Bush and His Cult of Cronyism Sign Off On Torture (Then Lied About It)

[Brassmask]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/10/they-knew/

The discussions in the White House were top secret and sources say, involve some of the President?s most senior and influential advisors, principals of the National Security Council. In dozens of private talks and meetings, sources said that a handful of top advisors discussed specific high-value al Qaeda prisoners and exactly how those prisoners would be interrogated. Whether, for example, they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding. The discussion about the ?enhanced interrogation techniques? were so detailed, sources said, the interrogations were almost choreographed, down to the number of times the CIA could use a specific tactic. Former CIA director George Tenet, in an interview last year with ABC News told Charles Gibson,

?It was authorized. It was legal, according to the Attorney General of the United States.?

It also was discussed and approved in meetings by the National Security Council?s Principals Committee, a group that included Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, John Ashcroft.

[Lanya]

There were just a few bad apples, Brass.
But they were all at the top.

[BT]

It was authorized. It was legal, according to the Attorney General of the United States.?

Lawyers opine, judges rule.

The rest is just some people talking.

[Brassmask]

It was authorized. It was legal, according to the Attorney General of the United States.?

Lawyers opine, judges rule.

The rest is just some people talking.

You forgot "presidents" condone.

[BT]

You forgot "presidents" condone.

Public servants listen to the advice of counsel. That's where they get their cover.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The point is that Juniorbush says they don't torture, but the fact is they do.

This makes gthe US look like some banana republic. We should have higher standards that Amedinejad or Mubarak.

[BT]

The point is that Juniorbush says they don't torture, but the fact is they do.

The point is Americans are bad asses.

Of course we torture. Been doing it since the pilgrims came over.

To act like this is something new is naive.

[hnumpah]

The point is, this sends a message to everyone else that we feel we can ignore international conventions against torture at will. What is to keep them from doing the same to our troops now? Granted, being able to say we didn't torture prisoners didn't guarantee that our troops wouldn't be tortured, but that is one protection, however small, that they now no longer have.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The point is Americans are bad asses.

Of course we torture. Been doing it since the pilgrims came over.
=====================================================
The point is you can be a bad ass, or you can look like you deserved to be the leader of the world.
If you want respect, you pretty much have to act respectable.
Juniorbush & Cheney don't, and are not respected.

[BT]

The point is, this sends a message to everyone else that we feel we can ignore international conventions against torture at will.

It's not a new message. It's just been politicized.

[BT]

Surrender Or The Puppy Dies

Megan McArdle is discussing the failure (or lack thereof) of the media when it comes to the John Yoo memos on the legality of torture for American troops facing irregular combatants. The comments are extensive. With the usual Bush is Hitler slant. I have a little different opinion.

When people don't even know (so many commenting on the article) what John Yoo even wrote about, it is obvious that even for stories people commenting there are interested in, the media has been dishing up moldy slops.

Did Yoo shred the Constitution? How could he? He doesn't make policy.

What was Yoo asked to do? To research the applicable laws, national and international, dealing with torture and irregular warfare.

And what is the number one rule dealing with irregular warfare? Irregular warriors can be summarily shot after a military court. And how rigorous does that court need to be? It can be done on a battlefield.

Why is that a rule of war? Because irregular warfare that does not conform to the rules of irregular warfare endangers non-combatants.

Now if you can kill them on the spot why would torture be out of bounds?

Now that may be a true legal opinion. It says nothing about whether it is wise. It is obvious that our military leaders consider it unwise, despite the legality, because that is not the practice of our military.

Why don't our troops torture and execute as a matter of policy if they have the legal power? It impedes surrender. And we want them to surrender. We want easy fights - not fights to the death. We want to beat them not kill them. A man who changes sides is more valuable in terms of victory than a dead man. Dead men don't change sides.

Now in all this uproar over Yoo has any one of note covered the facts well enough so that at least the majority of the commenters to Megan's piece get it?

I see no evidence of that in those comments.

In this war which side is known as the torturing side? Which side executes civilians at random as policy? Which side is notorious for using human shields?

So for all the fools screaming Yoo, Yoo, Yoo, Yoo, and Bush too, why no outrage at the random mass murder of civilians as a military tactic?

Because the other side is using a tactic well known. It is: give up or the puppy dies.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/04/surrender_or_th.html

[Lanya]

We didn't torture prisoners in World War Two. The Japanese did.

You saying "it's always been this way" doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it so.

We're now no different from the people who tortured us in WW2.   

This does put our people at risk. 

[BT]

We didn't torture prisoners in World War Two. The Japanese did.

You saying "it's always been this way" doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it so.

We're now no different from the people who tortured us in WW2.   

This does put our people at risk.

How do you know we didn't. What about throwing VC from Copters in Nam?
The School of the America's is not some new thing. Started by Truman.

And even if we didn't, enemies still tortured our boys , so what has changed?

[Brassmask]

The point is that Juniorbush says they don't torture, but the fact is they do.

The point is Americans are bad asses.

Of course we torture. Been doing it since the pilgrims came over.

To act like this is something new is naive.

To act like it is ok since we have been "doing it" is morally relativistic.

[BT]

To act like it is ok since we have been "doing it" is morally relativistic.

I haven't offered an opinion about the morality of torture.

I take issue with the idea that this is something new and Bush invented the process.