Cheney admits authorizing detainee's torture

Raw Story

Monday, outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney made a startling statement on a nation-wide, televised broadcast.

When asked by ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl whether he approved of interrogation tactics used against a so-called "high value prisoner" at the controversial Guantanamo Bay prison, Mr. Cheney, in a break from his history of being press-shy, admitted to giving official sanctioning of torture.

Well I guess we all suspected this one. The interesting point is why now???
Maybe it's reverse psychology? If I hide it everyone will assume what I did wrong and against the law. If I address the issue of torture candidly with no shame or regret it is less likely there will be consequences. Another Cheney "Go F*ck Yourself!" moment.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by Leo Strauss]

reply to post by Leo Strauss


I guess your pathetic attempt at trying to enflame the site with this misleading title depends on if you believe waterboarding is torture.

I believe it is not.

Especially when you look at people saying loud music or sleep depravation is torture.

You can have Sheik Mohommed live with you when he is released. O.K?

Here is the interview:

Here is the fluff piece from last night. Unrepentant yeah...

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by Leo Strauss

 

I guess your pathetic attempt at trying to enflame the site with this misleading title depends on if you believe waterboarding is torture.

I believe it is not.

Especially when you look at people saying loud music or sleep depravation is torture.

You can have Sheik Mohommed live with you when he is released. O.K?

Waterboarding is not torture?!

From WIKI-
Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, physical injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, psychological injury, and, ultimately, death, which may be caused by one of the many possible conditions -- not only drowning -- that are triggered by this behavior. The physical effects of waterboarding can come on even months after the event, and the psychological effects on the victims can last for years.

Can my band come live with you?! Or loud obnoxious music is
sure to drive you crazy.

If they talk about this, what else ar ethey hiding. They are just trying to pretend that they are nice humans and they accept what they did.

Its bull, as we all know, how many people suffered all over this world, and have nothing to do with america, and they have there life ruined by them.

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by Leo Strauss

 

I guess your pathetic attempt at trying to enflame the site with this misleading title depends on if you believe waterboarding is torture.

I believe it is not.

Especially when you look at people saying loud music or sleep depravation is torture.

You can have Sheik Mohommed live with you when he is released. O.K?

Wow. And you also believe that sleep depravation and loud music is NOT torture? Have you ever been subjected to it? If not then I suggest you find a place where you can be. It IS torture. Water boarding is worse than both of them. If you don't believe me, then give IT a shot too.

It is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. I have experienced forms of torture for training but never water boarding. Just imagine the feeling of being slowly drowned. Especially after your mind has been weakened by other forms of torture. You can't fight it and you truly believe you are about to die. Panic sets in.

Torture of the mind is in some cases WORSE than physical torture. For you to think otherwise shows your severe lack of understanding of the subject matter.

I also listened to Dick on dipcrap Limbaugh's show. The proudest moment he has is that he has protected us from further attacks after 911 with the passing of the Patriot Acts and the spying on the U.S. citizens. Out of his own mouth.

So, coming from someone who actually voted for that man, he has constantly put his foot in his mouth and has benefitted a GREAT deal wtih all of the BS that has taken place on 911 and since.

reply to post by crmanager


So if extreme pain and risk of serious injury and death is not torture to you, what is?

Where do you draw the line?

reply to post by InSpiteOf


What is your definition of "serious pain" and "risk of injury?"

Asking name rank and jihad number means nothing. Put them in prison so we can feed the 3 squares and provide prayer time then provide them with an ACLU lawyer? I don't think so.

No broken bones and no bleeding, otherwise go for it.

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by InSpiteOf

 

What is your definition of "serious pain" and "risk of injury?"

Asking name rank and jihad number means nothing. Put them in prison so we can feed the 3 squares and provide prayer time then provide them with an ACLU lawyer? I don't think so.

No broken bones and no bleeding, otherwise go for it.

dry drowning, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, physical injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, psychological injury, and, ultimately, death

So, where do you draw the line? Bamboo splinters? How about contact with extreme cold and hot surfaces? What about a blow torch to the body? How bout watching your loved ones being raped and mutilated? Where is the line in the sand for you?

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by InSpiteOf

 

What is your definition of "serious pain" and "risk of injury?"

Asking name rank and jihad number means nothing. Put them in prison so we can feed the 3 squares and provide prayer time then provide them with an ACLU lawyer? I don't think so.

No broken bones and no bleeding, otherwise go for it.

That's ludicrous. So electro-shock torture is okay? Do you think it's appropriate to tazer someone repeatedly in the head to get information from them if they're SUSPECTED of being a terrorist? Many detainees will never be charged with anything. And you think it's okay as long as there's no visible signs of the damage being done to them?

You are a disgusting human being.

reply to post by crmanager


So you wouldn't be opposed to, say, putting electrodes on someones testicles and electrocuting them? That wouldn't be torture in your book?

Oh, and on a side note, since when is this Kalik Mohammed (sp?) guy the mastermind behind 911? Wasn't that Bin Laden? Or is this just a convenient way of declaring mission accomplished?

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Can my band come live with you?! Our loud obnoxious music is
sure to drive you crazy.

AWESOME QUOTE.

if it had a broader appeal.. it would be on my freaking bumper sticker..

good stuff!

-

[edit on 16-12-2008 by prevenge]

that's an awesome quote.

could be like...



-

[edit on 16-12-2008 by prevenge]

reply to post by crmanager


how do you feel about the treatment of our captured soldiers?
is their torture/interrogation ok?
i don't want our men/women to be tortured by the enemy.
should the u.s. be above abiding by the geneva convention?
what rules should we follow?

i personally don't believe in torture. it will cause a person to say anything to end the pain or fear they're experiencing.
as to an alternative to gain info? don't know of any. would like to know though.
but, torture is wrong. no matter who it's done to.

Even Sam Harris, evolutionist du jour, believes waterboarding is a necessary 'ethical' technique;Sam Harris.org

Nevertheless, there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like “water-boarding” may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary....................I am not alone in thinking that there are potential circumstances in which the use of torture would be ethically justifiable. Liberal Senator Charles Schumer has publicly stated that most U.S. senators would support torture to find out the location of a ticking time bomb. Such “ticking-bomb” scenarios have been widely criticized as unrealistic............My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation ("torture" by another name) is essentially this: if you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to “water-board” a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like Osama bin Laden).

I wonder if Richard Dawkins agrees?

[edit on 16-12-2008 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by InSpiteOf

 

What is your definition of "serious pain" and "risk of injury?"

Asking name rank and jihad number means nothing. Put them in prison so we can feed the 3 squares and provide prayer time then provide them with an ACLU lawyer? I don't think so.

No broken bones and no bleeding, otherwise go for it.

Torture can have many variations.
Obviously you can take it, seeing that
your head seems to wedged be so far
up your own @$s that most would find
it uncomfortable. I would consider that
"serious pain" and "risk of injury", but
you for some reason enjoy it.

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by Leo Strauss

 

I guess your pathetic attempt at trying to enflame the site with this misleading title depends on if you believe waterboarding is torture.

I don't think we are in need of your opinion whether or not water-boarding is torture. Your ignorant attitude may change if you fell victim to this malicious practice.

As for Cheney's comment, he has no soul.

Water-boarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.

[edit on 12/16/08 by Yoda411]

reply to post by Clearskies


And that means what, really? I hardly think Sam Harris is end-all opinion on the subject.

So, I ask again, where do we draw the line?

My own family has served in many wars up to and including Iraq. In fact a nephew of mine died a few years ago with what he himself claimed was due to toxic exposure or Gulf War Syndrome in Iraq. He claimed it till the very day he died and was never compensated by the government. His 2 small girls no longer have a Dad. My father was a decorated war veteran front line infantryman. They all supported the Geneva conventions.

I think it is shameful that Dick Cheney who never served in active combat would jeopardize our troops in the future by condoning lawlessness. He is a disgrace to our country.

Remember when we used to be the good guys?

Things happen in war and I am aware that at times there are no rules in the field and sh*t happens. I am also aware of the guilt and thoughts of wrongdoing that trouble veterans for the remainder of their lives. Let's get back to the Army Field Manual! Better yet let's not start unecessary and illegal wars!