Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on January 08, 2009, 04:41:43 AM
-
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2009
The Bush Administration's Most Despicable Act
By Joe Klein
"This is not the America I know," President George W. Bush said after the first, horrifying pictures of U.S. troops torturing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq surfaced in April 2004. The President was not telling the truth. "This" was the America he had authorized on Feb. 7, 2002, when he signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention — the one regarding the treatment of enemy prisoners taken in wartime — did not apply to members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. That signature led directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. It was his single most callous and despicable act. It stands at the heart of the national embarrassment that was his presidency.
The details of the torture that Bush authorized have been dribbling out over the years in books like Jane Mayer's excellent The Dark Side. But the most definitive official account was released by the Senate Armed Services Committee just before Christmas. Much of the committee's report remains secret, but a 19-page executive summary was published, and it is infuriating. The story begins with an obscure military training program called Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape (SERE), in which various forms of torture are simulated to prepare U.S. special-ops personnel for the sorts of treatment they might receive if they're taken prisoner. Incredibly, the Bush Administration decided to have SERE trainers instruct its interrogation teams on how to torture prisoners. (Read "Shell-Shocked at Abu Ghraib?")
It should be noted that there was, and is, no evidence that these techniques actually work. Experienced military and FBI interrogators believe that torture leads, more often than not, to fabricated confessions. Patient, persistent questioning using subtle psychological carrots and sticks is the surest way to get actionable information. But prisoners held by the U.S. were tortured — first at Guantánamo Bay and later in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Armed Services Committee report details the techniques used on one prisoner: "Military working dogs had been used against [Mohammed al-] Khatani. He had also been deprived of adequate sleep for weeks on end, stripped naked, subjected to loud music, and made to wear a leash and perform dog tricks."
Since we live in an advanced Western civilization, there needs to be legal justification when we torture people, and the Bush Administration proudly produced it. Memos authorizing the use of "enhanced" techniques were written in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Council. Vice President Dick Cheney and his nefarious aide, David Addington, had a hand in the process. The memos were approved by Bush's legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales. A memo listing specific interrogation techniques that could be used to torture prisoners like Mohammed al-Khatani was passed to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He signed it on Dec. 2, 2002, although he seemed a bit disappointed by the lack of rigor when it came to stress positions: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day," he noted. "Why is standing limited to four hours?"
It would be interesting, just for the fun and justice of it, to subject Rumsfeld to four hours in a stress position — standing stock still with his arms extended, naked, in a cold room after maybe two hours' sleep. But that's not going to happen. Indeed, it seems probable that nothing much is going to happen to the Bush Administration officials who perpetrated what many legal scholars consider to be war crimes. "I would say that there's some theoretical exposure here" to a war-crimes indictment in U.S. federal court, says Gene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School. "But I don't think there's much public appetite for that sort of action." There is, I'm told, absolutely no interest on the part of the incoming Obama Administration to pursue indictments against its predecessors. "We're focused on the future," said one of the President-elect's legal advisers. Fidell and others say it is possible, though highly unlikely, that Bush et al. could be arrested overseas — one imagines the Vice President pinched midstream on a fly-fishing trip to Norway — just as Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, was indicted in Spain and arrested in London for his crimes.
If Barack Obama really wanted to be cagey, he could pardon Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for the possible commission of war crimes. Then they'd have to live with official acknowledgment of their ignominy in perpetuity. More likely, Obama will simply make sure — through his excellent team of legal appointees — that no such behavior happens again. Still, there should be some official acknowledgment by the U.S. government that the Bush Administration's policies were reprehensible, and quite possibly illegal, and that the U.S. is no longer in the torture business. If Obama doesn't want to make that statement, perhaps we could do it in the form of a Bush Memorial in Washington: a statue of the hooded Abu Ghraib prisoner in cruciform stress position — the real Bush legacy.
-
LOL... that would be the ultimate middle finger to this shitstain in our history.
If Barack Obama really wanted to be cagey, he could pardon Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for the possible commission of war crimes. Then they'd have to live with official acknowledgment of their ignominy in perpetuity.
-
Drastic times called for drastic measures................ .........
-
Drastic times called for drastic measures................ .........
We didn't need torture tactics in WWII, when a large group of nations was actually about to take out Europe and most of the S. Pacific....
but we need them now, huh? ;)
-
We didn't need torture tactics in WWII, when a large group of nations was actually about to take out Europe and most of the S. Pacific....
but we need them now, huh? ;)
The torturing probably saved thousands of lives
-
We didn't need torture tactics in WWII, when a large group of nations was actually about to take out Europe and most of the S. Pacific....
but we need them now, huh? ;)
LOL you really believe that it didnt happen then? also two different types of enemies...
-
Are u nuts 240...We ran countless operations where they weren't even allowed to take prisoners. The Germans put up their hands and we smoked em. There are countless books about this crap. Not to mention the fact that we fired bombed German cities and dropped a nuke. I don't think torture was a big deal. Hell we had flamethrowers...can u imagine US troops with flamethrowers now. The Libs' heads would explode.
-
also two different types of enemies...
um, japs would load up the nose of their airplane with tnt and dive for hawaii.
How is that any different from some jihad idiot flying a plane into a tower in NYC?
-
Are u nuts 240...We ran countless operations where they weren't even allowed to take prisoners. The Germans put up their hands and we smoked em. There are countless books about this crap. Not to mention the fact that we fired bombed German cities and dropped a nuke. I don't think torture was a big deal. Hell we had flamethrowers...can u imagine US troops with flamethrowers now. The Libs' heads would explode.
huh i always kinda wondered what happend to flamethrowers...have those been banned hh6 or just kinda outdated?
-
um, japs would load up the nose of their airplane with tnt and dive for hawaii.
How is that any different from some jihad idiot flying a plane into a tower in NYC?
So, then the U.S should be dropping nukes over the countries hiding the terroists like they did in Japan.
-
So, then the U.S should be dropping nukes over the countries hiding the terroists like they did in Japan.
They could have hit afghanistan with nukes, or conventional firebombs, in 3 to 5 key places. Killed bin laden, gotten top Al-Q, and sent a message to the world.
instead, bin laden still free, and the lesson is "the us can't win a war".
Why do you think Iran is talking so much shit? they know we can't afford to hit them.
if they would have quietly lit up afghanistan, the rest of the world would have STFU. But then, we can't have their oil pipeline if we did that - and isn't that what 2001 invasion was really all about ;)
-
They could have hit afghanistan with nukes, or conventional firebombs, in 3 to 5 key places. Killed bin laden, gotten top Al-Q, and sent a message to the world.
instead, bin laden still free, and the lesson is "the us can't win a war".
Why do you think Iran is talking so much shit? they know we can't afford to hit them.
if they would have quietly lit up afghanistan, the rest of the world would have STFU. But then, we can't have their oil pipeline if we did that - and isn't that what 2001 invasion was really all about ;)
No, the lesson is the U.S spent 5 trillion on the war in exchange for 50 trillion worth of oil.
I'd say that was pretty smart.
-
Oh boy, we pretended that we were going to hold the poor arab terrorist, who would gladly saw your head off slowly on camera and nuke amarica if he had the chance, underwater to get info that could save thousands of innocent lives. How horrifying.
-
The bleeding hearts will never understand
-
I will say, however, that making them listen to loud Rap music definitely went too far. That is beyond inhumane and even a Terrorist shouldn't be subjected to that.
-
No, the lesson is the U.S spent 5 trillion on the war in exchange for 50 trillion worth of oil.
I'd say that was pretty smart.
iraq just sold their oil to china.
and afghanistan is letting the taleban back into the govt this year.
so we'll be back to our 1998 negotiations with the taleban for control of the oil piepeline.
Deja vu? lol...
-
It's just a 3 billion dollar contract to develop an oil field. and don't forget, the state owned China National Petroleum Corporation is one of Bush's cronies.
-
huh i always kinda wondered what happend to flamethrowers...have those been banned hh6 or just kinda outdated?
Banned.
-
Banned.
thanks beach, always kinda wondered why we didnt see them any more.
-
thanks beach, always kinda wondered why we didnt see them any more.
No problem. Part of the Geneva Convention.
-
um, japs would load up the nose of their airplane with tnt and dive for hawaii.
How is that any different from some jihad idiot flying a plane into a tower in NYC?
Are you serious? ::)
First off all, there weren’t any Japanese kamikaze attacks on Pearl Harbor. The kamikaze attacks started at the latter part of the war against US warships. Also, you don’t think there is any difference between an enemy attacking Military targets and Civilian targets?
-
No problem. Part of the Geneva Convention.
we shit on geneva by using torture.
it'd actually be more cool to break that part of the treaty and see them light some bad guys up.
-
Are you serious? ::)
First off all, there weren’t any Japanese kamikaze attacks on Pearl Harbor. The kamikaze attacks started at the latter part of the war against US warships. Also, you don’t think there is any difference between an enemy attacking Military targets and Civilian targets?
Well, there are a lot of historians who believe that Kamikaze's were used at pearl harbor.
I'm going to call them, one by one, and let them know they are wrong.
Special Japanese fighter pilots would fly planes at United States ships and drop bombs, which the planes carried. After the bombs were dropped, the pilots were instructed to fly into the ship (Time Life Books 140).
http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/Japan/03/rizzo/rizzo.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/lpetrich/www/writings/Sept11_prlhrbr_kamikaze.html
-
Well, there are a lot of historians who believe that Kamikaze's were used at pearl harbor.
I'm going to call them, one by one, and let them know they are wrong.
Special Japanese fighter pilots would fly planes at United States ships and drop bombs, which the planes carried. After the bombs were dropped, the pilots were instructed to fly into the ship (Time Life Books 140).
http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/Japan/03/rizzo/rizzo.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/lpetrich/www/writings/Sept11_prlhrbr_kamikaze.html
Well seeing how the Japanese only lost 29 planes, I highly doubt they were instructed to crash into the ships.
Please post creditable links. ;)
-
Please post creditable links. ;)
Ummm
-
Ummm
If they were instructed to crash into ships at Pearl Harbor they would have lost more than 29 planes.
The Japanese military became increasingly desperate to find ways of slowing the Allied advance, naval officer Ensign Mitsuo Ohta conceived a specialized suicide attack aircraft that would be inexpensive, easy to manufacture in large numbers, and equipped for high speed to avoid being shot down.
Once the concept had been accepted, Yokosuka began developing the MXY7 Ohka (cherry blossom), a small, rocket-powered vehicle mounting a large warhead in the nose and intended to be carried to the target area by a Mitsubishi G4M2e "Betty" bomber. After being released, the Ohka would engage its rocket motors to make a high-speed dash to the target ship. Flight testing began in late 1944, but production of the Navy Suicide Attacker Ohka Model 11 began even before these tests were complete.
-
We didn't need torture tactics in WWII, when a large group of nations was actually about to take out Europe and most of the S. Pacific....
but we need them now, huh? ;)
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TACTICS WERE USED IN WWII. that was in a time when we allowed our military to do their jobs.