How many here are against the release of the torture memos and/or against prosecution of Bush admin?

[stevenleser]

I'll tell you why I ask. I had a very interesting conversation today with a well connected person who says the DLC wing of the party and their constituents are very upset at the release of the memos and are upset at the prospect of prosecution. They believe the release of the memos has hurt national security.

I know this is not the prevaling attitude here so if you feel uncomfortable replying publicly, please email me privately using the DU private mail feature. I'm interested to know how many here feel this way.

Apparently, one or more of the Bayh 7, those seven DLC Democratic senators, are in this camp. (Bayh, Begich, Bennet, Hagan, Shaheen, Udall, Warner).

I was pretty shocked to hear this. First of all, I think the idea that the memos release has hurt national security is hogwash. The memos might be minutely useful to an ememy if we were going to continue to torture, in which case the memos would tell an enemy how far we would be willing to take torture. Even that is something I would argue. But since we arent going to torture anymore, I do not see what use they are. Regardless, I was very surprised by all of this and had no idea this feeling was out there among Democrats.

[NC_Nurse]

1. Horseshit. Everyone knew this stuff already, this was just the confirmation.

If the DLC types are against the release of the memos and pursuit of justice, they just show their lack of integrity.

Anyone with a conscience who wants this country to TRULY move on wants this pursued, prosecuted and put behind us in a way
that reflects our values - not just gives lip service to them.

[stevenleser]

30. See #28 below

...

[ProSense]

2. Anyone who believes a cover up of this was the best thing

is a completely disgusting individual, who is no different from a torture apologists.

No other way to put it.

[stevenleser]

4. I didnt see your earlier link on this, but it is interesting because the person I talked with used

those exact points you wrote about almost word for word. It looks like all the DLC'ers have the same talking points.

I guess my main concern is, I dont know how Obama proceeds with anything on the investigation front with a party not only split on the question, but parts of the party extremely hostile to the idea.

[Hutzpa]

11. Go back and tell them their concern and yours are

duly noted, Prosense did a good job in putting it mildly, they really don't want to know whats in most peoples mind right about now, Evan Bayh is threading on thin 'fuckin' ice in trying to
sabotage a Democratic President. He needs to put his ambition in check, he is beginning to get on folks nerve, what a disappointment he has become.

Worried about losing his Superiority more than anything else...what a tool.

[stevenleser]

20. Well, I'm for prosecution and for release of the memos, so it isnt my concern

this is not a concern troll thread. This is me wondering who else feels this way, because I am on DU pretty often as many of you know and I never knew there were Democrats of this opinion.

AND, quite frankly, who ever is putting this information out there really is on message because everyone who voices this opinion seems to have the exact same points and wording.

[Hutzpa]

27. I'll let your friend of a friend

go tell the friend thats in the know that....the wrath of God is on the way and if they dare stand in the way they will get swept away by the force of the people.

Just saying....

[vixengrl]

13. I think that releasing the torture memos is the start of something--

The arguments about not releasing the memos are flat out dumb, anyway: if the issue is national security because now the "enemy knows our tactics", well, we aren't using those tactics anymore, and if the problem was our reputation--well, a pre-emptive war and the fact that as early as 2004 the evidence of torture was out there has already done it.

The groundswell is going to come from us (not DU--but yeah, okay, people like us here...the people who always write LTTE and call our Congresspeople and sign petitions and blog and stuff). Those people who are hostile to the idea of prosecutions now, might be relieved when prosecutions start once people take a hard long look and petion them for redress of wrongs. I think the release of additional pictures, viscerally, may be the next step for people who aren't as interested in reading about the legal arguments, to see what the fuss is about. And like any movement--it grows because information spreads and has power.

Putting the information in our hands was the first step in what I hope is a chain that leads towards justice. So, well, I say we raise a stink. (Although I think the best bet politically, for investigation is Holder appoints a Special Prosecutor. That way it always stays out of the White House's hands, and don't get me started on how bad I think a "Senate bi-partisan commission" would go. Talk about "bridge to nowhere.")

[movonne]

3. I don't care what comes out as long and the bush cabal is

proscuted...this is a war crime and why should they get away with it...if it could be done without the release of the memos and pictures fine....

[stevenleser]

6. They dont want the prosecution even without the memos.

I really didnt know what to make of it. The person I spoke with walks in high enough circles to be part of a small group that sat with Bayh to talk policy.

[BeFree]

5. Heh

Actually, if the republican party ever wanted to regain any confidence from the people, they would be clamoring for Justice.

That they don't says a lot about their agenda. DLCers, too.

[mmonk]

7. My father fought the Nazis.

So my feeling is we can either affirm Nuremberg and its principles or affirm the crimes.

[tularetom]

8. When the fecal matter collides with the air circulation device

It won't matter whether you are a repuke or DLC member. You will be judged on how you reacted to the sorriest and most shameful chapter in American history.

[NYC_SKP]

9. Let's be clear. Some self-described Democrats are not our friends, really.

On this matter, there will be a few Republicans in favor of full disclosure, investigations, and prosecutions, and there will be some DINOs who will be against it.

:patriot:

[Hutzpa]

12. Ditto n/t

[Clio the Leo]

10. I am torn ..... but not for that reason.....

.... because even if it DID hurt national security, what we did was wrong.

I'm not AGAINST prosecution, I'm not sure what I want .... but I'm not ridin' in the saddle, guns blazing trying to chase Dick Cheney et al down, because I fear this thing doesn't have as obvious as a end or solution as we think.

Now, the news today SOMEONE in the DoD sent a memo informing ... whomever it was they informed, that waterboarding was torture is a VERY good sign .... but apart from that, I think what we have is a big sticky mess that most everyone would agree what was done was wrong ... but at best, is hard to prosecute and at worst may turn out to implicate our very own.

I was just fine with the President talking about windmills. :)

[mmonk]

14. Windmills can't repair broken government.

[Clio the Leo]

46. But windmills can reduce our dependancy on foreign oil...

.... which, sadly, helps keep the cost of living down more than Dick Cheney sitting in jail.

And that's assuming we can get him there.

Justice is important ..... I'm just not sure this one is doable.

[mmonk]

113. If it's not doable,

are you ok without living with any guarantees on your freedom? Do you have children?

[sniffa]

15. I'm waiting for Skinner's thread about it

I don't know what I can or can't say anymore so I'll wait for his input.

[stevenleser]

73. Has he said he will be issuing something on this?

I didnt know. Was I wrong to post my OP?

[dalaigh lllama]

16. If we don't face up to this as a nation and loudly repudiate it

we will never be seen as anything but hypocrites on the world stage. We will be to the Muslim world what holocaust deniers are to us -- willfully ignorant buffoons.

[JRH_Mom]

17. I may be gone in a hearteat

I'm not the "best Daughter' I grew up in a military (AF) background, and I've "ticked" my parents off quite a few times.

But I really belive they shouldn't have released these memos. I'm sorry - left wing, right wing, you keep our people safe.

I still remember what I saw on 9/11...I NEVER, EVER want to see that again.

[stevenleser]

19. Again, this is almost exactly the same reasoning and wording that this person gave me

Very interesting. I am not discounting your feelings, I am just still coming to grips with the idea that people in the party think/feel this way.

[JRH_Mom]

21. Hey - I have an incentive

I have a 3 year old daughter. I'd do ANYTHING to save her. I'm
probably naive as hell, but I'd hope that we (as citizens)
might get 1/2 of the "Mother Bear" protection that I
have for my baby girl. 

KEEP US SAFE.

We aren't the ones sawing off heads. Are we?

[stevenleser]

23. That is what the person I spoke with today said as well.

Either you are the same person, or the message discipline among your group is astounding.

The problem with the logic is that there is nothing in the memo release that would harm your safety or the safety of your daughter, so you are creating a false dilemma.

[JRH_Mom]

29. it's not a false dilemma

We did happen to lose over 3,000 people in one day.

You have to be strong. I believe at this point, you DO NOT turn another cheek. We ARE "infadels" It's not going to change. Waterboarding (v. cutting Daniel Pearl's' head off on video) is a heck of a lot more "nice" than what could happen to usl

Again - Naive, I may be.

[stevenleser]

34. Sure it is. There are actually multiple logical fallacies with your argument, not just the false

dilemma.

#1 - The false dilemma comes in because you believe the choice is between torture and safety. Since you are the one claiming there are only two options, it is incumbent on you to prove that there arent any other options. What are your national security credentials? I am willing to bet you dont have any and that you are just parroting arguments you have heard somewhere. In fact, I am sure of it since it is the same argument nearly word for word I heard a few hours ago. If you dont have the facts and national security creds to back up your argument, you shouldnt assert it.

The United States has a huge national security, intelligence and military defense apparatus that protects us against threats. What you are in effect arguing is that all of that is useless unless we torture people. That assertion requires a LOT more in the way of facts and you havent provided a single one.

#2 - A particularly horrific flaw in your argument is the red herring of the 3000 people. This is an irrelevant point vis-a-vis torture because we didnt have anyone TO torture who would have told us about 9/11. Even if we had, torture is no guarantee they would have told us anything about it.

#3 - Comparison of torture vs execution via decapitation... I think you get the idea.

Someone is really doing a number on people with this message.

[JRH_Mom]

36. Huh?

#3 - Comparison of torture vs execution via decapitation... I think you get the idea.

Huh?

[stevenleser]

41. Its a rather obvious logical fallacy, like the other two examples

...

[Better Believe It]

135. And how many of those tortured died? And how many of those tortured

were not terrorists?

And how many of us would tell our captures whatever we thought they wanted to hear in order to stop the torture?

Torturing people would not have stopped 9/11 from happening.

And torturing people who "might be" terrorists will not stop terrorism. It never has.

And I'm not about to give up my freedoms, civil liberties and destroy our Bill of Rights because in doing so we "might" stop some terrorist attack that would kill people.

Why are you unwilling to recognize that we might have to give up some lives in order to defend our freedoms? I guess you don't think preserving this nation and our democratic rights is nearly as important as building a strong police state that engages in kidnappings and torture that will supposedly make us safer.

Well, freedom isn't free and some unfortunate civilians have been and will continue to die at the hands of terrorists. You shouldn't be so willing to give up our freedoms just because a strong regime might slightly reduce your chances of being hurt or killed in some terrorist attack.

The chances of you being killed by some terrorist bomb are remote at best. I'll take my chances and keep my freedoms if you don't mind.

[NYC_SKP]

37. Their beheadings do not justify our breaking the law, the code, our way of life.

It simply does not compute.

Think about this, because you're suggesting that their inhumanity should give us license to become more inhumane:

If we sell our souls, if we become more like them, then THEY HAVE WON.

:patriot:

[The Magistrate]

38. This, Ma'am, Is Bloody-Minded Nonesense

The point is to secure useful information from prisoners. Torture is not a particularly reliable means of doing this. It is a fairly reliable means, however, of getting people to tell you what you want to hear from them; people under that sort of duress get very sharp about sensing what will make the pain stop. It is, in fact, quite obvious that the point of most of these torture sessions was to get people to say things that would be of use to the Bush administration in manipulating domestic politics, either by providing brandishable 'proof' of a connection between Sadam Hussein and al Queda, or providing an excuse for some 'terror alert' to push inconvenient news off the front pages in election seasons.

But all of this is quite beside the real point. These acts were crimes. They were grave breaches of the Geneva accords, and Federal law makes such breaches of that treaty a felony against the United States. Selling crack may a fairly effective way of acquiring large sums of money, perhaps the only one that seems readily available to some people in certain circumstances, but that does not change the fact that it is a crime. Torturing prisoners is a crime. If you think the United States should engage in it, then by all means, have the courage of your convictions, and openly agitate for our withdrawl from the regime of international humanitarian law, and the repeal of the War Crimes Act, and its replacement by a frank and honest statement that the government of the United States believes the proper treatment of prisoners is torture, and that it reserves the right to torture prisoners as it sees fit and deems proper in any particular instance.

[yardwork]

42. Do you mean Nick Berg? I saw the video of his head supposedly being cut off.

The people who killed Nick Berg were not middle eastern. I think that they were American mercenaries or even CIA agents.

[The Magistrate]

44. That is Beneath You, Ma'am

You cannot possibly hope for that statement to be taken seriously.

[yardwork]

47. Sorry you feel that way. I absolutely believe it to be the truth.

I saw the video. Nick Berg was being held in a facility that looked exactly like the one in the photos of torture at Abu Ghraib. Same yellow walls, same plastic chair. Identical plastic chair, in the same general location. Conclusion - the video was shot in Abu Ghraib. Who was running Abu Ghraib at the time the video was released? We were.

[stevenleser]

49. Of course, a simpler explanation that doesnt require a conspiracy theory...

is that many buildings in Iraq may be of similar construction and plastic chairs tend to look alike too. Just sayin...

[yardwork]

66. Of course that's true, but there are a lot of fishy things about that video.

The background being the same is only one.

[The Magistrate]

50. In Courtesy, Ma'am, It Is Impossible For Me To Continue This Exchange

This thread is devoted to a serious discussion of present political dilemma of great import, and this is the rough equivalent of someone shouting a joke about flatulence from the pews in the middle of a wedding homily....

[yardwork]

64. The topic certainly seems to have upset you. I'm not sure why.

I believe that it will be eventually acknowledged that Nick Berg's death was caused while he was in the custody of U.S. forces in Abu Ghraib. I suspect that his death was an accident - possibly overzealous torture while trying to discover what he was doing wandering around Iraq - and the videotape of his "beheading" was staged to cover up the circumstances of his death.

Since the Pentagon has now acknowledged that numerous other people died at the hands of U.S. personnel while in custody in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, I'm not sure why you find it so impossible to consider that Nick Berg was one more.

[stevenleser]

69. I think it is upsetting because it threatens to take the entire discussion off topic

The reason I posted this OP was to discuss the real and immediate issue of this faction in our party.

We dont know if there was a conspiracy behind what happened to Berg and if there was, we may not find out for sure for a while. This issue of the DLCers attempting to stop the memos and investigations is real and its is now.

[yardwork]

71. It's become a sub-sub-subthread. I didn't intend to highjack your thread.

I was simply responding to another poster's comment that the murder of Daniel Pearl makes it ok for us to torture suspects. I thought she meant Nick Berg, for one thing. Second, I disagree that any kind of murder justifies torture.

The two issues are linked, though. Nick Berg's death was used to whip up anti-Iraqi sentiment right after a lot of Americans were horrified by the photos of torture coming out of Abu Ghraib.

[stevenleser]

74. I believe you.

I think that was magistrates concern though.

[yardwork]

77. No, he says that I've farted in church.

[Hutzpa]

90. lol

thats awful....c'mon now...give Magistrate a break please...:rofl:

[The Magistrate]

79. It Was, Sir

Though there is this, which draws the matter back to the issue you proposed to discuss, somewhat. This is an example of the sort of thing that makes it possible to stigmatize effectively as mere 'outcry from the far left' genuine concerns regarding crimes committed by the Bush administration. Anyone now reading through this thread would be able to say, 'Sure, it's people who think U.S. troops beheaded Pearl and Berg who want prosecutions for war-crimes! Is that what you think? Is that what you want to stand beside, and support?" It is a powerful argument in ordinary agit-prop work, and we are conversing in the presence of real evidence to back up the statement. People who are seriously concerned to see justice done have a duty to register opposition to this sort of disfiguring nonesense, which plays into the hands of the enemy in every field of debate. Do we not use the nonesense of people like Bachman, and the 'where's that Moslem Barry's birth certificate!' outcry to discredit opposition to President Obama? We should not provide similar ammunition from our ranks to our enemies.

[mvd]

102. Hmmm..

Well, notice how there have been no sensational beheadings like that since the Bush misadministration completed their illegal occupation. I'm not sure if there's something to it or not - it's just something that I've noticed. It's also clear to me that Berg was actually killed elsewhere, but they decided to do the video there.

As for torture, I'm anything but one of the ones against prosecution! I don't believe in torturing back or the death penalty, but they deserve jail time for war crimes.

[The Magistrate]

116. Beheadings, Sir, Seem To Be Routine Wherever Jihadi Elements Operate Throughout The World

It is a form of execution they feel has sacred sanction in many cases. They do not reach 'sensational' status here because they are both routine, and involve only native subjects. Westerners vulnerable to kidnapping are pretty thin on the ground in Iraq nowadays.

One element that needs recognition here is realization that embroiling the U.S. deeper in Iraq was a goal of jihadi actions. The point of the attack on the U.S. itself in September of '01 was to provoke the United States into fighting on a battlefield in the Moslem world, in the hope that the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan could then be replicated, by opening a running sore that would drain the energies of the U.S. in a guerrilla quagmire, and sap its economic and social strength to a breaking point. While this did not work out initially in Afghanistan, the Bush administration was kind enough to oblige the jihadis by invading Iraq. Outrages calculated to inflame the feelings of ordinary citizens here were very much in the interest of the jihadi elements in the early period of the occupation of Iraq, as a safe-guard against the possibility the U.S. government might come to its senses in time. No enemy of any competence would take for granted the blundering stupidity of the Bush administration, and that it would endure and certainly persist in the folly it was embarked on.

[mvd]

121. I realize the first part of your post, but I don't put it past them to stage things like this

The sentiment hasn't passed, and you don't even hear about it done to non-Westerners as much. After all, I believe firmly in LIHOP. So I would amend your second part.

[The Magistrate]

122. We Do Have Our Areas Of Disagreement, My Friend: That Is Nothing New

It is not a question whether such an act can be 'put past them', but rather whether that is necessary to explain its occurrence. To my view it is most emphatically not.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

[mvd]

123. We do indeed, but I always respect your opinions

You always at least put a good deal of thought and knowledge into them. :hi:

[The Magistrate]

72. Again, Ma'am, This Is Beneath You

It will be difficult for me to continue to regard you as a serious person, whose view on matters is to be respected, if you persist in this line. What you have presented constitutes neither presentation of evidence nor a logical proposition. It is simply an attempt to flesh out a view that the United States is the sole actor with a bent to evil on the world scene, and manifest it in some particular case about which there is no serious question concerning the course of events. Howe many of the various kidnappings and killings by radical Islamic fundamentalists in arms do you claim are 'actually' carried out by U.S. forces?

[yardwork]

76. Only the death of Nick Berg. You're really over-generalizing.

I have not said that the United States "is the sole actor with a bent to evil on the world scene" nor anything remotely like it.

For some reason you are taking extreme exception to my stated belief that U.S. personnel or (more probably) hired mercenaries killed Nick Berg while he was in U.S. custody and then staged his murder for political reasons that were crystal clear at the time the situation unfolded.

No, I can't prove it. This is a discussion board, not a court of law. If you've seen the photos that the U.S. has already released - years ago - you know that a number of people were tortured and killed in Abu Ghraib by U.S. personnel. This is not under dispute. I believe that Nick Berg was one of them. You disagree. Fine. I'm not telling you that you've farted in church or making disparaging comments about your intelligence, but you are doing that to me. Knock it off.

[HamdenRice]

86. Well, this is a bit OT, but it's a fascinating topic

I also am convinced by a careful analysis of the evidence, that Nick Berg was not murdered by Iraqi jihadists or Abu Musab al Zarqawi's group. This is not because I think the US is evil and the perpetrator of all evil acts. It's because of the evidence and many inconsistencies in the tape.

At the time it happened, CNN had an Iraqi woman expert on regularly, and she said that the Arabic spoken in the tape definitely was not Iraqi or Jordanian. She said it was Russian, by which I assume she meant Chechen or Arabic from one of the "stans" -- Khazakstan, etc.

A doctor I know who looked at the tape said Berg was dead when his head was cut off. That's incontrovertible. Blood should have been shooting everywhere. I have to confess that when I lived in Africa, as a matter of hospitality, I had to slaughter several sheep to my ancestors as a "welcome present" to "me" and I've also seen pigs slaughtered and the idea that Berg was alive at that time is simply preposterous. There should have been projectile blood spewing for several meters. I won't even go into the fact that for the tape, "Zarqawi" managed to regrow a leg.

Also, Berg's "business partner" and the last man to see Berg alive in Baghdad, was as shady as they come in the bizarro world of neocons. His name was Aziz al Taee, aka Aziz Khadoury Aziz, aka Joe Aziz -- in that first identity (Philadelphia Joe Aziz), the largest vendor of crack vials on the eastern seaboard convicted along with some of the East coast's biggest Russian mafia figures. Somehow crack vial Joey Aziz was transformed in the run up to the Iraq war, from a convicted crack felon into the head of the Iraqi-American Council (against the objections of many Iraqi Americans whose basic response was "who is this guy?"), after which he was making major pro-war presentations to the Council on Foreign Relations, and being interviewed as the voice of Free Iraq by the McNeil Lehrer Report, and giving rousing speeches at FreeRepublic rallies with Jeff Gannon/Guckert. Berg's business partner got a free ride to Baghdad after training by Rumsfeld's DOD to be part of the Chalabi led government, but took a detour to ask softball questions at the occupation authority's press conferences.

I'd say Berg's business partner was quite upwardly mobile, going from crack vial dealer to making appearances with Paul Wolfowitz:

http://www.conjur.com/politicsMedia/MR+AND+MRS+HAKAK+PAUL+WOLFWITIZ+AND+AZIZ+ALTAEE-150.jpg

Berg himself was quite the character, having shared his email account with would-be "20th 9/11 hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui back before 9/11 at the University of Oklahoma. There is absolutely no factual question about his having been in US military custody -- our own government admits that -- before somehow ending up within days in the custody of the "terrorist" Zarqawi, who himself was of questionable reality:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1385799

It seems to me to raise at least a reasonable doubt about Berg's murder by "Abu Musab al Zarqawi" that in 2006, excerpts of internal DOD documents were published in the Washington Post that said, I quote, "The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date," and that admitted that Berg's "killer" had been the subject matter of a US propoganda campaign in Iraq to exaggerate the importance of Zarqawi.

There are enough factoids about "cut-outs," odd coincidences and inconsistencies in the Berg beheading story to fill several web sites -- which they have.

I have no fucking clue what the real deal was with Nick Berg, but I do know the whole official story is as crooked as a dog's leg, and what they told us happened definitely is not what happened.

[The Magistrate]

100. None Of This, Mr. Rice, Comes Close To Establishing The Claim Made Above Commencing This Side-Track

The most that could be taken from it with much solid ground under the step is that the identification with Zarqawi could be false, and that name appended to someone else within the jihadi ranks in Iraq. That a good many statements by the U.S. government concerning hostilities in Iraq, then and now, contain distortions and falsehood is hardly something we disagree on. It is on the degree of such twistings that we differ. They do not rise to the level claimed by some here, on any evidence presented in support of that claim. This sort of thing remains discrediting to any attempt to do justice regarding real crimes by the Bush administration. It allows the opponents of that effort to blend it in with claims that will be received as outlandish lunacy by the people at large, and so operates to assist those who fight against deserved prosecution.

[HamdenRice]

139. It's somewhere in between

You are correct that there is no evidence for the precise claim made at the head of this subthread -- that Berg was killed by the CIA or American mercenaries, so on that we agree.

On the other hand, we live in a world where we have to make judgments based on in complete information and come up with "probability" type conclusions -- like "more likely than not," "beyond a reasonable doubt," or "to a moral certainty."

Applying those standards, my judgment would be:

-To a moral certainty, Nick Berg was dead when his head was cut off.

-To a moral certainty, the decapitation tape was altered or manipulated in various ways

-Beyond a reasonable doubt, Berg was in US custody four days before he disappeared

-Beyond a reasonable doubt, the killers in the tape are not Iraqi or Jordanian

-Beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, the killer on the tape is not Zarqawi

-Beyond a reasonable doubt, at the time, Zarqawi was the subject of a military psyop

-Beyond a reasonable doubt, the tape is not what it purports to be and therefore is some kind of propaganda device

-It is more likely than not that Berg was involved in activities other than his tower repair business

-It is more likely than not that Berg is wearing an orange jumpsuit of the kind that US occupation forces issued to prisoners

-It is more likely than not that the killers are Arabic speakers from one of the former Soviet areas

That doesn't mean he was killed by the CIA or American mercenaries. In fact, I agree that that particular claim is very unlikely.

Considering the context, it's reasonable to conclude that the tape (not necessarily the killing) was some kind of subcontracted psyop.

[Two Americas]

107. not necessarily

Suspicion that rogue elements (or not so rogue) within the US government have staged or faked things - we know that this has occurred in other cases - does not mean that the person is making "an attempt to flesh out a view that the United States is the sole actor with a bent to evil on the world scene." It could be, of course, but it does not logically follow that it is.

Can we not recognize and speak out against factions within our country and our government that act in bad faith and illegally and deceptively without being accused of siding against our country?



...

[empyreanisles]

82. You have GOT to be kidding me. You are off your rocker.

This is no better than the right wingers obsessed with Obama's birth certificate.

[Two Americas]

108. that makes no sense

It is not in any way similar to "the right wingers obsessed with Obama's birth certificate."

Would you say that the government has done no staging of events to influence public opinion? What about that rescue? What about the pulling down of the statue? Has the government done no lying about what they are up to?

Being suspicious of the Bush administration's actions in their war on terror - what does that have to do with the birth certificate thing? Nothing. There is no comparison.

We could do worse than to be suspicious about every single thing the Bush administration did and said. There are too many unanswered questions, too many known examples of deceit and lying and staging of events.


...

[LostinVA]

84. Why are you being so insulting to her?

Because, you are. You're just wrapping it up in polite prose. That doesn't make it an less of a personal attack. Didn't you read Skinner's thread yesterday... Sir?

[The Magistrate]

94. A Person, Ma'am, Who Interrupts A Discussion Like This

In order to cry up the nonesensical claim that U.S. soldiers behead U.S. citizens abroad and pass themselves off as radical Islamic fundamentalists when they do so insults me, and insults the forum. That is not in any sense serious political discussion, and does real harm to serious political discussion.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

95. Mercenaries or CIA was the claim, not US soldiers.

Passing themselves off is insulting?

Bush 'plotted to lure Saddam into war with fake UN plane' (Just one of many examples)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-plotted-to-lure-saddam-into-war-with-fake-un-plane-465436.html


While the claim may not be true, it's possibility is neither insulting nor nonsensical. There is a long historical record of just that type of propaganda happening. Whether it's proper place is in this thread is another matter entirely.

[The Magistrate]

96. You Are Not Even Comparing Apples To Oranges Here, Sir

You are comparing a chunk of basalt to a frisky pony....

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

98. Faking the appearance of something is not faking the appearance of something.

Got ya.

[The Magistrate]

101. An Aircraft Falsely Marked, Sir, Is Not A Bloody Corpse

A chunk of basalt and a frisky pony are both solid objects, but identity comes no closer than that.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

104. And specious reasoning is specious reasoning.

The only thing that exactly resembles the Berg case is...the Berg case. Therefore, no analogy can be drawn, according to your specious reasoning.

The relationship being tested is not the identical nature of the objects but the possibly identical nature and purpose of the deception.

Keep digging.

[The Magistrate]

112. Nonesense, Sir

The relationship being tested is the degree of depravity inherent to the acts compared. Painting a false ensign on a machine is an act of different character than the killing of a human being, as any comparison between trial and sentence of someone on a charge of 'tagging' a city bus and someone on a charge of murder will disclose. You are claiming that someone's having proposed a plan to deceive by painting a false marking on a machine, a plan that was not actually carried out, suffices to demonstrate that someone has actually done murder, staging the act as the deed of someone else. The weight of the acts is as different as a handful of feathers and a handful of lead. The lie does not, and cannot, suffice to prove the murder, or even establish reasonable suspicion of agency in the murder.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

124. Horseshit, (insert condescending title here)

The degree of depravity?

Really?

That's what you think this discussion is about?

It's pointless to continue.

[The Magistrate]

125. You Are Correct It Is Pointless To Continue, Sir: You Are Not Holding Up Your End At All....

"As you make your bed, so you lie there.
But who'll tuck you in when you do?
And if someone steps up I'll be that one,
And if someone gets stepped on that one's you!"

[LooseWilly]

131. There is a point that you seem to be overlooking.

I suppose you were simply too offended to read closely. You perhaps have too much respect for the troops, and the Mercenaries, and the CIA, to read closely a theory, even one that is merely suspected rather than believed.
Yardwork opined that perhaps Berg was killed in custody, as were several others. The opinion then continued by considering the possibility that the dead body was perhaps then seized upon as an opportunity to further demonize al Zarqawi, by beheading the corpse.

And in that detail, your relativity of depravity argument fails. Once Berg is dead, his body is no longer anything but a pile of meat. And the deceptive marking of a pile of meat or a piece of machinery is in fact comparable.

Of course, I'm inclined to believe that it is an unlikely scenario. On the other hand, I'm not inclined to vehemently denounce any who might consider it a possibility, merely out of fear that anyone's holding of that theory might be used to libel any other ideas that can possibly be associated with those that consider the possibility.
Why, sir, don't you realize that those associations will be made regardless... and the Right will draw the associations to the most wild theories they can find... and so a theory that is at least vaguely reasonable is of no use to them, so why not examine said theory rather than recoiling in horror at the thought of such a theory existing?

[The Magistrate]

132. You May Play With It All You Want, Sir, But Will Have To Do It Without Me

Beliefs like this cannot, in the strictest sense, be argued with. Since they do not arise from rational consideration of a body of agreed fact, those prone to them cannot be reached by appeals to either fact or reason. It is like trying to argue someone out of being in love. No matter how often or well the shoddy foundation on which the speculative castles are reared is exposed, no matter how bitingly the thing is shown to be rediculous, it will make no difference to those caught up in the emotional thrall of being possessors of secret knowledge. Past a certain point, long since reached here, the thing becomes too boring for words....

"If your sexual fantasies were really of any interest to other people, they would not be fantasies."

[LooseWilly]

138. Ahh, I see the light.

Just out of curiosity, how would one, were one so inclined, manage to have one's suspicions deemed worthy of inclusion into "a body of agreed fact"? Who exactly is expected to agree on a fact, or set of facts, in order for you to deem said facts to be, in fact, factual?
Is there some sort of list of names? Or perhaps a list of organizations that the opinions of the members thereof are deemed worthy of making judgements as to factuality? Is it a simple majority of this meritocratic organization, or dis-organization, that is required for the establishment of factuality? Or is a 2/3 majority of "deemage" that is required?

And, while we're on the subject, just how does one present a factoid to this organization of fact agree-ers for examination for formal factualization? Is there, perhaps, a ISO 9001 procedure that you can point me toward?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

140. There's no end to hold up.

"I add to my posts honorifics
because I can't be bothered with specifics
I hem and I haw
'tis my fatal flaw
Yeah, that's just the ticket."

[Hutzpa]

53. Dang!

yardwork has a point, during Daniel Berg murder, people here back then felt it was a set up, events leading up to his beheading has many holes to say the least, added to that the accent of the guys were proven to be from another Arab country besides Iraq. Bottomline, Bergs' death was staged.

[The Magistrate]

55. A Few Of 'The Usual Suspects', Sir, Amused Themselves With Such Fantasies

It has been rightly said that there is no accounting for tastes, and that a leading amusement of humankind is passionate belief in the palpably untrue....

[yardwork]

59. This may be one of the few times we've agreed. It was Nick Berg. I have his name wrong upthread.

[Hutzpa]

89. Yup!

Imagine that...shows something is happening thats why I said dang, because i could not believe we agree on something, thats what this forum should be fighting the good fight with no malice.

Thanks for the correction on Nick Berg, hopefully people will understand our point.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

67. I think you mean Nick Berg not Daniel Pearl the journalist. nt

[yardwork]

70. Yes, I did. I meant Nick Berg all along, and I've corrected his name. Thanks.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

91. It took me a little while to figure out too it's been years since I've heard those names. nt

[LostinVA]

83. I agree with you, Yardwork -- and I'm not a "black ops conspiracy" person

If you're educated about the CIA's (and its precursor) involvement in Central America, that's all the proof you eed. I am convinced the poor man's executioners were NOT who the Administration wanted you to believe they were. Anyone not at least keeping an open mind about that is being naive at best.

[vixengrl]

52. We sure did--but I want to advise you that the White House had information.

Now, Before I get into this, I'm not a "9/11 Truther" and I really can't see the Bush Administration deciding it was better for this to happen, or worse yet, encouraged it. But there were signs something was happening before 9/11 that they just didn't notice--and not because Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton never told them in 12/2000, that al Qaeda was going to be a major threat (and they'd have been reminded of this when the final analysis in re: the USS Cole attack came out in January of '01) and not because the various intelligence agencies didn't have the tools to discover "something" was going on.

The FBI issued 216 internal threat warnings about an al Qaeda attack that year. RIchard Clarke tried to make Condoleeza Rice aware of the threat a few times-nada. The 8/6/01 PDB actually said Bin Laden wanted to have an operation that struck US soil. It's possible there was enough information--and it just didn't didn't result in the right action on the part of the Bush administration--

But in the meantime--how do you know information acheived by torture is accurate? You don't, it's just the word of one individual saying whatever they can to see if you let up on them. Torture in the respect of intell-gathering is a dicey proposition. When you say "You do not turn the other cheek"--well, that statement isn't about intelligence-gathering anymore. It seems to be about vengeance.

KSM has copped to being the guy who took Daniel Pearl's head. He did so under these "enhanced techniques". He's also admitted being part of the Bojinka Operation, the Richard Reid (in my mind he's always "Hotfoot Harry") shoe-bomber thing, and something like 30 operations in all. What to believe, what not to believe? Did he do something? You bet. I say he's probably as bad a person as possible. But it isn't worth it to me to see him waterboarded for some trash information, when the fact of his having been tortured stains my country's reputation, and maybe some other extremist who saw pictures of what went down at Abu Ghraib or knows about Bagram, or knows someone who was processed, decides it's worth it to attack US soldiers because of that. Or who knows those things, and joins al-Qaeda. It doesn't keep us safe.

Torture isn't being strong. It's being afraid. Afraid because you don't know what will happen next--but introduce torture and you still might not know. Your guy might be making things up. And you still have to deal with the blowback--the reality of screwing over a person--and don't assume all these people are KSM. Some of these people are minors. Some are innocent.

If worse is going to happen to me for continuing to believe in the rule of law and the Constitution--so be it. A long-ago Judge said that the Constitution wasn't a suicide pact, but it was, if I recall right, from a dissenting opinion, and looking back at our revolutionary (treasonous, if we lost) beginnings, I think the enterprise of being the kind of nation we are, in some ways, is. If they "hate us for our freedoms", then I am the biggest backer of freedom that ever was. Call me "Patricia Henry". "Give me Liberty, and let me try and remind you you're free too--or what the hell, at least I die with principle!"

I won't call you naive. But I think the difference of opinion has a lot to do with looking at all the outcomes. I'm a kufr myself, and I'd prefer to think torture is what their lot does--not mine!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

57. "Yay we're not as bad as the beheaders!!!" Way to lower your standards.

I'm still waiting to hear a coherent argument from you. And no, one liners about having kids an argument does not make. How does showing the world that this is a nation of laws specifically hurt your daughter or kill another 3,000 people? Be specific now.

[vaberella]

61. You have....all in all, extremely questionable morality. n/t

[mmonk]

25. Don't let fear be your guide.

Terrorists will not be swayed either way. The people that are most in the dark on this issue live here. People in the Middle East already know. How safe were the German people made with "enhanced interrogation techniques"?

[firedupdem]

31. The information was already out there. How would releasing it

keep us less safe? The world knows what was done...with or without memo's. We won't see another 911 if we have competent individuals in office. We were warned about this incident prior to it happening. The information was ignored. We have gained nothing from torturing.

[stevenleser]

35. See #28

...

[rucky]

87. See #85...

or I suppose I can cut and paste:

If anything, the disclosure of this memo by the new administration would be the start of reversing anti-American sentiment & improving our national security.

[yardwork]

39. Torturing people makes it more likely that we'll be attacked again.

When we torture people, they and their families get angry. They'll want revenge.

[Hutzpa]

43. Sounds like Liz Cheney to me

ain't this a joke, people that believe in slavery will tell you that slavery should never have been abolished because it make certain people with tiny manhood feel bigger and superior (thats my take anyway)than they should be,(Abolition of Slave Trade) I guess my point is, when America torture they call it enhanced interrogation, but when Paul Pot did the same they call it torture and a dictator and the demand for his head.

Its like saying to the world, there is one rule for America and another rule for the rest, now, see how far that will take this country, considering the allies and relationships that this country needs to build on to maintain that super power status.

Maybe, most of these folks that are trying to turn this don't understand the ramification this has caused America, you might think the economy down turn was a fluke or was Bush's doing (yes to Bush), but another factor was the rest of the world started holding off on America, instead of America being the Leader it became the follower, attitudes changed toward the US and all of a sudden foreign dignitaries started feeling the impact this was having on the country. Doing business became difficult and countries stop participating and began creating hurdles that where not there before.

I'll stop now.

[rucky]

85. The memos confirmed what most folks already suspected.

I don't see how releasing them is a threat to national security. If anything, the disclosure by the new administration would be the start of reversing anti-American sentiment.

[bluedawg12]

92. How does releasing the memos make us less safe? n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

110. Unfortunately, your line of thinking

is EXACTLY the objective of those that planned the attacks.

Torture and Totalitarianism are not tenets of democracy.

[TankLV]

119. Torture is NEVER acceptable. Period.

If you believe in using torture FOR ANY REASON, YOU'RE A FUCKING SUBHUMAN, IDIOT.

And I'll say that to your face and your spawn...

[BlooInBloo]

129. A heartbeat isn't soon enough.

[The Magistrate]

18. Hard To Know What To Make Of This, Sir

Persons of a certain turn of mind might regard it as a species of honey-trap....

In fairness to the opposition within our Party, a few things can, and should be said, it seems to me.

First, a number of people confuse 'national security' with 'avoiding embarrassment'. The feeling is honest enough, whether one regards it as mistaken or not. Prestige is an important component of national power, and hence a reduction in a nation's prestige can be readily seen as a reduction in its security. A number of people are possessed of a turn of mind which places little worth on the conclusions of others, and so are of the view that only if they admit the truth of a thing themselves can anyone else's statement that it is really true carry any weight. For these people the testimony of men released from U.S. prisons regarding their treatment can be dismissed as lies, and statements by the Red Cross merely evidence of that body's personnel being duped by those liars, through an excess of do-good-ism and naivete on their part. The release of official U.S. government documents, however, is confirmation of the truth of the thing, to such a mind, and only this can establish it as fact, and cause an actual reduction of prestige. Thus, the embarrassment of frank confession is what does the harm, in their eyes, since that makes it impossible even for them to deny the act honestly.

Second, a number of people imagine the way to prevail in a conflict is to project an appearance of toughness. This is an idea fostered in popular culture, and dear to the imagination of people who do not themselves actually engage in violent and dangerous pursuits. A great many people derive their whole 'knowledge' of conflict from popular fictions, in which things play out very simply and directly, and the good always triumphs. To these people's understanding, any suggestion of a check on their side's willingness to engage in violence, to do hurt and harm, is a harbinger of defeat, and any confession of error is likewise a harbinger of defeat, since it lessens the quality of perfect good perceived as an essential element in the eventual victor of the scripted fights they are familiar with, and imagine describe how real conflicts play out.

Third, there is little room to question the assertion that prosecution of Bush administration officials will produce a political firestorm at present, and that there can be no certainty how the ignited conflict would play out. People no more like to admit, as a general rule, that their country has done wrong than they like to admit they themselves have done wrong. Supporting prosecution of Bush administration officials for the war crimes they committed will require a good many people to wrap their minds around the idea their country has done wrong, and accept it whole-heartedly. Getting them to do this is not the work of a day; it will require a process of public education. Each side of the political balance has at its disposal a finite amount of energy, and must determine where to direct its efforts. Effort directed to one field cannot be employed on another. People can disagree on what the priorities should be, without regarding those they disagree with as evil rather than misguided.

If there is to be prosecution of Bush administration officials for the war crimes they have committed, a great many people who are not now too enthused by that prospect are going to have to be brought along to join the effort. Demonizing them at this stage will not help this goal.

[stevenleser]

22. Hi Magistrate. See the post I responded to above yours

because that post is a good example of what this group says. They arent worried about embarrassment, they actually think that national security was harmed by the release of the memos.

[The Magistrate]

32. Yet You Will See, Sir, In Those Comments Above

The habits of mind laid out in my comments. People often employ coded language when dealing with loaded subjects. One way to approach altering their minds is to speak past the code, and engage what they really mean....

[islandgirl808]

24. honestly, I'm a little hesitant about releasing more memos & pics.

not so much for national security, but for the safety of the family in the whitehouse. I realize it sounds a little tin foilish, but I can't help it. we are talking about people who have the means to make things very ugly.

but if we don't deal with this now, the next time it happens, we could all be in danger.

:tinfoilhat:

[madeline_con]

26. National security my ass. It was known all over the world.

Fuck those Dems who don't want ot hang the perpetraitors. Figuratively speaking of course. Dems don't support the DP, I'm told. :eyes: :puke:

[stevenleser]

28. Let me make sure their argument is clear...

and understand that I think it is terribly flawed so dont shoot the messenger. They believe that the memos would tell an enemy how FAR we would take each of the 'enhanced' techniques, not that we use them at all. I said in the OP why I think that is a flawed argument.

[madeline_con]

93. Sounds about right. The problem is, we sent prisoners to

places where sick guys with car batteries and hot pokers had their way with them. All after the Pentagon study, which predated this whole debacle, stated intell gathered durijng torture is nbot reliable.

No one really knows "how far we'll go".

[CJCRANE]

105. But other experts suggest that creating a rapport

with the accused in fact helps to reveal more information.

(Just think about the defectors during the Cold War who revealed information because they saw America as morally superior to their own country).

So, if this is the case, then it is irrelevent "how far" the techniques go because they are not needed at all.

[hijinx87]

33. I am against any prosecution of bushcu

we have already beaten them . .. . .

[The Magistrate]

40. Always Kick a Man When He Is Down, Sir....

[vixengrl]

60. Hear, hear! In the Case of Bush&Company

I am of the opinion that they are not beaten until they are most thoroughly so. The point of their being "beaten" is not so much a part of their no longer having control of the Executive Office, but also of having their utter folly, negligence, misdeeds, and high crimes and misdemeanors, accounted for and reckoned with. The reason is not, for me, mere partisan vendetta or politics--oh no. It's pour descourager les autres. I do not find it in any way felicitous to see that common sense and human dignity are once again on display in our foreign policy, if there still lurks the precedent of what the Bush&Co have done, and the potential for a reoccurance. For that reason, such hijinks must be tried, and considered, and the bastards who enacted them sentenced.

Else, what's a Justice System for?

[yardwork]

45. I remember when people said the same after Watergate and again after Iran-Contra

which is why Cheney and Rumsfeld and Karl Rove were around to steal and run W's two terms. If we don't clean out the rot this time, the criminals who did this will be back in the White House one day.

[vaberella]

63. No we haven't. They have their cronies still around.

These people could come back and still wreck anything O has done. I'm not about to let them go around breaking the law again if by some fluke they gain power again.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

65. So, if a guy burns down your house but gets a beat down from your neighbor on the way out

you wouldn't want him prosecuted either? You must be some kind of a saint.

[MadMaddie]

48. Whether they want it or not it's too late to stop it

The truth has a funny way of seaping through the lies and crimes.


Releasing the memos only confirms what the we and the world knew already.

Tell them the threat to our National security was focusing on Iraq, while Pakistan started on a downward spiral to the point that the Taliban is close to getting their hands on nukes.

Better to be honest about it and air it out so it's not hanging over the US like a dark cloud.

[stevenleser]

51. You dont think Obama intends to release more damning memos/pieces of information?

By my calculations, he has been releasing information damning to the Bush administration at the rate of every 3-4 weeks. It seems to me that this bruhaha is about stopping that and stopping prosecutions.

[MadMaddie]

54. I absolutely believe he will continue to release memos and

pictures.

I think the Repugs are on the verge of making some huge blunders they can't help themselves.

Remember those 100 + CIA tapes that were destroyed? I bet that they will come to the forefront again..

The prosecutions are going to come I have no doubt about it.

[The Magistrate]

56. The Releases Will Continue, Sir

These things erode the enemy's strength at a basic level. The effort the right must put into defending against them detracts from their ability to make mischief in opposition to President Obama's legislative agenda, while releasing them requires no particular effort at all of the Administration.

[stevenleser]

58. I think so too...

but now I will be wondering what the Blue Dog/DLC reaction will be when they happen.

Today began as such a good day for me too, but the revelation about this group has really ruined it for me.

[The Magistrate]

62. They Will Be Left No Choice, Sir, But To Come Along Eventually

The fact is that the people are with President Obama. They identify with him, and consider his success their success. Opposition to him is a mug's game, and professional politicians will see this clearly in time. They will have to vote with him on important matters, and will find no milage in opposing his actions in any sphere.

[stevenleser]

75. Magistrate, you remind me of Marcie and Peppermint Pattie with all of the "Sir's"

;-)

[saltpoint]

106. I consider it quite a good day indeed to encounter your posts on

this site.

Hello and Happy Springtime.

[EFerrari]

68. The national security meme is b#llshit.

The images of torture and abuse are Osama bin Laden's wet dream of a recruitment posters.

And revealing torture tactics shouldn't hurt us in any way because THEY ARE ILLEGAL and THEY SHOULD NOT BE USED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[empyreanisles]

78. I agree with Clio The Leo. This road leads to an abyss we may not escape.

I feel that should justice is served, be it with convictions or not, we will be left with a country more divided than it is now.

Not to mention that as a black person, I feel this will amplify the racist undercurrents that already exist because of Obama's election. It will embolden them like never before because no matter how a-political the prosecutions turn out to be, it will be seen as Obama taking "revenge" on the White President.

There is a very strange and uneasy feeling I have about some being so eager to watch public servants go to prison. It's not like this was genocide or anything. In the panic and anxiety after 9/11, some of our public officials lost their way in the noble goal of protecting America. I just don't feel they should go to prison for that.

A handful of dangerous individuals were tortured by Americans under the auspices of our leadership. It was illegal. It was wrong. But in the grand scheme of things, it is not the soul-killing, point-of-no-return event that will destroy our nation. It is an ugly stain that we will heal in the years to come.

President Obama has reversed the policies and shed sunlight on what DID happen. I believe we need to move on from here.

[yardwork]

80. Your statements are disproven by the facts.

In the panic and anxiety after 9/11, some of our public officials lost their way in the noble goal of protecting America.

I disagree. They didn't "lose" their way - Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld did this on purpose. Nor was there anything remotely noble about it.

A handful of dangerous individuals were tortured by Americans under the auspices of our leadership.

Wrong again. More than a handful, and there's no proof that many or even a single one of them was really dangerous. There were children being sodomized in those prisons by U.S. personnel.

[The Magistrate]

81. It Is Possible, Mr. Isles, the Disinfectant Of Sunshine May Suffice

It is certainly true it can have a powerful effect towards discrediting the dishonorable in the public eye.

Your concern regarding racial politics strikes me as having some validity, and is a factor that needs careful weighing.

But you should weigh, too, the poor quality of 'noble intention' view you present. It is quite possible to do great wrong from the best of motives, and the motive does not, and cannot be allowed to, excuse the act under a system of law. All men mean well, and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[cliffordu]

118. I agree with you in this entire debacle of a thread, Sir.

And admire your restraint.


:patriot:

[Bad Thoughts]

88. I am for reparations/reconcilliation

1. Full release of documents
2. Sworn testimony of all particulars
3. Amnesty/reduced sentencing depending on severity if (and only if) torture falls within the "four corners" of the DOJ guidelines.
4. Financial payments to those who were tortured for "crimes in the name of the American people."

[Overseas]

97. People who never read international news may think people don't know much

about the torture program.

Just as some Americans are shocked by anti-American sentiment over what we did in the Iran-Contra program and Vietnam, they forget that not all foreign press have been conglomerated into conservative corporate hands to manage the news.

Here we have CNN and other TV media glossing over false reasons established to start a war, glossing over treason in outing a covert CIA agent to get back at her husband for revealing the deceit behind a false reason to start their war of choice, and gloss over torture as "enhanced interrogation" or "harsh techniques." I say glossing over because they will report the facts of the stories and then run lots of chat "experts" about 80% pro-Bush, 20% anti, to defend the indefensible.

There are hundreds of other countries on earth and some of them still have a much more independent press than we do here. Not dominated by corporate interests. And they have discussed the torture techniques practiced in our name much more openly than we have over here. They refer back to memos, reports and photos released over a year ago, even as our Blue Dogs hope those stories have faded from the memory of American consumers of info-tainment. Less of the foreign press has been conglomerated and consolidated into conservative corporate hands.

The Blue Dogs don't seem to care that the news is out around the world, as long as our own citizens remain largely unaware. If we don't know the details, then they can pretend that they are the champions of being "tough on defense"-- they can pretend that the propaganda against Democrats is true and they are different. They're fighting to "keep America secure," when most of the rest of the world knows that the torture program has seriously decreased our national security. It has shown the US government can be co-opted by renegade regimes that discard the rule of law and even habeas corpus.

The world knows what the Blue Dogs hope their fellow citizens have forgotten-- that the USA has practiced torture, the legislature was shown photos and video of torture sessions, and just sent a few lower level operatives to jail but left the authors of the policies untouched for several years since the Abu Ghraib news came to light. When some US citizens' groups were calling for the impeachment of those who crafted the torture policies, the legislature quashed their appeals for action. When groups of citizens were protesting Bush administration plans to create war against Iraq, joined by millions around the world, our legislature allowed "Shock & Awe" to proceed, and our corporate media championed that effort with dramatic music and branding. Just allowing a few dissenting voices on the air to pretend they were presenting the news in a balanced manner.

So, awfully sorry Blue Dogs, the news has been out for years now. We are just getting a few more details but enough was known to justify the impeachment of the Bush Regime when they were in power. I am glad more information is coming out in an unstructured manner, some of which reflects back to reports that had already been issued and discussed all over the world. Sorry Blue Dogs, the U.S. public may just come to understand what the world already knows and want to take more decisive action than just TV chatting to make sure that no future administration can compromise our integrity that much ever again.

Citizens may come to see that pardoning the Iran-Contra group was a dangerous precedent. They may wonder whether the Cheney Gang was emboldened by seeing that group get off so easily, and decide that prosecution is the best deterrent to future U.S. regimes trying to rule from the Executive Branch.

[AtomicKitten]

99. I'm for prosecution and a life sentence for the architects. n/t

[saltpoint]

103. I'm almost always suspicious of the "national security" argument when

it is set against the rights of the citizenry to assemble, to speak, and to otherwise act in principled ways.

Nutshell example: Then-Indianapolis Mayor Richard Lugar, following that day's assassination in Memphis of Dr. King, insisted that then-presidential candidate Robert Kennedy NOT make a public appearance in the Indiana Democratic primary for fear that violence would erupt.

"State security" in this case, but essentially the same arguement.

Kennedy ignored Lugar's timidity and went out in front of his audience and told them in person that he was the bearer of the saddest of news, that that evening in Memphis had come the death of Martin Luther King.

I wasn't in on the conversation you had with the DLC folks but it does seem to me that when someone imprisons and tortures human beings and then lies about it, that THAT is the security risk.

More schools and medical centers and fewer black sites (specifically, none) might enhance national security.

I believe it would do the entire democratic process a lot of good to see those memoranda. I am guessing that names like Cheney and Tenet and Rumsfeld and Rice will figure prominently in their contents. I favor release of the material and appropriate prosecution of anyone who authorized that torture be visited upon other human beings.

[Spazito]

109. Internationally, the reputation and respect for the United States has been very badly...

damaged and were the United States to simply expose that which most around the world already knows occurred and not follow their own "rule of law" as well as international law in investigating and prosecuting those who committed criminal acts, the US will NOT regain the stature and respect required to, in part, ensure it's own security, imo.

This is not Watergate, a domestic scandal, whereby the acts committed by Nixon et al, primarily affected only the United States. The acts committed by the Bush administration had an international effect.

[TheKentuckian]

111. I'm all for release and prosecution of the crime syndicate

I don't think the operatives should or can be prosecuted within the context of US law.

[grantcart]

114. I am

for the release of the torture memos, and wish that more would be released.

for the prosecution of individuals who broke the law. They should start at the bottom give immunity and go as high as the trail leads without exception.

for reaffirming American policy not to torture, first and foremost I don't want American servicemen and women to be subjected to this same treatment.



I am however resolutely against further torturing the Magistrate anymore with the tortured facts and logic that he has been subjected to in this thread. The man has suffered enough, Sir.

[saltpoint]

115. May I second the points in your post, grantcart,

especially your defense of The Magistrate?


:thumbsup: :hi:

[cliffordu]

117. For the first time in my life I agree with Grantcart.

[The Magistrate]

120. Let Us Hope That May Occur More Often, Sir

Surely the best benefit this place could provide would be to expand areas of agreement among us, so our common ground is enlarged, rather than to heighten and exaggerate our disagreements....

[cliffordu]

128. I agree absolutely -

I was kidding about Grantcart, who I have observed to be one of the most productive and considerate of all the DUers I follow on a regular basis.

We tweak each other like this for fun and stress relief....

I consider him a dear friend.

Sorry for any confusion, but I'm glad it prompted the response you gave. It's worth reading and remembering.

[The Magistrate]

130. I Appreciate The Correction, Sir

The cast of characters is hard to keep in order now that it is not a daily duty.

"I never forgive: I often forget."

[Creideiki]

126. Which Udall?

There are two.

[nod factor]

127. I am vehemently against it.

We have no right to claim any moral high ground when we are still currently bombing brown folk into oblivion in countries where we haven't even authorized war. Honestly now, what is stopping the next administration from charging this one with a war crime for every person who is murdered in Pakistan?

[ProSense]

137. Now there's a rational argument

We can't prosecute war crimes because the next administration will prosecute imaginary war crimes.

GMAFB!

Investigate and prosecute these evil bastards.

[stillcool]

133. I think the tv is saying that too...

They're going to blame it on us..saying we didn't support it. Maybe have some tea for torture parties.

[noamnety]

134. The DLC should concern itself more with the SUBSTANCE of the memos,

rather than their release. The fact that we torture prisoners is what hurt national security. And now, the fact that the DLC is protecting the war criminals and supporting covering up their crimes is also hurting national security. They have become the problem.

[Geek_Girl]

136. I think the DLC'ers are covering their ass or their neo-cons friends asses

I have a hunch if investigations are thorough, then dems may be implicated as well. At least to being aware of the extent of the torture and who knew what and who did what.

Also not all material has been released to the public. Remember when Hersch revealed in the New Yorker he saw a video of a child being raped in Ahbu Grhaib as a means of getting intelligence from a his mother.

If that tape gets out in the public domain it's going to be hell for anyone that was seen as being supportive of the Bush administration during that time and IMHO the DLC'ers would fit that mold.