“There is nothing against you. But there is no innocent person here. So, you should confess to something so you can be charged and sentenced and serve your sentence and then go back to your family and country, because you will not leave this place innocent.”
bloc posted on Oct 04, 2009
| views: 168
that torture was used for what it is always used for. To get people to say what the torturer wants them to say. This is an american courts quotation of what an interrogator said to a captive during a torture session.
Comments
-
ALIENated said on Oct 05, 2009....
Well, that is clearly wrong. So what? Anyone that did that should be in big trouble. Were you expecting some sort of argument about that? My question might be, how many cases like this have been uncovered? And, is there a possibility that the detainee was lying about all this?
-
stopmediabias said on Oct 05, 2009....
Everytime you come up with one of these I go and read three different accounts. The account of the government in which they had a valid reason(s) to hold someone and did. The account in a newspaper which will occasionally give all the facts but in left-wing bias form. Then the account of some ignoramous pissed off at Republicans. It is pay back time for these guys and they could care less about the truth. These guys practically paint a story of a sweet holy man floating through the desert giving food and water to the poor sporting a halo until the evil Bush/Cheney torture regime swooped in and tortured them on the spot for being Arab.
How many time do I have ask:
How many people have been detained and released?
How many accusations, investigations, and prosecutions?
How many detainees who have been released ran right back to the battlefield bragging they lied to get free?
The sheer numbers involved in just the questions above contradicts your entire premise.
And in the future I am going to site Alienated as a source. He is a blogger and being that he is a prolific and intelligent blogger then we can consider him an expert and I should be able to site him as proof to back up my asertions. Am I right?
-
bloc said on Oct 05, 2009....
@alienatedGreat questions, let's get a prosecutor on it to figure it out, what do you say?@smbempty rhetoric, empty rhetoric -
sheltercrow said on Oct 05, 2009....
intelligent blogger? lmao. Alien?
See ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen "High Value Detainess" in CIA Custody, 14 Feb 2007 for some interesting proof. That's ICRC as in International Committee of the Red Cross. -
SeanRenaud said on Oct 05, 2009....
The funny part is that the "liberal" media is ignoring this. Instead of screaming it from the mountaintops. -
sheltercrow said on Oct 05, 2009....
SeanRenaud: Since the media is 'ignoring this' that would obviously contradict the notion that it's liberal. The main stream (ie corporate) media has built a 'sand castle' to defend Cheney.
-
SeanRenaud said on Oct 05, 2009....
They didn't really build a sand castle. They realized that if they don't say it loud no defense at all is required. And that was kind of my point.
-
ALIENated said on Oct 05, 2009....
... the "liberal" media is ignoring this ...
Of course they are. They used it to demonize the Bush administration, the people that kept America safe for seven years following 9/11. Plus, if anyone digs too deep, they will most likely uncover a pile of meaningless do do. So I would agree ... let's get a prosecutor on it to figure it out.
Obama will never allow it because he will soon be using the same methods or watching American cities being blown off the map.
By the way, what would you bleeding hearts think about Bush if he had done nothing and another major American city had been nuked? What would you tell the families of all the dead? "Well, at least we refrained from pouring any water in anyone's face." I know that would make me feel so much better.
I have said it before and I will say it again ... grow up boys. The world is a scary place these days. The rules have changed. We did not change them. Humane practices are reserved for humane soldiers, not weasels who sneak into our country, steal airplanes, and kill our citizens.
I do not like war and I do not like torture, but I like terrorists even less. As I have also said, the Bush administration was simply in the right place at the wrong time, during a paradigm shift. There was a time that we loved our country and killed our enemies. In the age of Obama, it is more fashionable to hate our country and love our enemies. Of course, we will pay for that attitude all too soon.
And you may quote me on that.
-
SeanRenaud said on Oct 05, 2009....
1. I strongly resent being called a Bleeding Heart. Liberal? Maybe. Bleeding Heart? fuck no.
2. Yeah I highly suspect that Obama will be using the same techniques.
3. The world isn't really any scarier than it used to be and part of why it is scary is our fault or at leas the West's fault.
4. In order for me to have something to say about Bush doing nothing and another major city being nuked first ONE city would need to be nuked. I know what you meant however. No one is saying we should have done nothing. Very few people even after 8 years of war don't support the war in Afghanistan.
5. The Obama administration is about personal responsibilty. We made mistakes. Some we probably should have known were stupid ideas at the time like Vietnam. Others we had no way of knowing such as supporting the Taliban against the Russians. I'll be honest I'd rather live in a world that we have now where the most dangerous thing we face are a bunch of whackadoos making due with busted equipment rather than a world where we still have Russia, real Russia not the crippled bastard calling itself Russia, potentially jumping off a nuclear war. We couldn't have known that Russia was going to implode.
-
sheltercrow said on Oct 05, 2009....
ALIENated: You have to be borderline retarded to believe the corporate media has a liberal bias. All their CEO's and board members are republicans.
Reading your limitless wisdoms you would almost believe that 9/11 happened on another presidents watch. The fool failed. You sound stupid with your 'right place at the wrong time' dementia. It's more like 'he should never have been ignored everything except daddies Iraq.'
A paradigm shift? Do you even know what a paradigm is? Terrorism has been around well before the CIA created Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.'Al-Qaida, literally 'the base,' was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians' -- former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook
Every time you mention Bush it's to cast the blame elsewhere. Every time you mention Obama it's to cast all the blame. You are clearly a lunkhead. -
SeanRenaud said on Oct 05, 2009....
Sorry Shelter. 9/11 just happened. At the most Bush ignored signs that Clinton had ignored for years. Shit happens and sometimes it's nobody's fault. -
sheltercrow said on Oct 05, 2009....
Sean: You have to do a little research old man. Clinton warned Bush. -
stopmediabias said on Oct 06, 2009....
bloc-how about answering the question instead of this evasion that speaks volumes as to how you're getting spanked in this debate.
Not the question about that actual topic you have all ready evaded those in the past. I mean the question about using Alien as source.
Shouldn't I be able to use Alien as a credible source? My posts are well researched and I stand by them, should Alien (being a conservative) be able to use me as source?
-
ALIENated said on Oct 06, 2009....
Sean, you will have to forgive shittercow. It does not understand what SMB was getting at ... something is not necessarily true just because someone puts it on the internet. Cutting and pasting page after page of nonsense someone has put on the internet does not guarantee that anyone reads past your first couple of retarded words.
-
sheltercrow said on Oct 06, 2009....
empty-headed and the anal-probe team up? You guys are already as close as a wart with hair.
My comments will not change because you mindless drones disapprove. -
SeanRenaud said on Oct 06, 2009....
It doesn't matter if Clinton warned Bush. There still wasn't anything he could have done shy of become clairvoyent. It's the flip to Clinton could have had Osama killed. Both made decisions with the information they had, both made the wrong call. We lost three thousand lives immediately and more than that after the fact because of those decisions. -
sheltercrow said on Oct 06, 2009....
Sean: You're sure now. Nothing he could have done. How does he get a pass on 'ignored signs that Clinton' obviously didn't ignore 'for years?' -
bloc said on Oct 06, 2009....
@smbYou can use whoever you want as a source. I think people that pay attention are generally smart enough to figure out who is and isn't credible over time.@seanI don't think we can blame any one person in american government for 9/11, but there are some important questions to ask. For one, after getting a memo entitled "bin laden determined to strike in us" was anything significant done?As you mentioned, there is plenty of blame to go around, but it's important to note this when others are claiming that Bush kept us safe. -
SeanRenaud said on Oct 06, 2009....
Yes Shelter I feel comfortable saying that there was nothing he could have done. I am comfortable with that assessment of the situation. I do strongly believe that Clinton should have taken the shot when he had it politics be damned. Just like I feel strongly that back when we didn't have an active war and Saddam kicked the inspectors out that should have been the end of Saddam's rule.
That said who knows that Bush did or didn't do after getting that memo. While I believe he made more than his fair share of mistakes I do believe that man loves America as much as any man and if there was something he could have done to prevent 9/11 he would have done it.
-
bloc said on Oct 06, 2009....
I'm bloc, not shelterI'm not suggesting that Bush intentionally didn't do anything, I'm suggesting that his administration was obsessed with other things and didn't take it as seriously as they should have.We've talked about Saddam "kicking" out the inspectors before. It's a sordid history. Remember the CIA abused the inspections and tried to assassinate saddam via the inspections. I believe all people and governments have a right to defend themselves from such things. You can't try to kill someone via inspections and then complain if he doesn't allow the inspections.I'm not defending Saddam, I just think it's important to get the details straight. -
sheltercrow said on Oct 06, 2009....
Sean: Where did you get the idea that 'Saddam kicked the inspectors out.'
Bush ordered the inspectors to leave Iraq.
U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL ORDERS INSPECTORS, STAFF TO LEAVE IRAQ
Chief U.N. inspector Blix to leave job -
bloc said on Oct 06, 2009....
there have been many different inspections of Iraq. Here is a timelineWe tried to assassinate him via the weapons inspectors in 1996, before he kicked them out the first time. source -
sheltercrow said on Oct 06, 2009....
bloc: I assume that sr was writing his brain cramp about the 2003 episode. I've seen the time line and have read the Nation for 20 years.
-
SeanRenaud said on Oct 06, 2009....
Actually I meant in 98 under Clinton. The very first time you break a treaty you get squished. And if we tried to assassinate him we should have been brought up on charges to pay for that. That's got to be a war crime of some sort (course I'm not sure how this plays in with the most recent time he'd been ethnically clensing but still). Fair is fair. If we expect other people to play by the rules we have to play those same rules.
-
sheltercrow said on Oct 07, 2009....
Sean: you're so full of shit it shines. -
bloc said on Oct 08, 2009....
"The very first time you break a treaty you get squished."Does this apply to everyone? Israel breaks a lot of rules with no consequences. -
SeanRenaud said on Oct 08, 2009....
I just said it applies to America. But for the moment I was more specifically speaking about the defeated party. The people who are alive because we have mercy because that's what it is. We spared Saddam at the end of the Gulf War. We could easily have leveled his country if it had been our intention so in a very real sense he owed us his life and so did each and every one of his citizens.
But yeah by all means hold Isreal to follow the law. Just make damn sure you nail the fuck out of Palestine. And make sure that the crime for say putting a weapons depot under a school is a higher crime than blowing up said school. But yeah you want Isreal take em. I do believe that if you make a law and you agree to follow it there should be consquences (which on a side note is why no force on earth could have gotten me to sign the GC if I were America, particularly as we are seeing what any four year old could tell. War doesn't have rules. But the US we tie one hand behind our backs and wear blind folds. Cus the rules say we should)
-
bloc said on Oct 09, 2009....
I still think you are working with a too simplistic definition of war. -
SeanRenaud said on Oct 09, 2009....
I think we have overcomplicated War. It really should be limited to countries attempting to subdue each other through force. We really need to come up with other words for these other things because at some point you aren't really talking about ANYTHING. The result is of course that you can make up the rules as you go along. -
ALIENated said on Oct 13, 2009....
So, bloc, you keep your comments cleaned up, do you. How do you explain skifflebag's comments about Sean? How do those relate to the subject at hand?
-
bloc said on Oct 13, 2009....
honestly, I don't read them most of the time.
Comment on "Now we have proof"
Related Posts:
curmudgeon
posted 3 days ago
| views: 87
|
Science and propaganda merge in global warming "debate."... read entire post
pickersplock
posted 6 days ago
| views: 69
|
Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper.... read entire post
ALIENated
posted 3 days ago
| views: 61
|
Even Chris Mathews at MSNBC is starting to question Obama.
... read entire post