So what's the reason behind releasing this?
 

What purpose does it serve? Pro and con.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...rture_tactics/

I believe under the ACLU lawsuit ruling they would have had to release the documents or fight a battle to keep them secret.

Regardless it's almost certain that they would have leaked anyway, and this allows Obama to get the issue behind him rather than have leaked documents keep a story running that's a distraction.

Yes, some will argue that this will cause the CIA to pull back, but if we just keep our behavior in line with the law, I'd wager our intelligence professionals can be very productive. From what I've read, it sounds like most of the detainees who were tortured gave up the good info using legal techniques. Had torture resulted in good intel that's saved lives? I haven't heard any stories that indicate this, although we may never really know. Regardless it's a slippery slope that as a law abiding nation we probably shouldn't have gone down.

Yet another mess Obama inherited from Bush.

-spence

what no blowtorch and vise grips???....ahhhhh the bug! if they have high value intel and it will save lives.....

Waterboarding is super effective. To not be able to use this technique to extract viable, pertinent information from enemies of the country is a joke.

There are a lot of experts in the area who would say that no coercive methods or torture are effective as the reliability of information is so suspect as to be worthless.

That being said, to assert that we should use torture simply because it's effective shows a real lack of ethics or belief in the rule of law.

-spence

If by "super effective" you actually mean, "has never provided substantially useful information" then you'd be spot on.

Officials: Waterboarding Foiled No Plot
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4901154.shtml

All waterboarding does is get the person to say whatever they possibly can to make the torture stop - be it useful information or not.



Buckman, to answer your question, my understanding is that this was released on a Freedom of Information Act request.

brain scanning technology will soon make torture obsolete...

Do you actually think that under O'Bama it isn't going to continue, unabated?

The sodium pentathol budget will be increased.

give him some electric cool aide
 

and the guy will be babbling like a brook :as:

The Defense budget is the only budget thats going to see cuts. Every other will see massive increases.

The fish rots from the head down.

-spence

Nice to see a statement on a sunny Sunday morning that's based entirely on no facts.

-spence

My taxes will go up too...:deadhorse::tooth::tooth:
Obama's raised taxes! Taxation w/o representation!
Taxes! Cuts! Taxes! Cuts!

Currently, 61% of Americans approve of the way that Barack Obama is handling his job as president while 26% disapprove. His approval rating is largely unchanged from March (59%) or February (64%). Obama is loved by Democrats (91% approve) but has already run into growing opposition from Republicans (29% now approve). But the president retains his high approval rating overall with independents supporting him by a two-to-one margin (56% approve, 27% disapprove). Obama also enjoys strong support with respect to his economic leadership. Fully 70% say they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in him to do the right thing when it comes to fixing the economy. By comparison, 55% have confidence in congressional Democratic leaders and only 38% have confidence in Republican leaders in Congress. Majorities also believe the president’s policies will both improve economic conditions (66%) and reduce the budget deficit over time (54%).

TEA PARTY PROTEST:
http://media.buffalonews.com/smedia/...filiate.50.jpg

OBAMA RALLY:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...regon533.2.jpg

It was a prediction, Spence.
It will become fact, like so many of the predictions about this nutty bunch you voted in.

I figured this wouldn't take long.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30325495

Good. If illegal actions took place, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Politicians need to be shown that they are not above the law and are going to be held liable. Like the slap on the wrist Mark Foley got for sexually inappropriate solicitations with his pages.

And then there's Sen. Craig who pleaded guilt to sexual misconduct, then decided that he was confused about the plea and changed it to not guilty. Then, was allowed to submit a guilty plea for misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Yup. And then there's Jim McGreevey, Gary Studds, Brock Adams, Fred Richmond, Eliot Spitzer, Willliam Jefferson, Mel Reynolds, Charley Rangel, Diane Wilkerson, Bill Richardson, Diane Feinstein, Rod Blagojevich, Jack Murtha, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Tim Mahoney . . . and so on.

I see what you did there... clever.:doh:

The utter lack of non-partisan thought by some people is amazing to me. Can't have a general discussion about liability without some nitwit being ridiculous.

Well, this is disturbing, under Bush, with his Attorney General, Judges and Lawyers, waterboarding was not considered illegal, but now the new administration says it is, so we can go back and prosecute those involved in making those decisions. Would that be kinda like when I turned 18, that was the legal age to drink, but when I was 19 they changed it to 21, they were not able to prosecute me for underage drinking as it was legal when I started at 18. Or another comparison would be, if Oregon changes their medicinal marijuana laws to make it ilegal and then prosecuting the laywers and politicians that had a hand in making it temporarily legal. It happened legally under Bush, Obama's team changed it, so from now on, it can be prosecuted, but I don't think they should try to go back and go after those involved under Bush. Different times and different measures were thought to be required. I'm sure many of our left leaning friends here even would have supported it, after 9/11. It's hard to go back and remember the way we felt, but we would have done anything to prevent another attack.

Waterboarding is clearly illegal under International Law and the Geneva Conventions. Additionally, the United States has recognized water boarding as a war crime historically and has prosecuted people for water boarding under war crime statutes.

There's ample precident to state that it is indeed illegal.

Under Bush, his council came up with some reasons they thought we could get away with it and the Administration, based on that advice, allowed it to occur.

But that doesn't mean it wasn't still illegal, a court would have to decide, but the case doesn't look good.

Your statement is akin to pleading insanity. I wasn't responsible for my actions after 9/11 because I was afraid, or Bush's position, that laws don't really apply any more. Neither option looks good from where I'm standing.

And I'm sure many of our right leaning friends here would at least take a few steps backwards, look at how we reacted at that time, and seek to learn from past behavior so we can operate in a more responsible manner in the future. While there may have been good information derived from torture was there a net gain?

I think Obama is in a tough situation here but is taking a reasonable course of action. I don't think we should go after the CIA and other agents who took part in the activity, and I don't think the Nazi "we were just following orders" attack is necessarily applicable either.

If there is evidence that Bush's attorney's understood the legal ramifications and still sought to give Bush the authority (i.e. cooked the books) then they should be held accountable, although I'm not sure if they've technically broken any law.

-spence

If anyone should be punished it should be these guys, that told the military and CIA it was acceptable to use in certain cases. The greater responsibility lies on those at the top, including Bush if it is proven illegal actions took place.

I'm retired navy and if I was ordered and told that it was required under these set circumstances due to possible gains, I probably would have done it. There is no way in hell, that any military person should be prosecuted unless it can be proven they went beyond what was prescribed by Washington. I know there is a high possibility some of the military may have exceeded their authority, and in those cases it may be necessary to prosecute. But if it was deemed necessary by their superiors and they acted within guidelines, they should not be prosecuted.

How about the political officials that have since admitted they knew waterboarding was a form of torture (or as they spin it "a harsh interrogation technique), yet still authorized the use of it?

Rice, Cheney, and Rumsfeld all knew it.

I do agree that no military or CIA personnel should be held liable, and this position is supported by Obama.

What partisan? Just helping you flesh out your non-partisan list. It is fun, though, to be a clever nitwit.

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;683383]waterboarding was a form of torture (or as they spin it "a harsh interrogation technique),

I think this is just hilarious....we beat ourselves up over whether or not waterboarding and/or putting a bug in a box with a terrorist is torture.....while the guys that actually torture, and not with bugs or water.... laugh their asses off...did anyone watch the Danny Pearl video???? I'm guessing he would have preferred having the lights left on all night or even the horrible waterboarding to having his head slowly cut off with dull knives listening to Arabic chants.....to the folks that claim it doesn't work and does not provide any useful information....WANNA TRY????....were you the same folks during the campaign that complained the McCain had broken under REAL torture?...and that it showed bad character.....can't have it both ways...

I listed two names, not much of a list.

Not to mention names of people that were actually reprimanded, one of which initially had criminal charges brought on him.

HUH?
 

Eric Holder spoke out on the interrogation of unlawful combatants in 2002.


"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.


"It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."


--Eric Holder, CNN interview, January 2002

You could very easily make the argument that they are not prisoners of war. There are other aspects of the Geneva Convention that could possibly exclude terrorist prisoners as well.

However, the Geneva Convention is not the only treaty the US has approved and signed that bars torture. In April 1988, the United States signed the "UN Convention Against Torture." This bars all forms of torture regardless of their prisoner status.

As such, Eric Holder's entire opinion in invalid, along with any other argument that tries to say we're outside the bounds of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention is familiar to people and supporters of the previous administration tried to use to to rationalize torture to the American public.

It seems ridiculous to try to justify torture based on a technicality, even if the Geneva Convention was the only reference to torture.

do you think Obama would "justify torture" if God forbid one of his adorable kids were kidnapped by terrorists and we held one of their associates who we believed had info to their whereabouts...

there is a huge chasm between what the left has defined as "torture" done by Americans, I believe simply for political advantage and what the rest of the world actually employs as torture....

I've read plenty of accounts of the day to day routine of the Gitmo detainees....we accomodate their specific meal requirements, their religeous needs despite following a "faith" that implores them to kill infadels to please Allah...it is prison after all and these are cockroaches whose own countries don't even want them back which is why they'll likely end up here in the States on welfare......they were not infantry on a battlefield in service to their respective countries, they a religeous finatics who kill indiscriminantly..... that said...

I challenge you to point to a time in history where Pow's or detainees or whatever you want to call them, were treated better as a group than these human cockroaches......certainly not American POW's...we know how they look if and when they are ever released....