

Perhaps you meant the Shah of Iran? That would be the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic revolution.

Perez Musharraf? Resigned.

Who else?

LOL "

glenroy wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:45 AM:

" We’re operating at two different levels because you really don‘t know basic facts regarding geopolitical issues, even Hollywood could help you out here…. is that sad or what?

Almost verbatim your 9/11 ’opinions’ can be read on Kos or DNC, except the date 9/11, there is no fact involved with either source.

There is virtually no dispute, academic or investigative, that this threat was established and flourished under Clinton, that Gorelick’s intelligence wall was the key that allowed the 9/11 attacks. That the core plotters were in this country before President Bush was even elected. Though, no stretch for a lib blaming the Texas Governor for Clinton failures seems rather childish to say the least.

When President Bush took the Oath of Office, there was no collaborative means to know the terrorist were already stateside. There was nobody within the Clinton leftovers who knew, the intelligence agencies didn’t know because they’re staffs had been gutted and even if they had known, it wouldn’t have made any difference because they couldn’t legally pass information to or from the FBI until a ’crime’ was committed. The FBI attempted and was barred by ’Gorelick’s wall’ from even seeking CIA information on suspected and known terrorists until they committed a crime. This is precisely why House Democrats have desperately avoided being held accountable, this is why the 9/11 Commission scope was so limited, this is why Democrats rushed into Special Session passing every Bush Security Appointee without debate.

The fact is President Bush had no choice but to rely on Democrat holdovers who were far more concerned about public opinion than National Security…as always. "

Raven wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:16 PM:

" glenroy, in the summer of 2001 Bush got a memo warning of a attack using airliners and disregarded it and the democrats couldn't rush any thing because the GOP controlled all the houses of Congress. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:29 PM:

" I would recommend you actually read the memo instead of using a paraphrased Democrat copy of it..…and you ought read one of the dozens of books written by the anti-terrorist agents who were fanatically warning this country throughout the 1990s….seems like the only people who didn’t pay any attention were liberals…no surprise there.

The memo‘s next to the ‘To Do List’ Clinton stuck Bush with along with his ‘Crack Clinton Security Team’ while Pelosi Democrats were playing politics with national security…..any wonder they don’t get it?

>>>> "

Raven wrote on Jan 5, 2009 7:19 PM:

" I have read it, as well the entire 9/11 report and Clarke's book as well as the interrogators book and I have read some of the Bush apologists ... glenroy your facts are so far from what the official reports state as to be almost comical...but again....since congress was controlled by the GOP why did they even need the Democrats to pass anything?....no filibusters were being threatened...so no need for a super-majority in the senate...and all the appropriate committees had GOP majorities on them....so anything the GOP wanted to pass they good...and did often enough. "

Raven wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:22 PM:

" matter of fact glenroy...here ya go...

The confidential President's Daily Brief (PDB) for August 6, 2001 contained a two-page section entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," and refers to possible hijacking attempts by Osama bin Laden disciples and the existence of about 70 FBI investigations into alleged al-Qaeda cells operating within the United States. The August 6 PDB was presented to Bush while he vacationed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:26 AM:

" Might be a comprehension thing .….

‘There was nothing in that ‘memo’ an average well read American didn’t already know!’

It would help your own cause to learn how congressional games effect appointments….though amateurs compared to Democrats…it‘s Republican‘s turn.

9/11 Commission…… The ‘scope’ limit’s the time period of the report. Partisan posturing during formation of the commission doomed it when Democrat’s refused to participate unless Gorelick was seated on, then refused to allow ANY Democrat Policy review…nice uh? For a President that was under massive stress and pressures to rebuild our defenses how much time do you think he had to fight another partisan battle? So much for patriotic Democrats.

Gorelick should’ve been testifying before the Commission explaining her ‘additional wall’ after she admitted it was unnecessary…the report didn’t even mentioned Gore’s Phased Security Plan ‘safe for Americans to fly again.‘ I suppose libs didn’t noticed the effectiveness of Gore’s Security either?

Clarke?….spent 8 years as a second class citizen in the Clinton Administration…he was never within Clinton’s circle…like the CIA Director whom Clinton never once met with privately to discuss al Qaeda…NOT ONCE. Clarke failed to get Clinton to do anything except of course yap on national tv about his personal outrage and bomb a few abandoned mud huts….but then that was your ’General’s idea of how to protect American from future attacks.’

For every political book like by a ‘Clarke’ there are half a dozen written in most part by Liberal Democrats who actually did the work in the trenches where the real story of the operational failures occurred and they’ve since suffered greatly for doing their duty detailing the specifics of 8 years of dereliction. "

Raven wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:25 AM:

" Again and again Glenroy, the 'wall' you keep bemoaning was created in 1978 and was endorsed be each and every administration until the attack on 9/11, this includes Ashcroft and Bush.

So your constant attempt to blame it all of Gorelick is just more smoke and mirrors to attempt to deflect attention away from the Bush security team which, even in the face of a memo saying bin laden was preparing to attack, that the FBI had 70 ongoing investigations relation to al-qaeda underway, decided it wasn't worth pursuing, something the even the well-read citizen would not have know since it was classified at the time.

And the Clinton administration did pursue and convict those responsible for the first tower attack. Something Bush and company seem unable to do.

Have you forgotten it was the Bush administration who didn't want any commission to investigate 9/11 and bowed to bipartisan (since the GOP controlled both houses of Congress) pressure for the commission, made up equally of democratic and GOP appointees.

Repeating things you know are false over and over again doesn't make them any truer. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:11 PM:

" LOL....if you can't find the Gorelick Wall you're not even in the right league.... "

Raven wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:35 PM:

" glenroy, read the post again....but in case you are having problems, the wall was not created by Gorelick...it was created in 1978 after the congressional investigation revealed to illegalities of the CIA and FBI. It has been confirmed be each and every president and attorne3y general, in Bush and Ashcroft and no action was taken to remove the wall until after 9/11. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:18 PM:

" “‘A wise woman does at once what a foolish man does eventually’”

Clue #333 Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White….enclosed is a small portion of her effort to let the highest levels of ’Clinton’s Crack Security Team’ know that Gorelick’s Wall Clinton was signing off on would ’kill’ the ‘ al Qaeda Indictments’ which, included bin Laden for his direct contribution to WTC #1 Conspiracy…. eventually leading to domestic terrorism….this was ‘redacted’ by Democrats from inner communication memo’s who ‘threatened to walk off’ if it was publicly released …hundreds of pages.

This communication refers to Ms. White’s 1996 efforts

Quote:
“Not all were happy at the time with Gorelick's action. New York City-based U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White was appalled by the Gorelick directive, sending two of her own memoranda back to Janet Reno and Gorelick protesting, “The most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating.” Her recommendations were ignored.

According to the New York Post, White was so incensed by their actions that she wrote a second, scathing memorandum warning that the “wall” hindered law enforcement efforts to combat terrorism. “It will cost lives,” she reportedly warned. This second memo is still kept secret.’
End

“Kept secret’ means Democrats will not release the contents.

Ms. White was and may still be a Democrat…..read the Wall…written by libs even.

What’s not so funny about this crow, is the FBI, CIA, DIA and DSS tried to get Gorelick’s Wall removed, all except Ms White backed down under direct threat of the Clinton…..here’s the real 9/11 story all American’s deserve to know. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:58 PM:

" A summary of the Commission’s redaction of Ms. White’s memo, also other agency comments regarding ‘Clinton’s Crack Security Team.’

Quote;
Her ‘(Mary Jo White)’ prophecy proved accurate; in 2000 ( 4 years later) , members of the Department of Defense knew of an al-Qaeda operative in the United States, but the DoD – hands tied by Gorelick’s policy – declined to alert the FBI, a step that might have prevented the 9/11 attacks . At this time, al-Qaeda had already, either directly or through its affiliates, killed American soldiers in Somalia, detonated the Khobar Towers, and bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In the summer of 2000, they attacked the U.S.S. Cole.

This inaction seemed to fall into line with the Clinton administration’s general disregard for terrorism. Although the discredited former National Security Council ‘staffer’ Richard Clarke presented President Clinton as an anti-terrorism warrior, former intelligence officer Ralph Peters tells a much different story. “Admitting that [terrorist] threats were real. threatened to destroy the belief system the Clintonites had carried into office,” Peters detailed. In regards to the entire terrorist network, methodology, and ideology, the Clintons were “a textbook case of denial.” It was bad enough, as the “Able Danger” reports indicate, that the Clintons were willfully ignorant of the threat but their criminal negligence was compounded by a sleazy attempt to pass the buck on the Bush administration. Bill Clinton never made any serious retaliation for any of these provocations, nor the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, emboldening these terrorists, assuring through his “intelligence wall” that 9/11 terrorists could not be properly identified and apprehended, and passing the blame for the inevitable outcome of his policies to the nascent Bush administration.
End

Good reason for ‘their’ paranoia 9/12/01.…hundreds of federal agents agree… "

glenroy wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:59 PM:

" Need anymore? "

Raven wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:51 PM:

" and that wall was signed off on in 2001 by ashcroft....where is your outrage at them?...you are very selective, ignoring the facts that the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations all signed off on the wall and Bush II made no attempts to change it until after 9/11.

If this other memo were so secret, you know the contents how? and it seems the wall didn't hinder prosecutions and conviction of the first attackers of the tower.

The GOP controlled the house in 1996 and could have passed changes, which or may not have gotten thru the senate, but in 2001, the GOP controlled all of Congress, and yet did nothing about the wall, strange.

And you also avoid the lil fact that Bush received that famous memo outlining bin laden's planning to attack from the CIA and the 70 ongoing investigations of al-qaeda in the US, strange, where was the wall there? "

glenroy wrote on Jan 6, 2009 10:59 PM:

" It is comprehension ..

That last or latest diatribe…. ‘what didn’t exist earlier, actually did exist but Bush signed off‘…. well then…I guess that settles it…? Excluding leftwing conspiracy theorist… I couldn’t imagine who made that one up… I didn’t check Kos but I’ll do so soon.

This boiler plate ‘memo’ you seem to think is so damaging had absolutely nothing in it… I read it like everyone when it was ’revealed’ by CNN ‘Bush’s smoking gun‘…they put up on the screen everybody was expecting some blood in the water...and darn near verbatim…all it said was. ’al Qaeda is ‘thought’ to be planning or attempting to use commercial airliners for terrorist attacks.’ that was…2001 August…Wow some hot suff By chance did it mention anything about here, there, where, dates, expected timelines, suspects, corroboration, suggested action? Of course not…but all that would be there if it was even remotely suspected to be actively working…they were here but nobody would even talk to each other about it…thanks to Clinton's Gorelick Wall.

I hate to break it to ya crow but, pretty much everybody who could read or wasn’t dependant on CNN knew al Qaeda’s intent when the Bojinka plot was exposed in January 1995. The Philippine government sent over Ramzi Yousef’s Toshiba laptop giving every little detail on a plot using 11 or so US airliners,it was covered by the networks, not well but enough that well read citizens should have known…. Clinton and Pelosi Democrats didn‘t pay any attention either.

The wilderness isn‘t so bad….. "

Raven wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:42 PM:

" the memo was the same one you quoted glenroy, given to rice and bush and then dismissed by them as insignifance.....pretty smoking for a smoking gun...

Yu are so fixated upon Clinton, you refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that there was enuff blame to spread around over multiple administrations..we can trade memos all day long to no end and you will refuse to admit there is even a possibility that Bush and company may have something to blame,you refuse to acknowledge the GOP controled at least one house since 94 and since 2001 both houses and could have changed and approved anything they wanted to if they had the desire, democrats or not ... such is life.

Speaking of the Clintons, do you think Hilary had Vince Foster murdered too? "

glenroy wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:13 PM:

" Nope…. I don’t think she had him knocked off but….it was well known both were unhappily married. They almost certainly were having or had an affair and one or both of them were covering up the Travel Office firing, and hiding her entire career billing records from the Rose Law firm…two or three perjuries and at least that many obstructions of justice….all in a days work in the Clinton Administration.

BTW: If you like I have the Gorelick Wall down loaded and ready to go…. "

aknra wrote on Jan 9, 2009 4:49 PM:

" Tell me where the outrage is over the self admitted war criminal John F. Kerry's own video recorded Winter Soldier confession? "

Raven wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:23 PM:

" shoot...the veracity of your statements about haven't changed I would wager....

hmmm...maybe there would be if Kerry were president, but he ain't, Bush is. "

aknra wrote on Jan 11, 2009 9:45 AM:

" Blah blah blah... The selected outgrage is deafening. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 11, 2009 12:53 PM:

" aknra...amen! "

Raven wrote on Jan 11, 2009 3:34 PM:

" aknra, you want to run out the names of the others thousands of US Viet Nam vets who have repudiated the country's policy on that war. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: