Uh-OH, Conks. Torture Report Coming…Prepare Your Spin!

[Adolf Hitler]

Was looking thru some US news and found this playlist the CIA used while torturing the peaceful Muslims.

Dope: Die MF Die, Take Your Best Shot

Eminem: White America, Kim

Barney & Friends: theme song

Drowning Pool: Bodies

Metallica: Enter Sandman

Meow Mix: commercial jingle

Deicide: Fuck Your God

Janeane Garofalo/Ben Stiller: chapter from the Feel This Audiobook

Sesame Street: theme song

David Gray: Babylon

AC/DC: Shoot to Thrill, Hell’s Bells

Bee Gees: Stayin’ Alive

Tupac: All Eyez On Me

Christina Aguilera: Dirty

Neil Diamond: America

Rage Against the Machine: (unspecified songs)

Don McLean: American Pie

Saliva: Click Click Boom

Matchbox Twenty: Cold

(hed) pe: Swan Dive

Prince: Raspberry Beret


Definitely some songs H has on his iPod.

[Ibanez]

would love to see you act in a water boarding situation. I'm 100% positive that you would change your tune. Torture can be any method. Playing loud music, 24/7, in a small room can be torture.


Reading your posts are often times torture.

I am sure I'd be very upset at being water boarded and consider it very unpleasant. But if before all this stuff came up you'd have told me that I'm going to be tortured the types of things that would come to mind would be things like at that link I posted. Or maybe I might think of somebody saying something like if I don't tell them what they want they're going to chop the tip of one of my fingers off. And if I still don't tell them then they're going to chop another piece. Or something like they're going to shock my balls with an electrical chord.

So if you then told me that by "torture" what you're talking about is what's been described as the "water boarding" that the CIA did or something like sleep deprivation I would be relieved. With the water boarding they did it in such a way as to ensure that no fluid actually got into the lungs. They did it in such a way to ensure that there would be no actual physical harm.

John, the purpose of water boarding was to simulate drowning. Torture is not just about physical pain....it's actually about creating psychological pain via physical or psychological abuse that results in the person being tortured giving up information or compliance of a demand.

[CID1990]

it's actually about creating psychological pain via physical or psychological abuse that results in the person being tortured giving up information or compliance of a demand.

hell that describes 90% of the threads in the political forum

and 100% of the religion and evolution ones

[Chizzang]

it's actually about creating psychological pain via physical or psychological abuse that results in the person being tortured giving up information or compliance of a demand.

hell that describes 90% of the threads in the political forum

and 100% of the religion and evolution ones

[Ibanez]

it's actually about creating psychological pain via physical or psychological abuse that results in the person being tortured giving up information or compliance of a demand.

hell that describes 90% of the threads in the political forum

and 100% of the religion and evolution ones

And The View. You forgot to mention The View.

[JohnStOnge]

John, the purpose of water boarding was to simulate drowning. Torture is not just about physical pain....it's actually about creating psychological pain via physical or psychological abuse that results in the person being tortured giving up information or compliance of a demand.

I think CID990 can probably comment more knowledgeably on what I'm about to say than I can but I think that if you are going to go down that road you can define just about any potentially effective interrogation technique as "torture." I say that because though I've never actually interrogated anybody I had to go through training on investigative interviewing and interrogation.

I looked at the course as helping me to screw with interrogators if I were ever in that position because I had no intention of interrogating anyone. What it did, I think, was give me the ability to recognize what someone interrogating me would be doing so I could get through it without giving them what they want. But I do think that if you're going to start saying that inflicting psychological distress on people is "torture" you pretty much better say that our agents can't interrogate anybody.

[Skjellyfetti]

Maybe by going by the definitions in the Geneva Conventions, Convention Against Torture, etc.?

Maybe by the same standard we've convicted the soldiers of other nations of torture?

In the aftermath of World War II, Japanese officer Yukio Asano is charged by a US war crimes tribunal for torturing a US civilian. Asano had used the technique of “waterboarding” on the prisoner (see 1800 and After). The civilian was strapped to a stretcher with his feet in the air and head towards the floor, and water was poured over his face, causing him to gasp for air until he agreed to talk. Asano is convicted and sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. Other Japanese officers and soldiers are also tried and convicted of war crimes that include waterboarding US prisoners. “All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators,” reporter Evan Wallach will later write.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js ... io_asano_1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

Maybe by going by the definitions in the Geneva Conventions, Convention Against Torture, etc.?

Maybe by the same standard we've convicted the soldiers of other nations of torture?

In the aftermath of World War II, Japanese officer Yukio Asano is charged by a US war crimes tribunal for torturing a US civilian. Asano had used the technique of “waterboarding” on the prisoner (see 1800 and After). The civilian was strapped to a stretcher with his feet in the air and head towards the floor, and water was poured over his face, causing him to gasp for air until he agreed to talk. Asano is convicted and sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. Other Japanese officers and soldiers are also tried and convicted of war crimes that include waterboarding US prisoners. “All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators,” reporter Evan Wallach will later write.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js ... io_asano_1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The same conventions we wrote against torture also govern the rules of war, which we have also violated in not only "the right war", but also in Libya and in the use of drones

waterboarding was as much of a special interpretation of the Geneva Conventions as was the bombing of Libya

but as you have little problem with the way Obama wages "war", I have little problem with waterboarding terrorists

[travelinman67]

Jelly, you're out of your league debating rules of war.

CID's immersed himself his entire adult life.

[kalm]

What a lying, irrational cocksucker.

Here's the relevant part of the transcript from Cheney's appearance on Meet the Press:

CHUCK TODD:

Let me ask you, what do you say to Gul Rahman, what do you say to Sulaiman Abdula, what do you say to Khalid al-Masri? All three of these folks were detained, they had these interrogation techniques used on them. They eventually were found to be innocent. They were released, no apologies, nothing.

What do we owe them?

DICK CHENEY:

Well--

CHUCK TODD:

I mean, let me go to Gul Rahman. He was chained to the wall of his cell, doused with water, froze to death in C.I.A. custody. And it turned out it was a case of mistaken identity.

DICK CHENEY:

--right. But the problem I had is with the folks that we did release that end up back on the battlefield. Of the 600 and some people who were released out of Guantanamo, 30% roughly ended up back on the battlefield. Today we're very concerned about ISIS. Terrible new terrorist organization.

It is headed by a man named Baghdadi. Baghdadi was in the custody of the U.S. military in Iraq in Camp Bucca. He was let go and now he's out leading the terror attack against the United States. I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent.

CHUCK TODD:

25% of the detainees though, 25% turned out to be innocent. They were released.

DICK CHENEY:

Where are you going to draw the line, Chuck? How are--

CHUCK TODD:

Well, I'm asking you.

DICK CHENEY:

--you going to know?

CHUCK TODD:

Is that too high? You're okay with that margin for error?

DICK CHENEY:

I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective. And our objective is to get the guys who did 9/11 and it is to avoid another attack against the United States.

Look what happened moments later in the interview:

CHUCK TODD:

Is there a reason these interrogations didn't happen on U.S. soil? Was there concern that maybe these folks would get legal protections--

DICK CHENEY:

Well--

CHUCK TODD:

--from the United States and that's why it was done at black sites?

DICK CHENEY:

--we didn't read them their Miranda rights either. These are not American citizens. They are unlawful combatants. They are terrorists. They are people who have committed unlawful acts of war against the American people. And we put them in places where we could proceed with the interrogation program and find out what they knew so we could protect the country against further attack.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... /383741/2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And shoving hoses ("the biggest we could find") up their asses was a "medical procedure" not torture.

[CID1990]

And shoving hoses ("the biggest we could find") up their asses was a "medical procedure" not torture.

You need to clear this with SK and Jon

[Ibanez]

John, the purpose of water boarding was to simulate drowning. Torture is not just about physical pain....it's actually about creating psychological pain via physical or psychological abuse that results in the person being tortured giving up information or compliance of a demand.

I think CID990 can probably comment more knowledgeably on what I'm about to say than I can but I think that if you are going to go down that road you can define just about any potentially effective interrogation technique as "torture." I say that because though I've never actually interrogated anybody I had to go through training on investigative interviewing and interrogation.

I looked at the course as helping me to screw with interrogators if I were ever in that position because I had no intention of interrogating anyone. What it did, I think, was give me the ability to recognize what someone interrogating me would be doing so I could get through it without giving them what they want. But I do think that if you're going to start saying that inflicting psychological distress on people is "torture" you pretty much better say that our agents can't interrogate anybody.

Again, you seem to not understand what torture is.

[kalm]

One more thought on Ramirez's cartoon and the weakness of its implied logic. Let us imagine a different cartoon. A Pakistani woman is covered in blood and dust outside her home, which was just reduced to rubble with her now-crushed infant daughter inside. A U.S. drone is overhead. A radical cleric asks her, "How do you feel about the attack on Fort Hood?" I presume that Ramirez would reject the logic implied in that cartoon, and yet it is exactly the sort he has drawn on in his cartoon.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... on/383880/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cap'n Cat]

Jelly, you're out of your league debating rules of war.

CID's immersed himself his entire adult life.

Just as you've immersed yourself in Krispy Kreme, Paul Prudhomme…….

He's a wannabe diplomat, manning the guard station outside the gate, eating donuts a la' Homer Simpson. A pretender…..

[CID1990]

Jelly, you're out of your league debating rules of war.

CID's immersed himself his entire adult life.

Just as you've immersed yourself in Krispy Kreme, Paul Prudhomme…….

He's a wannabe diplomat, manning the guard station outside the gate, eating donuts a la' Homer Simpson. A pretender…..

Says the guy who wears a blue smock with his first name on the front at work

[CAA Flagship]

Just as you've immersed yourself in Krispy Kreme, Paul Prudhomme…….

He's a wannabe diplomat, manning the guard station outside the gate, eating donuts a la' Homer Simpson. A pretender…..

Says the guy who wears a blue smock with his first name on the front at work

[kalm]

The NYT is calling for a criminal investigation now, including this guy:

Americans have known about many of these acts for years, but the 524-page executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report erases any lingering doubt about their depravity and illegality: In addition to new revelations of sadistic tactics like “rectal feeding,” scores of detainees were waterboarded, hung by their wrists, confined in coffins, sleep-deprived, threatened with death or brutally beaten. In November 2002, one detainee who was chained to a concrete floor died of “suspected hypothermia.”

These are, simply, crimes. They are prohibited by federal law, which defines torture as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” They are also banned by the Convention Against Torture, the international treaty that the United States ratified in 1994 and that requires prosecution of any acts of torture.

So it is no wonder that today’s blinkered apologists are desperate to call these acts anything but torture, which they clearly were. As the report reveals, these claims fail for a simple reason: C.I.A. officials admitted at the time that what they intended to do was illegal…..

One would expect Republicans who have gone hoarse braying about Mr. Obama’s executive overreach to be the first to demand accountability, but with one notable exception, Senator John McCain, they have either fallen silent or actively defended the indefensible. They cannot even point to any results: Contrary to repeated claims by the C.I.A., the report concluded that “at no time” did any of these techniques yield intelligence that averted a terror attack. And at least 26 detainees were later determined to have been “wrongfully held.”

Starting a criminal investigation is not about payback; it is about ensuring that this never happens again and regaining the moral credibility to rebuke torture by other governments. Because of the Senate’s report, we now know the distance officials in the executive branch went to rationalize, and conceal, the crimes they wanted to commit. The question is whether the nation will stand by and allow the perpetrators of torture to have perpetual immunity for their actions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opini ... share&_r=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[travelinman67]

The braying jackass...



DOJ investigated and confirmed there were no crimes.

Klam, you are braying just to make noise.

[kalm]

The braying jackass...



DOJ investigated and confirmed there were no crimes.

Klam, you are braying just to make noise.

Which DOJ? The Bush one that endorsed torture, or the Obama one which you have so much faith in?

BTW, I just posted the op-ed. Might wanna blame the NYT editorial board.

[CID1990]

The NYT is calling for a criminal investigation now, including this guy:

Americans have known about many of these acts for years, but the 524-page executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report erases any lingering doubt about their depravity and illegality: In addition to new revelations of sadistic tactics like “rectal feeding,” scores of detainees were waterboarded, hung by their wrists, confined in coffins, sleep-deprived, threatened with death or brutally beaten. In November 2002, one detainee who was chained to a concrete floor died of “suspected hypothermia.”

These are, simply, crimes. They are prohibited by federal law, which defines torture as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” They are also banned by the Convention Against Torture, the international treaty that the United States ratified in 1994 and that requires prosecution of any acts of torture.

So it is no wonder that today’s blinkered apologists are desperate to call these acts anything but torture, which they clearly were. As the report reveals, these claims fail for a simple reason: C.I.A. officials admitted at the time that what they intended to do was illegal…..

One would expect Republicans who have gone hoarse braying about Mr. Obama’s executive overreach to be the first to demand accountability, but with one notable exception, Senator John McCain, they have either fallen silent or actively defended the indefensible. They cannot even point to any results: Contrary to repeated claims by the C.I.A., the report concluded that “at no time” did any of these techniques yield intelligence that averted a terror attack. And at least 26 detainees were later determined to have been “wrongfully held.”

Starting a criminal investigation is not about payback; it is about ensuring that this never happens again and regaining the moral credibility to rebuke torture by other governments. Because of the Senate’s report, we now know the distance officials in the executive branch went to rationalize, and conceal, the crimes they wanted to commit. The question is whether the nation will stand by and allow the perpetrators of torture to have perpetual immunity for their actions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opini ... share&_r=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And so continues the NYT's quest to fully throw off the mantle of realism and become a moralistic tut tutting left wing blog.

[kalm]

The NYT is calling for a criminal investigation now, including this guy:





http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opini ... share&_r=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And so continues the NYT's quest to fully throw off the mantle of realism and become a moralistic tut tutting left wing blog.

...That promoted war in Iraq...

[houndawg]

And so continues the NYT's quest to fully throw off the mantle of realism and become a moralistic tut tutting left wing blog.

...That promoted war in Iraq...

Hey now, comrade, lets give credit where it is due - its not like our government uses torture as much as some other governments. Look at those fvckers in Burma, they're much worse than we are....

[kalm]

...That promoted war in Iraq...

Hey now, comrade, lets give credit where it is due - its not like our government uses torture as much as some other governments. Look at those fvckers in Burma, they're much worse than we are....

We're better than Burma!

[houndawg]

Hey now, comrade, lets give credit where it is due - its not like our government uses torture as much as some other governments. Look at those fvckers in Burma, they're much worse than we are....

We're better than Burma!

Its a start!