Will Obama release the Intelligence memos on torture?

[kidflash2008]

On Thursday, President Obama is going to make a decision on releasing the intelligence agencies memos on torture. The Justice Department has cleared them for release, and of course the alphabet agencies are opposed to such a release.

I hope President Obama does the right thing and releases these memos. He has so far been a mixed bag of results over the issue of alleged terrorists and human rights. The only way the United States can reclaim the moral high ground is to come clear with everything that has happened and give all people accused a chance to have their day in court. That is what true democracy is, and it should apply to all who are in our system.

We may not like what some of these people have done, but if we deny them their rights to be heard in a court, we are no better than they are.

[kidflash2008]

It does appear that President Obama will release the memos on torture by the CIA. However, CIA agents will not face any kind of charges in the US. (It is unclear how other nations will react to this news, but they could face international charges because of treaties on torture signed in the past.)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21329.html

[Mingus]

Eh, from what I've heard, it's like the CIA (the senior officers who liked the Bush Doctrine) threatened Obama. I don't think Obama really takes them seriously though.

[kidflash2008]

Originally Posted by Mingus

Eh, from what I've heard, it's like the CIA (the senior officers who liked the Bush Doctrine) threatened Obama. I don't think Obama really takes them seriously though.

You are correct that veiled threats were used to keep Obama from releasing the memos. I think the compromise of not pressing charges (which I oppose) will let him release the memos. At least the information is coming out.

The Hague and other nations may be the ones to deliver justice. It might be in absentia, but at least some type of justice will be done.

[Mingus]

Indeed, especially since the crimes weren't committed here. It's a valid legal argument for Obama not to prosecute.

[kidflash2008]

Originally Posted by Mingus

Indeed, especially since the crimes weren't committed here. It's a valid legal argument for Obama not to prosecute.

I don't think the use of the "I only followed orders" line worked very well for the war criminals after World War II. They knew torture was wrong when they were committing such acts.

This is an ugly mess that will not go away soon. At least President Obama is releasing the memos on what was done and who approved it.

[Tecnos]

The ITN news here in the UK apparently has it!

http://itn.co.uk/news/1ad9658bb9ffa9...ff65c6925.html

I might be going out on a tree limb here though.....

I have read reports in the past about techniques such as: prostitutes being used with devout Muslims, even so far as to wipe their menstrual blood on their (the interrogees) faces.

OK... I run the risk here of falling out with a number of you here, but hey-ho, I've been disliked in the past, I'm a big lad, I can deal with it.

I do not think that the recent wars are legal in the first place. I genuinely do not.

BUT.

BIG BUT.

If the protagonists of this war believe that they are gathering information for their respective governments, I do not think that the techniques being used are innordinate. Don't get me wrong, I would not wish to be subjected to hours of the band 'Matchbox 20' or soundbytes of Barney the purple dinosaur, or Fleetwood Mac.....over and over again.

Or for that matter, sleep depravation, starvation, and acts that are uphorrent to my beliefs.

Look......

And please try to appreciate my perspective. War is a dirty, nasty, filthy business. To get the information you require might sometimes require techniques that wouldn't sit well at the Sunday dinner table.

At least they aren't employing the methods of the IRA in cutting their bollcoks off, stuffing them in their mouths and drilling their heads with 6 inch wood drills.

I will stand divided on this one. As far as the pawns know, they are required to gather information.

They don't know that the entire war in which they are fighting is a load of shit in the first place!!!!

These people are the product of military training, taught to follow without question.

[Tecnos]

http://www.jonronson.com

This chap.... Jon Ronson a very wise fellow.

He's having a book of his made into a film, and actually writes for 'The Guardian'... a British newspaper, that until a few months ago, I had a very very close affiliation with.....

Jon Ronson
Experiments in psychic warfare funny, terrifying.

Remember that wonderful scene in "Men in Black" where the alien trackers reveal that the National Enquirer is the true source of what's really happening on this planet?

Jon Ronson thinks there may be some truth to that.

In his first book on the weirdness around us, "Them: Adventures with Extremists," the British documentary filmmaker explored the world of conspiracy theorists, hobnobbing with neo-Nazis, Islamic fundamentalists, Ku Klux Klansmen and the survivors of Ruby Ridge. He found they all shared a belief that a shadowy cabal of powerful men rules the world from inside a secret room.

"It's sort of true, you know," Ronson says by phone from New York City. "People go on about how these global elitists all meet in the forests of northern California and have these secret ceremonies, and then I snuck into one of these places and it's true, they have their weird ceremonies where they burn papier-mache effigies of owls and stuff. So when I finished that book, I figured, in all fairness, the next book should be about the nuttiness on the inside."

In his funny, frightening non-fiction follow-up, "The Men Who Stare at Goats" (Simon & Schuster, $24), Ronson tracks an equally bizarre group of individuals within U.S. military intelligence whose experiments in psychic warfare and paranormal abilities stretch from LSD experiments in the Fifties to the current strategic use of the Barney "I Love You" song on Iraqi prisoners of war.

Along the way, he discovered links between military psychological operations (or PsyOps) and the 1989 capture of Panamian dictator Manuel Noriega, the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian compound at Waco and the 1997 mass suicide of the Heaven's Gate religious cult.

Ronson's weird travels begin in 1983 in the office of Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine III, the Army's chief of intelligence from 1981-84, as he attempts to walk through his office wall by harmonizing his atomic structure with that of the wall. A badly bruised nose follows. His private experiments with self-levitation never get off the ground either.

Torture is par for the course in warfare, I wouldn't like it, you wouldn't like it, but then again, we don't piss off to Afghanistan or Pakistan upon a whim!

LINK.....

[Tecnos]

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/58154

Election 2008: US Torture of Terrorists
Jim Kouri, CPP
April 10, 2008
A couple of months ago, when the US Defense Department proclaimed their desire to finally bring war crimes charges against six detainees for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the goal was to jump-start the Bush Administration's military tribunal mechanism. Sadly, military justice is proving itself to be slower than the snail's pace civilian criminal justice system.

Also, the Democrat-led congress is anxious to bring up the matter of imprisonment and torture of Islamic terrorists, especially those being detained at the US Marine base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The current rationale for the delay is that qualified military defense attorneys are a rare commodity. Even now, in the midst of a high-profile presidential race in the US, not one of the six 2001 terrorist suspects has met with his JAG (Judge Advocate General) lawyer.

One of the key roadblocks to a speedy trial is the numerous claims of torture by interrogators. Also, ACLU-type legal authorities are taking issue with the death penalty facing their soon-to-be clients.

While military officials at the Pentagon are anxious to try cases in order to prove the tribunal system is capable of meting out justice, some civil liberties groups and defense lawyers are working to slow the pace, partly to keep the system from gaining legitimacy by eliciting testimony against terrorism suspects that could inflame Americans. Also, the Democrats and those sympathetic to the Democrat Party's position on the Global War on Terrorism would like nothing better than to prolong the legal proceedings so as to use them for scoring points in a hotly contested presidential race.

Which brings us to this paradox: Intelligence and law enforcement investigators attempt to identify and apprehend the terrorists responsible for killing and maiming innocent men women and children, and instead of showing outrage over the merciless brutality of Islamic terrorists, many Democrats, the liberal-left establishment and their allies in the news media are embroiled in their attempts to portray the Central Intelligence Agency, the US military and law enforcement as heartless, out-of-control torturers.

During the war on terrorism, the definition of torture has become so convoluted that Americans are confused as to what is acceptable and what is not in a time of global war. It's understandable why liberals believe aggressive interrogation is something to be avoided at all costs: they still believe that we should employ a law enforcement model to combat terrorism. Treating terrorists as we do auto thieves and robbers is their obvious goal.

While the people really fighting the war on terrorism never even mention the word "torture," the mainstream media are keeping it on the frontpages of newspapers, on the covers of newsmagazines and as lead stories on news broadcasts. Here are some headlines from just today's lead stories:

Nothing seems to give these left-wing America haters more joy than to accuse men and women serving their country of being torturers and abusers. It's as if Americans are slitting throats, decapitating heads and hanging bodies from bridges instead of the vicious terrorists we face. Employing Stalinist tactics these America-haters even have their own cadre of useful idiots such as the staff at the New York Times.



To be sure, no one is condoning the use of torture. The original interpretation of torture was "extreme measures that could cause death or serious injury to a suspect." No reasonable person would condone such conduct. But now torture includes humiliating a suspect, loud noises such as blasting heavy metal music, sleep deprivation or having suspects stand in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time. The liberal reaction to the treatment of terrorists should be juxtaposed with US government treatment of American citizens during the administration of their hero, President Bill Clinton.

Once upon a time there was a religious sect named the Branch Davidians whose leader -- self-styled holy man David Koresh -- was a charismatic, sociopath who conned his followers into believing he was a modern day Messiah.

The Rev. Koresh created a compound in Waco, Texas where he and his followeres became self-sufficient and desired only one thing from society: to be left alone. Of course, in order to protect themselves and their property they maintained an arsenal within their compound which greatly distressed the federal government including Attorney General Janet Reno. In order to rationalize what was to come, there were phony allegations of child abuse and sexual assault leveled at the inhabitants of the Branch Davidian compound.

The Reno Justice Department leaked phony stories about Branch Davidians buying semi-automatic firearms -- which is legal in Texas -- and turning them into fully automatic assault weapons.

At the same time that Reno and her cronies in the Justice Department were prohibiting federal law enforcement from taking action against suspected terrorists and their sympathizers, they were planning a quasi-military operation to disarm and arrest members of Branch Davidian.

The rest is common knowledge. The extreme measures used against American citizens (including sleep deprivation, blasting loud music and noise, etc.) went unchallenged by the news media of the day. When the compound was attacked using military tactics and excessive deadly force that resulted in the death dozens of men, women and children, and with the compound engulfed by flames, there was absolutely no condemnation of Bill Clinton or Janet Reno. Even some conservatives appeared to condone such horror being inflicted on their fellow citizens. Apparently, in American if you're a Democrat politician you can escape punishment for even the most unconscionable behavior.

These same liberals, including some of the same people who not only condoned but praised US actions in Waco, are beating their breasts over the thought that perhaps some terrorist thug is getting smacked around a bit in a prison cell in a far off country. Does this make sense?

[Tecnos]

Originally Posted by kidflash2008

I don't think the use of the "I only followed orders".

Is it wrong to follow what you believe???

If you were taught that 4+4=10 from Reception Class in Primary School.... or more appropriately from college, or military college.....

Can you really be critical of those who truly believe that?

Or sympathetic, that they are as; simply misguided as the 'establishment' hopes that the rest of us should be?