Even though they've denied it, this confirms it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21133278/

Real Americans don't stand for torture.

Could you post the quote where they confirmed your thread title?

Under then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ leadership, the Justice Department issued a secret opinion in 2005 authorizing use of painful physical and psychological tactics against terror suspects, including simulated drownings and freezing temperatures, The New York Times reported in Thursday’s editions.

That secret opinion, which explicitly allowed using the painful methods in combination, came a year after a 2004 opinion in which Justice publicly declared torture “abhorrent” and the administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.

Asked about the story Thursday, Perino confirmed the existence of the Feb. 5, 2005, classified opinion but would not comment on whether it authorized specific practices, such as head-slapping and simulated drownings.

In other words, the article you linked to doesn't prove the "Bush administration favors torture" as you erroneously stated in your headline.

Before we get into this - again - I'm really curious - not aasking a loaded question;

Deane, would it make any difference to you if there was an admission of torture? Would you be ok with it?

I am OK with torture to a point. Scarring the bejeezus out of some of the guys is OK with me. The water board seems OK. Pulling out finger nails, poking out eyes, hanging people upside down over hot coals are not things I'm OK with. Remember, these are the folks that saw people's heads off while they are alive or blow up women and children.

What? If the Bush Administration didn't favor torture, then why the secret opinion that clearly favors torture? This is red-handed proof that they believe in a policy of torture and of approving "the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the CIA."

Deane, I propose this new improved thread title:

"The flaming neocons are going completely nuts!"

Whaddaya think?

Ed, we're trying to eliminate inaccurate thread titles here.

"Remember, these are the folks that saw people's heads off while they are alive or blow up women and children."

I do remember that. We have a process in place that is supposed to trump all of those torture policies though. We are supposed to find every OTHER way to deal with them.

And please, don't start going down the road of " I want to hold their hand " - but if we, as a nation, are tortuing, and by your own admission there are times in which it is warranted, then the administration should be crystal clear on what it is that we are doing. If it's so reasonable and acceptable, then say it. Out loud.

THEN we let our citizens decide with full knowledge on how to proceed.

The title is 100% correct. The Bush Administration CLEARLY favors torture. Their documents prove it.

Not only does torture put our troops at risk, torture does not provide good intel.

I see no where in the article that says anyone was tortured.

But some uncomfortable interrogation methods are approved, which in some circumstances, most Americans would agree with. Such as a terrorist caught with a known, or strongly suspected link to smuggling a nuclear weapon into the US.

Or a terrorist that is know to know the location of US POWS.

Here's my question: What have people on the right got against due process? If there is not enough evidence to convict, then there is not enough evidence to "uncomfortably interrogate". (And for God's sake, do not cite the "ticking time bomb" example)

My example of missing US POWS, I hate to tell you this, but there is pleanty of evidence US interrogators treated German and Japanese prisoners rather badly, if they were suspected of having info that could affect a battle, or lead to POW's.

We even refused to accept some germans surrender, after teh Malmandy massacre during the battle of the buldge, and later info showed the maacre never happened, at least not the way it was thought to.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Friday defended his administration's methods of interrogating terrorism suspects, insisting, "This government does not torture people."

I believe Bush. The "government" is not torturing suspects. People are torturing the suspects.

Like, say, guns don't kill people. People kill people.

NOPE!
Bullets kill people.....

if you look at the chain of events, person points weapon, pulls trigger, causes firing pin to hit primer, primer burns, causing gunpowder to burn, creates pressure, forces projectle from barrel, projectle travels through air, hits a person, tears through flesh and bones and possible vital organs. Organ damaged, such as heart, causes it to stop functioning, causes loss of blood pressure, which stops blood circulating, without blood bring oxygen, organs start to degenerate, with the brain first, brain stops sending signals to rest of body telling them to function, soon all body activity stops, your dead.

...Like, say, guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Or as the blue bumper sticker on my Land Cruiser says "Guns Don't Kill People, Abortion Clinics Kill People"

I've never had a single person make a negative comment when they see my bumper sticker. I do get lots of positive comments though.

The whole torture issue is one that is going to not go away until the administration comes clean and quits splitting hairs about formal definition.

And talking about it openly, in front of detainees or possible detainees, is not the reason it's being kept secret. It's being kept secret from American citizens because the administration knows they would face great opposition to it. And the plain truth is that the administration wants to keep doing it for as long as possible. Eventually, it will come out, the specifics, and the administration will fall back on their current lines of " We said our Government doesn't torture...we didn't say anything about hiring others to do it for us." Or " Our interrogation techniques do not fit the definition of torture."

If this administration is good at anything, it's debating semantics. Heck, they saw how well it worked with Clinton with " is." And they are doing the same thing. Unfortunately, they have forgotten how repulsed many of us were when Clinton tried to lie to our faces by doing that.

But hey, Bush and Cheney know the jig is up for all kinds of unsavory things they do without the blessing of the people for whom they serve. They do whatever they want until they get busted for doing it. They never take the high road from the get-go. They only do it when they are forced to.

And even then it's with great fight and reluctancy.

I don't like that in a President. Why should I like that?

Once again, you can't handle the truth.

What truth am I avoiding?

Same here.

You've been repeating that line for a while. So, enlighten us here. What is this truth?

I've already told you, you can't handle it.

Actually, it's Bush who can't handle the truth, and that is that his administration supports torture. He continues to deny it even when official documentation says otherwise.

So you by any chance have a link to that documentation?

Try me. (us, I'm sure Chickenjuggler is up for it too.)

Let's hear it --all of it, raw, naked, in your face reality. I need to hear it, and if I can't handle it, I here and now say it's all ok. No harm, no foul. Just take a few moments, breath deep and unload. No fear, no worries. Right now.

Hurt me big Deane, let's hear it. Will do me some good, and you have my complete attention and respect for having done it.

Think about it for a moment Missing. Anything the libs find out about what Bush does, they start in hammering him. It makes no difference what it is, he can't win with the libs. So, he does what I would do, keeps everything to himself. Don't give them something to piss and moan about.

That's a dodge. Let's hear the truth part. You know, that thing we can't handle?

I'm really serious. Have read that too much to let it pass.

Under then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ leadership, the Justice Department issued a secret opinion in 2005 authorizing use of painful physical and psychological tactics against terror suspects, including simulated drownings and freezing temperatures, The New York Times reported in Thursday’s editions.

That secret opinion, which explicitly allowed using the painful methods in combination, came a year after a 2004 opinion in which Justice publicly declared torture “abhorrent” and the administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.

Asked about the story Thursday, Perino confirmed the existence of the Feb. 5, 2005, classified opinion but would not comment on whether it authorized specific practices, such as head-slapping and simulated drownings.

What part of "no comment" do you not get?

Did I say anywhere in any post that I knew the truth? I don't think so.

The fact that most people like you can't handle the truth, and there are people far less astute than you are that damn well can't handle it, it's just not passed around. Not to you, not to me, even through I am one of those who can handle it.

There are several instances, when those type of practices should be used. A couple, if the person your holding has knowledge of the location of missing US personel, if the person has knowledge of the location of a major terrorist leader, or knowledge of a specific threat against the US.

Or you'd rather have terrorists blow up a US school, rather than cause another one a little discomfort.

Nwokie, you pretty well summed it up.

Believe me, there are radical libs out there who would rather have the hit on the school than treat a prisoner anyway but nice-nice. Actually, their main problem is that they can't see there way from one dot to the next in order to connect them. Frustrating. Cause and effect means nothing to them.

So Deane, no comment on the proof, eh?

Yes, the Bush Adminstration favors torture, and so do both of you.

OK, I favor torture. Want my autograph or what?

Nope, just like to see in writing where people stand. Obviously, people that favor torture seem to be ashamed to admit it publicly. I'll give you credit for coming out and saying it though.

I don't favor it in general, mostly only in the context of Nwokie's last post. I prefer the torture that scares them more than harms them, such as water boarding. Breaking limbs, pulling out finger nails, poking out eyes are something I would prefer we avoid.

Please.

You really think I am going to engage in some sort of circular " You can't handle the truth...even though I don't know what it is. But if I did, I could handle it. But you can't. Even though nobody knows the truth." ?

You WANT to say that The Bush Administration DOES torture. But instead, you stop just short of it - as does the administration - and then plays the " You wouldn't like it if I told you. You don't wanna know it."

I'm telling you, I can handle the truth. What I do not like is pretending that what The Bush Administration is doing is telling us the truth.

It's insulting.

And you are right, Deane. If they came out and admitted that there are secret prisons in which they torture suspected terrorists, I would not like it. I would hammer Bush for it. He can keep a lid on it and I can say I don't like him for it.

That's the truth.

Bush cannot handle what the entire world would react to that. He knows it would cause many problems diplomatically, stateside and abroad.

So instead of dealing with what people would have a legitimately worrysome policy to contest, he hides the truth. To say nothing about the flat-out anger Bush would have to deal with from terrorists. " Bring it on! " , eh? Yeah. Nice job cowboy.

I don't like it.

I would, however, reconsider much of where I stand if I was given the chance to know the truth. That would include " How well is it really working? "

Absent knowing, I am left to make my own decision. And right now, I have no reason to be for torture.

I'm not above that either, depending. And that's the tricky part.

IMHO, it's tricky enough to warrant oversight. So long as we have peoples judgement checked by others, the resulting decisions are highly likely to be defensible. If we are feeling like we need to do something horrible, for whatever reason, it's not a bad idea to make sure there is consensus on it really needing to be done.

Sometimes it's a ready option. I'll say it too, just for the record.

The biggie here, with this administration, is they absolutely refuse to do that. It's a problem period. It's also not American.

From there we get people, unconstrained in their freedom to employ what should really not be done period. It's awful easy to just abuse that, keeping the "greater good", "saving lives" rationalizations handy to handle the ugly morning after feelings that result.

I don't think that's a partisan worry either. It's a human thing --being decent, making sure harm isn't done unless absolutely warranted.

Ok, I see your point Deane, but you have to also see mine: namely, how can you so easily make the "can't handle it" judgement without being in the know yourself?

I've had to do some really ugly things in my life. I've seen really ugly things happen, had to clean up more than one mess too. Sometimes the world is tough.

Asking for rational discussion on these matters, is not avoidance of the truth, so much as it is acceptance of human nature.

If there is a ton of power, in any of our hands, whose to say we won't abuse it?

I would, and you can note that, for the record too. That's truth, and it's difficult to handle for a lot of people.

Your position here is kind of a dodge, isn't it?

(and that's not a bad thing, just trying to sort out where you are going with that idea)

I think we have a different idea of what constitutes torture.

In my opinion its rape, causing permant harm, IE cutting off body parts etc, and breaking bones.

Causing someone to be uncomfortable, or psychlogily messing with their heads , isnt torture.

And it also depends on the catagory of the detainee, legitimate prisoners of war, you treat as well as your own soldiers, except you keep them behind a wire enclosure.

Terrorists, and others not accorded specific protection by the Geneva convention, can be treated more harshly, but withen the guidelines I specified above.

After all , even George Washington hung a british Major, for being captured, slightly out of uniform. He really wanted to trade for Gen Arnold.

Missing, we don't live in a world of absolutes. It's the folks who think we do that become the most frustrated. Sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Do you think we won WWII running it like a Sunday school picnic?

So it's not that I can't handle the truth, it's just that if I knew it, I wouldn't be FOR it. I may say so. Who knows? I may even spark a revolution that causes torture to stop.

There's a big difference between not being able to handle it and not supporting it.

And besides, Deane, you yourself know and acknowlegde how often this administration screws things up. Don't you want to make sure this isn't another area from which a truly important scandal could stem? You can handle the truth. Great. I'll put my trust in you then to hold the administation accountable.

When are you going to do that in this case? Before or after an international incident gets exposed and further erodes our credibility as a superpower?

You keep using the word "Torture" with abslutly, nothing to back it up. The US has tried and convicted persons responsible for actions that could be called torture, and the commanders above them. Yet I see no cry from liberals, that the taliban or other terrorist groups try and punish their members who torture and kill American servicemen.

Its the legacy of hanoi Jane, who praised the torturers in N Vietnam prison camps.

Are you willing to give any other nation the leeway to jail an American citizen and allow that nation to do exactly as the US does?

No. I am not, Vitalogy. Anyone else want to answer his question?

Nwokie, I have a very simple question for you;

Do you believe that The Bush Administration uses any interrogation techniques that you yourself would call torture?

No.

OK. What if they were? Would that bother you?

If they were, I would expect the people involved to be prosecuted.

With a couple of hugh exceptions, if we had a terrorist, who we were certain, had knowledge of a nuke, chemicle or other WMD type attack on the US or US forces.

>>>"Are you willing to give any other nation the leeway to jail an American citizen and allow that nation to do exactly as the US does?"

Some of you guys act like the terrorists don't already do this on a regular basis without giving it a second thought.

Their doing that now. And nearly, if not everyone were captured on the battlefield, where they were engaged in unlawful combat. In other times, we would have hung them on the spot.

Even in our revolution, our soldiers, not in uniform, wore a ribbon, or other identifiable marking, making them legal combatants.

They are? Show me some proof. I'm not aware of any Americans being held anywhere against their will at this time.

But, I get what you're saying. You're rationalizing your own feelings because "the terrorists" are doing it. I guess that makes it okay for us to act like them.

"Missing, we don't live in a world of absolutes. It's the folks who think we do that become the most frustrated. Sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Do you think we won WWII running it like a Sunday school picnic?"

Deane, that is a perfect "Ends/Means" position to take. The Allies won WWII, which was a good thing; therefore, anything that the Allies did during WWII was good, and justified.

If in fact the US conducted torture (or worse) during WWII, one could just as easily make the statement, "Wow, we won WWII despite having occasionally dropped to the level of Hitler and Tojo."

Nwokie said - "Their doing that now. And nearly, if not everyone were captured on the battlefield, where they were engaged in unlawful combat."

You say it should be prosecuted if they are found to have engaged in torture.

Why? Because it's illegal? Because it's morally wrong? Why?

I have my reasons why I am against it. What are some of yours?

For 1, its morally wrong. A soldier sometimes has to do things, that age against his/her morals, but you really need to keep it to an absolute minimum.

2nd, its counter productive, in most cases, you want the bad guys to surrender, when caught, not fight to the bitter end, like a lot of Japanese in WWII.

I can only thik of a very few, extreme cases, where I would allow someone to be tortured.

Unpleasant treatment, thats another issue, again, it should only be used in a vert few specific cases, when there is a valid military necisity.


But I went through several survival/prisoner survival classes, where we were treated very roughly. It caused no lasting harm, and it probably made me a better soldier.

I am not treating this subject lightly, its a very serious business, and there is the old slipery slope, I am sure a lot of Gestapo interrigators, thought they were doing the right thing.

"I can only thik of a very few, extreme cases, where I would allow someone to be tortured."

Me too.

For the reasons you listed above, you really DON'T have a problem with a call for accountability from The Bush Administration on this issue.

We agree after all.