Waterboarding veto

roisto

Though it was expected of him, but still: shameful, disgusting and Reuters: President George W. Bush on Saturday vetoed legislation passed by Congress that would have banned the CIA from using waterboarding and other controversial interrogation techniques.Lawmakers included the anti-torture measure in a broader bill authorizing U.S. intelligence activities."Because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists," Bush said in his weekly radio address. He added that the vetoed legislation "would diminish these vital tools."

grandpa_shig

slighly related but i used to do some "waterboarding" or at least thats what we called it. yeah, so central cali is basically a maze of drainage and irrigation canals. when one of my hammies got old enough to drive we would tie off a rope to dudes b210 and fixed a hitch to a piece of particle board and he'd pull someone down the canal on that waterboard. i could never get it going tho. in fact i weighed to much and that piece of particle board snapped in two when i tried it this once.

hammertime

The only thing more mindblowing than this veto is the fact that my mind is blown by it. What an asshole.

funky16corners

the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains the danger remains [/b]


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

HAZ

If these dudes have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, then that's what they got to do. If all y'all were alive in 1940, everyone would be speaking German right now & my family would be dead.

Jonny_Paycheck

Are you joking

Swayze

If these dudes have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, then that's what they got to do. If all y'all were alive in 1940, everyone would be speaking German right now & my family would be dead.

What the fuck? Are you serious?

luck

If these dudes have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, then that's what they got to do. If all y'all were alive in 1940, everyone would be speaking German right now & my family would be dead.

Maybe The Problem Is That George W. Bush Is Trying To Make An Omelette Instead Of Running A Country We Could Have Been Proud Of For The Last Seven-And-A-Half Years (Yes, That Must Be It).

b/w

But 90,000+ Iraquis ARE Dead (Tod Ist Tod).

Ex-Boyfriend

Isnt it interesting that liberals are outraged at the prospect of terrorists getting waterboarded, but not a single one has proposed that we stop waterboarding our own forces during training. Proof that liberals love terrorists and hate the troops? you bet it is

roisto

Come on man, can't you do better than that?

hammertime

Isnt it interesting that liberals are outraged at the prospect of terrorists getting waterboarded, but not a single one has proposed that we stop waterboarding our own forces during training. Proof that liberals love terrorists and hate the troops? you bet it is

Well done! Here's your "Worst Apples and Oranges Comparison Ever Made" award!

Ex-Boyfriend

As is usual when I raise one of my excellent points; lots of name calling from intemperate homo's, but no counter arguments. IM SPEEDING, ITS ALL I KNOW, SINCE A YOUNGIN I WAS TAUGHT TO GET DOE

HAZ

I've heard people say that war is hell & I absolutely believe it, like crazy Dante's Inferno type schitt. I know that people try to legislate it, make rules or laws according to how it can be fought, but I don't think you can apply any human law to an inhuman experience. In the end, the people who are the most ruthless, hungry & desperate win. It's a sprial where one side tries to out do the other in regards to cruelty & violence. I don't think I have any right to judge men of war. Even the things they do that are within the rules of war are beyond the imagining of most people. Whether or not you support this "war on terror", a war that was built largely on decit IMO, that doesn't change the fact that America's in the middle of some schitt. War is underway, troops are overseas. All debates are meaningless at this point because it's too late to call off the party. There are two options now - live or die. If you want to live, be prepared to read some awful things in the newspapers. If you want to die, then that's your business. But there's no turning back now. Almost 100,000 dead. I don't think people of Iraq are going to easily forget or forgive that. I know I wouldn't. This is only the beginning.

hammertime

The problem with torture is as follows:

"Also, the detainee states that he made up stories during the torture in order to get [it] to stop."

Shit, just look at Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that guy confessed to everything but the assassination of Abraham Lincoln...what good is that? The US military understands this, apparently our dimwitted president does not.


Oh and let's not oversimplify this, Bush also refuses to rule out the following:


-hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes
-stripping prisoners naked
-forcing prisoners to perform or mimic sexual acts
-beating
-burning or physically hurting prisoners in other ways
-subjecting them to hypothermia or mock executions
-withholding food, water and medical treatment
-the use of dogs in any aspect of interrogation


So basically Abu Ghraib type scenarios are A-OK, as long as it's the CIA doing it.


I thought we were supposed to be the good guys...

Mad Drama Teacher

Oh and let's not oversimplify this, Bush also refuses to rule out the following:


-hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes
-stripping prisoners naked
-forcing prisoners to perform or mimic sexual acts
-beating
-burning or physically hurting prisoners in other ways
-subjecting them to hypothermia or mock executions
-withholding food, water and medical treatment
-the use of dogs in any aspect of interrogation

You forgot

-subjecting them to "Tales of Torture: An iPod Mix"

HAZ

So basically Abu Ghraib type scenarios are A-OK, as long as it's the CIA doing it.


I thought we were supposed to be the good guys...

I don't think there are any good guys in war, on any side. "Good" is a relative judgement that people apply to the theater of war. This reminds me of a line from Brando in "Apocalypse Now": "You have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that... But you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means." The monuments, films, and books made to honor Soliders, heroism, patriotism, etc.. have decievied people into thinking that there can be justice, valor or honor in war, that there is a good side or a bad side, when, in the end, all that's really there is self-interest, tribalism & the will to survive at any cost.

hammertime

I don't think there are any good guys in war, on any side.

Well that's convenient, because this "war on terror" is never going to end.


P.S.- If we're talking about "war", and the guys at Guantanamo are our prisoners, how are they not "prisoners of war"?

HAZ

P.S.- If we're talking about "war", and the guys at Guantanamo are our prisoners, how are they not "prisoners of war"?

It's just semantics.

LuckLoop

i think he doesnt talk about the semantics but the fact that those Guantanamo Bay prisoners arent treated as "prisoners of war", there are international laws regarding the treatment of prisoners of war wich the US ignores regarding the people that are being held there

Rockadelic

Good guys play by the rules.

HAZ

i think he doesnt talk about the semantics but the fact that those Guantanamo Bay prisoners arent treated as "prisoners of war", there are international laws regarding the treatment of prisoners of war wich the US ignores regarding the people that are being held there

I don't think law has any place in war. You're given an gun & told to take a life. Imagine how insane a proposition that is for a person with morals, family, values? Here's a gun, go kill another man. How do you legislate an experience like that? How can you say, this is within the rules of killing, but this is forbidden? The words "prisoner of war" have meaning in a court of law, but what meaning can they possibly have in war, which is essentially a lawless state of being where you have to suspend all notions of civility and respect for human life & commit an act of murder. "Prisoner of war" is as empty and false a phrase as "Collateral Damage" or "Friendly Fire".

BeatChemist

I'm currently reading this:


Failed States - The Abuse of Power and The Assault on Democracy

I just don't understand how ANYONE can truly believe that the United States are looking out for the interest other countries. The Imperialism that exists today under that guise of spreading democracy and global trade is the same imperialism that has been at the root of the US since it has been sovereign.

The US simply does not live up to it's own rules/standards. It is hypocritical beyond belief when it comes to international law and policy.

Unherd

I don't think law has any place in war. You're given an gun & told to take a life. Imagine how insane a proposition that is for a person with morals, family, values? Here's a gun, go kill another man. How do you legislate an experience like that? How can you say, this is within the rules of killing, but this is forbidden? The words "prisoner of war" have meaning in a court of law, but what meaning can they possibly have in war, which is essentially a lawless state of being where you have to suspend all notions of civility and respect for human life & commit an act of murder. "Prisoner of war" is as empty and false a phrase as "Collateral Damage" or "Friendly Fire".

So how does your theory hold up for say, WWII. Were there no Nazi war crimes because they were at war, and thus there are no rules about whats acceptable, including horrific scientific testing on prisoners?

Or should the US have stood by and not intervened, so we could avoid, at all costs, this "lawless state of being where you have to suspend all notions of civility and respect for human life & commit an act of murder."

How about this: Is there a time when killing is morally justified? Or a time when choosing not to fight is morally wrong? If there is a time when intervention is necessary and justified, can a country which chooses to ignore established rules of war maintain the moral high ground?

I think you're the one playing semantics; no one likes war, but to label all military action as wrong is hopelessly naive; this country exists because people decided to fight for what was right. I think Iraq is a preposterously unnecessary disaster and tragedy, but Afghanistan was probably justified.

[/rant]

hammertime

i think he doesnt talk about the semantics but the fact that those Guantanamo Bay prisoners arent treated as "prisoners of war", there are international laws regarding the treatment of prisoners of war wich the US ignores regarding the people that are being held there

I don't think law has any place in war. You're given an gun & told to take a life. Imagine how insane a proposition that is for a person with morals, family, values? Here's a gun, go kill another man. How do you legislate an experience like that? How can you say, this is within the rules of killing, but this is forbidden? The words "prisoner of war" have meaning in a court of law, but what meaning can they possibly have in war, which is essentially a lawless state of being where you have to suspend all notions of civility and respect for human life & commit an act of murder. "Prisoner of war" is as empty and false a phrase as "Collateral Damage" or "Friendly Fire".

you keep saying the same vague shit...this "war on terror" has no bounds and has no end...so the US can't be held accountable for its own actions from here until eternity because we've declared war on "terror", whatever the hell the Bush administration decides that is? Give me a break.


And to say that people kill each other during war, therefore all rules are thrown on the window, is laughable. I guess you think those guys that raped that girl in Iraq and killed her entire family are above judgment? They should just come home and walk free? I mean hey, they were in a war, so it's all good! WTF...

luck

I guess you think those guys that raped that girl in Iraq and killed her entire family are above judgment? They should just come home and walk free? I mean hey, they were in a war, so it's all good! WTF...

[dolo]collateral damage[/dolo]

luck

name calling from intemperate homo's

If I wished to besmirch Lee Dorsey, this would be my current location.

Mad Drama Teacher

You can't call soldiers murderers, even though some of them are.

We're reading All Quiet on the Western Front in class, and all of us agreed that soldiers commit homicide but not murder.

hammertime

You can't call soldiers murderers, even though some of them are.

We're reading All Quiet on the Western Front in class, and all of us agreed that soldiers commit homicide but not murder.

Well the US military would disagree with you, but hey good for you.

I'd like to also make clear this specific issue is dealing with CIA interrogators, these are hardly soldiers that are "in the shit" as it were. But I realize this has become a broader debate.

Mad Drama Teacher

What do you mean they'd disagree?

hammertime

I mean the military believes soldiers are capable of murder, which is why they charge them with it when appropriate (like the case in Iraq I mentioned above).

Mad Drama Teacher

I mean the military believes soldiers are capable of murder, which is why they charge them with it when appropriate (like the case in Iraq I mentioned above).

Well, yeah, that's why I said some of them are.