Bush to veto bill banning waterboarding

Administration: Bill restricts CIA, hurts security

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/ColorBoxes/Styles/img/video_icon_v2.gifVideo: Security
More video (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8004316/)

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/APTRANS.gifupdated 52 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The White House said President Bush will veto legislation on Saturday that would have barred the CIA from using waterboarding — a technique that simulates drowning — and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.
Bush has said the bill would harm the government's ability to prevent future attacks. Supporters of the legislation argue that it preserves the United States' right to collect critical intelligence while boosting the country's moral standing abroad.
"The bill would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror, the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives," deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday.


The bill would restrict the CIA to using only the 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual.

The legislation would bar the CIA from using waterboarding, sensory deprivation or other coercive methods to break a prisoner who refuses to answer questions. Those practices were banned by the military in 2006.
The legislation cleared the House in December and won Senate approval last month.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23526436/

GG Bush...

Does of any of this shit really suprise anyone anymore? absolutely nothing is going to get accomplished thats worthwhile till this ass bag of a fascist disguising himself as a compassionate patriot is out the door.

way to not be better than the otehr people, what a fucking joke.

Oh so waterboarding is A-OK in your book? he's gonna veto any legislation that doesnt grant Immunity to telecoms as well. why? because he cares about the telecoms so much? no but because it makes records supponeas impossible. ask yourself why?

I think greystone is agreeing

Bush vetoes bill banning waterboarding


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/03/08/bush.torture.ap/art.bush.afp.gi.jpgPresident Bush waits to speak to the Heritage Foundation about waterboarding and terrorism in November 2007.


http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," Bush said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it," Bush said. The bill he rejected provides guidelines for intelligence activities for the year and has the interrogation requirement as one provision. It cleared the House in December and the Senate last month.

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe," the president said.
Supporters of the legislation say it would preserve the United States' ability to collect critical intelligence while also providing a much-needed boost to country's moral standing abroad.
"Torture is a black mark against the United States," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California. "We will not stop until [the ban] becomes law."

The bill would limit CIA (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/central_intelligence_agency) interrogators to the 19 techniques allowed for use by military questioners. The Army field manual in 2006 banned using methods such as waterboarding or sensory deprivation on uncooperative prisoners.

Bush said the CIA must retain use of "specialized interrogation procedures" that the military doesn't need. The military methods are designed for questioning "lawful combatants captured on the battlefield," while intelligence professionals are dealing with "hardened terrorists" who have been trained to resist the techniques in the Army manual, the president said.
"We created alternative procedures to question the most dangerous al Qaeda (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/al_qaeda) operatives, particularly those who might have knowledge of attacks planned on our homeland," Bush said. "If we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA to methods in the field manual, we could lose vital information from senior al Qaeda terrorists, and that could cost American lives."
The legislation's backers say the military's approved methods are sufficient to any need.
Those 19 interrogation techniques to which the bill would have restricted CIA personnel include the "good cop/bad cop" routine, making prisoners think they are in another country's custody and separating a prisoner from others for up to 30 days.
Among the techniques the field manual prohibits are hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes, stripping them naked, forcing them to perform or mimic sexual acts, or beating, electrocuting, burning or otherwise physically hurting them.

They may not be subjected to hypothermia or mock executions. It does not allow food, water and medical treatment to be withheld. Dogs may not be used in any aspect of interrogation.
But waterboarding is the most high-profile and controversial of the interrogation methods in question.
It involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his or her cloth-covered face to simulate and create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years to the Spanish Inquisition and is condemned by nations around the world and human rights organizations as torture.

Some argue it must be banned because, if torture, it is illegal under international and U.S. law. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 includes a provision barring cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees in U.S. custody, including CIA prisoners, and many believe that covers waterboarding.
Others say that, even if legal, there are practical arguments against waterboarding: that its use would undermine the U.S. when arguing overseas for human rights and on other moral issues and would place Americans at greater risk of being tortured when captured.
"President Bush's veto will be one of the most shameful acts of his presidency," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, said in a statement Friday. "Unless Congress overrides the veto, it will go down in history as a flagrant insult to the rule of law and a serious stain on the good name of America in the eyes of the world."
He noted that the Army field manual contends that harsh interrogation is a "poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the (interrogator) wants to hear."

The U.S. military specifically prohibited waterboarding in 2006. The CIA also prohibited the practice in 2006, and says it has not been used since three prisoners encountered it in 2003.
But while some Bush (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/george_w_bush) administration officials have questioned the current legality of waterboarding, the administration has refused to rule definitively on whether it is torture. Bush has said many times that his administration does not torture.

The White House says waterboarding remains among the interrogation methods potentially available to the CIA. Its use would have to be approved, on a case-by-case basis, by the president after consultation with the attorney general and the intelligence community. Among the acceptable situations for approving it could be belief of imminent attack, according to the White House.
"Because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists," Bush said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/08/bush.torture.ap/index.html

I like how this was released on a Friday with the hopes it'd die by Monday when people get their morning papers.

Man,

I TOTALLY feel safer now that Bush veto'd that bill.

Sounds like torture to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding I did not know what waterboarding is, I had to look it up. I would confess whatever anyone wanted to hear to make them stop doing that to me. I do not see how using that would help anyone.

Can we impeach Bush? :(

Those of you not in the US - did this get much press? It was on the front page of a newspaper Sunday night at the grocery store, but that's about it. I made some comment about it, and my wife asked me what waterboarding is. I suspect most people fall into the same blissfully ignorant category, and so watching the president of the United States give his seal of approval once again to torture will make little stir.

the president of the United States give his seal of approval once again to torture will make little stir.

You know what is even sadder than the president saying it is okay...is that it would only cause a "little" stir and no big protests. We seem so cold :(

Those of you not in the US - did this get much press? It was on the front page of a newspaper Sunday night at the grocery store, but that's about it. I made some comment about it, and my wife asked me what waterboarding is. I suspect most people fall into the same blissfully ignorant category, and so watching the president of the United States give his seal of approval once again to torture will make little stir.

well, not really, its already well established over here that the bush administration doesnt give a shit about torturing people.

/sigh


UN access to US Iraq prisons denied
Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:33:33

US officials have refused the UN torture investigator access to US-run prisons in Iraq after Iraqi officials invited him for a visit.
http://www.presstv.ir/photo/20080312/ebrahimi-mahbod20080312022822296.JPG
"The US said no," Manfred Nowak, the UN torture investigator and an independent human rights expert told reporters in Geneva on Tuesday.

Nowak said he met Tuesday with Iraq's deputy minister for human rights, Hussein Jasim Al-Zuhairi, who repeated his country's invitation for a UN expert to visit.

But British officials agreed to let me visit detainees held by their forces, he added.

The Austrian law professor, who compiles reports for the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council, said recent reports received by his office indicate that the situation has improved in US-run detention facilities in Iraq.

However," that's why I am also a little astonished that the US government is not willing to grant me access because it might even be in their interest,'' he noted.

He stressed that he wants to examine the current detention conditions in Iraq in person.

But US officials has told Nowak that American-run prisons in Iraq were not subject to international human rights law because of the ongoing armed conflict in the country, and as such were outside of his remit as a torture investigator.

Nowak said he took US President George W. Bush's recent veto of a law that would ban the CIA from using methods such as waterboarding as an indication that Bush favors such interrogation measures.

Beginning in 2004, accounts of prisoner abuse at the American-run detention facility, Abu Ghraib, drew international criticism of the way US forces treated detainees.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...tionid=3510203 (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=47070&sectionid=3510203)

But US officials has told Nowak that American-run prisons in Iraq were not subject to international human rights law because of the ongoing armed conflict in the country, and as such were outside of his remit as a torture investigator.That sentence right there should scare the hell out of everyone.

I'm trying to remember. What was the name of that middle eastern country a few years ago that wouldn't let UN inspectors in? Back around the turn of the century. I seem to recall it was over a different issue, but hmmm...something about the US saying if they didn't have anything to hide...what could their name have been....?

http://images.politico.com/global/080311_edtoon3-12_600.jpg

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/1x1pixel.gif
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_dg_BL.gif
Terror detainee falsely held, lawyers say

From Carol Cratty

CNN




WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lawyers for one of the administration's most prized detainees in the war on terror are challenging their client's detention as unlawful -- contending he was never a member of al Qaeda and never tried to harm Americans.
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/US/03/17/zubaydah/art.guantanamo.gi.jpgAlleged terrorist Abu Zubaydah is being unjustifiably detained at Guantanamo Bay, his lawyers say.


http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


The prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, is one of three detainees upon whom the United States has admitted using waterboarding, or simulated drowning, during interrogation.
His lawyers are contesting Zubaydah's six years of detention and filed a lengthy petition last month with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. That filing was unsealed Monday.

In the filing, his lawyers say Zubaydah is not an enemy combatant and is "not a member of either the Taliban or al Qaeda" and that he "did not cause or attempt to cause any harm to American personnel or property" before his March 2002 capture in Pakistan. He initially was held by the CIA (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/central_intelligence_agency) in secret facilities.
The filing also quotes former FBI agent Daniel Coleman as describing Zubaydah as a sort of travel agent for al Qaeda (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/al_qaeda) who "knew very little about real operations." Coleman is also quoted as calling the alleged terrorist insane.
The legal document says Zubaydah "has not been afforded any procedures that would satisfy even the most basic notions of due process" and complains about his treatment during severe interrogation sessions at CIA facilities overseas.
Zubaydah and other high-value detainees were transferred to the Pentagon's custody at Guantanamo Bay (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/guantanamo_bay), Cuba, in September 2006.
One of Zubaydah's lawyers, Brent Mickum, said the government did not respond to any requests for classified information to support claims that Zubaydah is a terrorist.

Mickum and fellow lawyer Joseph Margulies had to base everything in the court filing on what is available in the public record, including numerous references to Zubaydah in the news media and in books.
After filing the petition challenging Zubaydah's detention, Mickum and Margulies traveled to Guantanamo and met Zubaydah for the first time in late February. Mickum said he's not allowed to talk about the substance of the discussions with his client or his physical condition. The legal team plans to return for a second meeting in April.
The United States has maintained Zubaydah was an important al Qaeda logistics handler.

In documents released at the time of his transfer to Guantanamo Bay, the government said he was recruited by Osama bin Laden (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/osama_bin_laden) to be a senior al Qaeda travel facilitator but that he later was a director at one of al Qaeda's training camps.
The documents said he was trained in the use of explosives and the art of forgery. The government also said at the time of his capture that Zubaydah "was trying to organize a terrorist attack in Israel."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/17/zubaydah/index.html

Reports: 'Disastrous' Iraqi humanitarian crisis

(CNN) -- As the war in Iraq reaches its five-year anniversary this week, two of the world's leading humanitarian groups issued extensive reports Monday describing a crisis of huge proportions with little reason for hope.
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/WORLD/meast/03/17/iraq.humanitarian/art.iraq.women.getty.jpgIraqi women mourn the death of their relative outside the morgue in the restive city of Baquba, Iraq, on March 12.


http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_TL.gif

The Bush administration and many Republican lawmakers, including presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, have frequently praised successes in Iraq in recent months, noting improvements in security in key areas. They attribute that in part to the buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq ordered by President Bush last year.
Vice President Dick Cheney (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Dick_Cheney) described the five year U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in a news conference Monday during a visit to Baghdad.
"This week marks the fifth anniversary," said Cheney. "It has been a difficult, challenging, but none the less successful endeavor."
Democrats, including presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have said the government failed to use the downturn in violence to achieve the steps it was supposed to make possible.

Sen. John McCain (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/John_McCain) met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Monday where he stressed the United States' commitment to Iraq. "We recognize that al Qaeda is on the run, but they are not defeated. Al Qaeda continues to pose a great threat to the security and very existence of Iraq as a democracy. So we know there's still a lot more work that needs to be done," he said.
Amnesty (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Amnesty_International) writes, "Key political benchmarks have yet to be realized."
Both Amnesty and the Red Cross slam the Iraqi government for failing to grapple with the critical needs of their populations.
Amnesty also says the Iraqi government and the U.S.-led Multi-National Forces are responsible for some nightmarish circumstances.
"Civilians are also at risk from Multi-National Forces and Iraqi security forces, with many killed by excessive force and tens of thousands detained without charge or trial," Amnesty writes in its summary.

"The death penalty was reintroduced in 2004 and hundreds of people have been sentenced to death. At least 33 people were executed in 2007, many after unfair trials."
In its report, Amnesty says the Iraqi government "has failed to introduce practical measures to deal with the gross and serious human rights violations perpetrated by its security forces. There appears to be no serious willingness to investigate properly the many incidents of abuses, including killings of civilians, torture and rape, and to bring those responsible to justice.

"The government has also been unable to reign in Shiite militia groups, such as the Mehdi Army, or to rid the Interior Ministry of death squads. The fact that the government is divided along sectarian lines has serious repercussions on its effectiveness and bodes ill for the future."
The two reports cite a litany of concerns, including severe widespread poverty, a lack of food and water, and broken families left to scrounge for whatever they can find to get by. Both reports describe a situation that shows no sign of clear improvement.

Amnesty also says conditions for women have worsened with the rise of fundamentalist religious groups. Many women "have been forced to wear Islamic dress or targeted for abduction, rape or killing." The group notes a study by the World Health Organization (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/World_Health_Organization) in 2006/2007 that found 21 percent of Iraqi women had experienced physical violence.

Amnesty adds that the "predominantly Kurdish region of northern Iraq has been more stable with fewer acts of violence, and has seen growing economic prosperity and foreign investment. However, here too there continue to be serious human rights violations, including arrests for peaceful political dissent, torture, ill-treatment, the death penalty and the killing of women in so-called honor crimes."

The Red Cross says that despite the struggles in Iraq, the organization "has been able to help hundreds of thousands of the neediest Iraqis." The group called for a "renewed effort" to "address the needs of everyday Iraqis."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/17/iraq.humanitarian/index.html

McCain's focus on al-Qaeda as a chief cause of concern in Iraq suggests he really has no idea what's going on over there (or is simply fear-mongering). One year after McCain's trip to the Shorja market, reporters were advised not to revisit it due to Mahdi Army control of the area, not fears of al-Qaeda.

and so watching the president of the United States give his seal of approval once again to torture will make little stir.

Probably because the world has come to expect nothing less (and nothing more) from Bush. Oh and he won't get impeached (and convicted) because if he leaves office Cheney will be in charge. Best to just run the clock down on this and hope he is unable to do further damage.

It's worse than I thought (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html)
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

The mistake threatened to undermine McCain's argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.Wonder if it will get any play.

Kanyli wrote:I'm trying to remember. What was the name of that middle eastern country a few years ago that wouldn't let UN inspectors in? Back around the turn of the century. I seem to recall it was over a different issue, but hmmm...something about the US saying if they didn't have anything to hide...what could their name have been....?The name you're looking for is Iran, and it's happening right now! ;)

Probably because the world has come to expect nothing less (and nothing more) from Bush. Oh and he won't get impeached (and convicted) because if he leaves office Cheney will be in charge. Best to just run the clock down on this and hope he is unable to do further damage.

We can't impeach them both? :(

It's worse than I thought (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html)
Wonder if it will get any play.

Considering how much the media loves McCain, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Quite so.

Bush and Cheney aren't the only culprits folks.

We need a drastic clean up of the House/Senate and the White House if you really want to see change.

Otherwise you're just changing for the devil your not quite sure of.

I agree Fandros...but it would be a start. :)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon Tuesday made public a now-defunct legal memo that approved the use of harsh interrogation techniques against terror suspects, saying President Bush's wartime authority trumps any international ban on torture.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/01/torture.memo.ap/index.html

And so, the final thumbing of the nose at the Geneva Conventions, and any claim to being a civilized democracy striving to improve human rights and bring freedom to the peoples of this planet.

HOW IS HE STILL IN OFFICE?

Not that I'm surprised, but as more evidence surfaces of the sheer arrogance and evil of this administration I can't believe we don't see political leaders demanding his head.

What other country in their right mind is going to sign a treaty with a country like the US who apparently can overturn international law when we deem it inconvenient?

1. waiting on a Dem as President.
2. waiting on Dem to de-classify bulk of evidence.
3. waiting on Dem to repeal Telco immunity(if passed) and subpeona
4. ?........

4. Profit?

4. Profit?
No, I'd say that step has already been taken.

Is Bush an underpants gnome?

Top officials OK’d harsh interrogation tactics

Cheney, Powell, Rice linked to meetings that focused on techniques


WASHINGTON - Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.

The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.


A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.

Between 2002 and 2003, the Justice Department issued several memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture.

"If you looked at the timing of the meetings and the memos you'd see a correlation," the former intelligence official said. Those who attended the dozens of meetings agreed that "there'd need to be a legal opinion on the legality of these tactics" before using them on al-Qaida detainees, the former official said.


Meetings after Sept. 11 attacks
The meetings were held in the White House Situation Room in the years immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Attending the sessions were then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

The White House, Justice and State departments and the CIA refused comment Thursday, as did a spokesman for Tenet. A message for Ashcroft was not immediately returned.


Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., lambasted what he described as "yet another astonishing disclosure about the Bush administration and its use of torture."


"Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?" Kennedy said in a statement. "Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration's renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights."


A call for an investigation
The American Civil Liberties Union called on Congress to investigate.
"With each new revelation, it is beginning to look like the torture operation was managed and directed out of the White House," ACLU legislative director Caroline Fredrickson said. "This is what we suspected all along."
The former intelligence official described Cheney and the top national security officials as deeply immersed in developing the CIA's interrogation program during months of discussions over which methods should be used and when.


At times, CIA officers would demonstrate some of the tactics, or at least detail how they worked, to make sure the small group of "principals" fully understood what the al-Qaida detainees would undergo. The principals eventually authorized physical abuse such as slaps and pushes, sleep deprivation, or waterboarding. This technique involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning.


The small group then asked the Justice Department to examine whether using the interrogation methods would break domestic or international laws.
"No one at the agency wanted to operate under a notion of winks and nods and assumptions that everyone understood what was being talked about," said a second former senior intelligence official.



"People wanted to be assured that everything that was conducted was understood and approved by the folks in the chain of command."
The Office of Legal Counsel issued at least two opinions on interrogation methods.


Defining torture
In one, dated Aug. 1, 2002, then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee defined torture as covering "only extreme acts" causing pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure. A second, dated March 14, 2003, justified using harsh tactics on detainees held overseas so long as military interrogators did not specifically intend to torture their captives.
Both legal opinions since have been withdrawn.


The second former senior intelligence official said rescinding the memos caused the CIA to seek even more detailed approvals for the interrogations.
The department issued another still-secret memo in October 2001 that, in part, sought to outline novel ways the military could be used domestically to defend the country in the face of an impending attack.



The Justice Department so far has refused to release it, citing attorney-client privilege, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey declined to describe it Thursday at a Senate panel where Democrats characterized it as a "torture memo."
Not all of the principals who attended were fully comfortable with the White House meetings.


The ABC News report portrayed Ashcroft as troubled by the discussions, despite agreeing that the interrogations methods were legal.
"Why are we talking about this in the White House?" the network quoted Ashcroft as saying during one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24055778/

It was amazing what people wanted to do after 9/11 to ensure there safety. Hell even national Id's x ray machines, camereas to scan as we walk at the airport.

At that time it was how fast can you string the bad guy up, and provide me a blanket.

hindsight is 20/20 its to easy to nitpick 5 years later and say they did wrong when at the time it wasnt enough to get more information..

It was amazing what people wanted to do after 9/11 to ensure there safety. Hell even national Id's x ray machines, camereas to scan as we walk at the airport.

At that time it was how fast can you string the bad guy up, and provide me a blanket.

hindsight is 20/20 its to easy to nitpick 5 years later and say they did wrong when at the time it wasnt enough to get more information..

We are judged by our decisions in the hardest of times, not the easiest.

and so goes another more cliches, At the time it wasnt enough soon,,... enough to satisfy the masses who seeked blood in kind.

Damned if you do damned if you dont,. Who the frack woudl fo wanted it to happen in the first place. Im sure GW had alot better things to have done with his presidency than the lst 5 years.

MY 5 year goal is .....

and so goes another more cliches, At the time it wasnt enough soon,,... enough to satisfy the masses who seeked blood in kind.

Damned if you do damned if you dont,. Who the frack woudl fo wanted it to happen in the first place. Im sure GW had alot better things to have done with his presidency than the lst 5 years.

MY 5 year goal is .....

I guess throwing what makes us different from our enemy out the window was the only way... sigh

different. Should we have just hi jacked airplanes and flown them into there buildings as retaliation.

people think they know the ugly side of the war since they have seen it on tv. Maybe we should of let Iraq occupy Kuwait and no one would of flown a plane into the trade towers. But they were bombed before even that. To say there was a better way or just ignore it is far from what America was wanting at the time.

different. Should we have just hi jacked airplanes and flown them into there buildings as retaliation.

people think they know the ugly side of the war since they have seen it on tv. Maybe we should of let Iraq occupy Kuwait and no one would of flown a plane into the trade towers. But they were bombed before even that. To say there was a better way or just ignore it is far from what America was wanting at the time.


Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11... it was Saudi Al queda operatives that carried out the attacks on 9/11.

f_A77N5WKWM

different. Should we have just hi jacked airplanes and flown them into there buildings as retaliation.

people think they know the ugly side of the war since they have seen it on tv. Maybe we should of let Iraq occupy Kuwait and no one would of flown a plane into the trade towers. But they were bombed before even that. To say there was a better way or just ignore it is far from what America was wanting at the time.

You seriously need a world history class or something.

So now one believes if 9/11 didnt happen we wouldnt be in Iraq or Afagnistan ?

Saddam didnt create 9/11 he became a target by a America to show that we wouldnt be fucked with. I wish we had taken him out in 2000 when I served. But no one was tolerant of more than us keeping him from taking control of Kuwait.

This war sucks but alot has changed since then, Hey we may bitch about them but the majority at the time wanted anything to feel safe. Like a cop on ever corner during the cocaine era.

People give up rights to feel more secure.

So now one believes if 9/11 didnt happen we wouldnt be in Iraq or Afagnistan ?

Saddam didnt create 9/11 he became a target by a America to show that we wouldnt be fucked with. I wish we had taken him out in 2000 when I served. But no one was tolerant of more than us keeping him from taking control of Kuwait.

This war sucks but alot has changed since then, Hey we may bitch about them but the majority at the time wanted anything to feel safe. Like a cop on ever corner during the cocaine era.

People give up rights to feel more secure.

Not me! And any president or government that decides I have to shut up and deal with it, can kiss my ass.

lol then you'll be really pissed off with new healthcare and taxes once they *magically happen.

lol then you'll be really pissed off with new healthcare and taxes once they *magically happen.

I have no problem investing in other Americans, so no, I don't think so.

People give up rights to feel more secure.

"Those willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

welcome to today. point the finger to whoever you like its been an ongoing process for sometime.

welcome to today. point the finger to whoever you like its been an ongoing process for sometime.

The biggest threat to our freedoms are not people like George Bush... They are the Americans who sit silently as their freedoms are taken for fake security. Who refuse to see the chain of events which will eventually lead to us losing the most precious rights anyone, anywhere in the world could ever dream of having.

Once we lose what we have, it will be near impossible to get it back.

Our president has tainted the little morality we had left as a nation, and his peons insist we are safer so it must be ok. Please take your fake safety and enjoy it, while the rest of us fight to get our rights back.

lol then you'll be really pissed off with new healthcare and taxes once they *magically happen.

No I won't be. I'll pay a higher tax burden if 10's of millions of children will then have health care.

The real problem isn't the Bush administration. The real problem are people that would let the administration have its way with our rights without speaking out in the name of 'security,' or worse, become enablers of what we will ultimately regret with the further degradation of our civil liberties.

The real problem isn't the Bush administration. The real problem are people that would let the administration have its way with our rights without speaking out in the name of 'security,' or worse, become enablers of what we will ultimately regret with the further degradation of our civil liberties.And now you're at the heart of the matter - how do people keep their rights from being taken away? Historically Americans have simply ignored laws they don't approve of, but do you think we have the dedication as a population to do that? Congress, who should be fighting Bush and Co. on the erosion of rights, has been just as guilty as the president with going along with these things. And while I have seen protests, to the best of my knowledge no group has affected any real positive change, other than possibly slowing down the process slightly.

In some respects, it's possible that the US has grown so large we lack the ability to react quickly - and it may be a few more years before any sort of reactionary movement actually gains speed. So you own a gun - what are you going to do, join a militia out in Montana? Most people don't even have a clue what their rights are. I bring up water boarding at work, and they remember hearing the phrase on the TV briefly. We just don't seem to have what it takes anymore for reform.

People simply need to pay attention to what's going on and take part in the system.

I think that being informed and voting well at the local level is especially important. If you only make informed voting decisions once every four years, you shouldn't be surprised when it's a choice of least bad instead of most good.

The candidates for the top are almost always bubbled up from the lower ranks of our government. We have complete control over who the potential candidates are, in the long term, yet rarely exercise that right (or do it haphazardly).

Military details methods used on Afghan detainees


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Military interrogators assaulted Afghan detainees in 2003, using investigation methods they learned during self-defense training, Pentagon documents released Wednesday show.

Detainees at the Gardez Detention Facility in southeastern Afghanistan reported being made to kneel outside in wet clothing and being kicked and punched in the kidneys, nose and knees if they moved, according to the documents.


A 2006 Army review concluded that the detainees were not abused but that the incident revealed "misconduct that warrants further action."


The documents, which were turned over Wednesday evening to the American Civil Liberties Union, focus on the 2003 death of Afghan detainee Jamal Nasser, who died in U.S. custody at the Gardez facility.


The documents detail interrogation techniques used on eight detainees, including Nasser, who were suspected of weapons trafficking.


The Army review found that abuse did not cause Nasser's death. But the documents include interviews with some interrogators who acknowledged slapping the detainees -- a technique they learned during survival training at the Army's SERE school. SERE stands for Survive, Evade, Resist and Escape.


"You say you gave permission for (redacted) to hit detainees during interrogations; did you have a memorandum or order from your higher headquarters authorizing that?" a military criminal investigator asked one of the interrogators, according to a November 2004 transcript among the more than 300 pages of documents.


"No, I did not have a memorandum and had not seen one," the interrogator answered, according to the transcript. "I used tactics that were used in SERE."


The investigator continued: "Did you see (redacted) hit detainees during the interviews?"


"Yes, open or closed slaps, not punches," the interrogator answered.
In another interview that day, according to the documents, the Army investigator asks whether "you ever heard of a tactic of pouring cold water or a water and snow mix on persons captured?"


"They do spray cold water on prisoners," the interrogator answered, referring to SERE lessons. That interrogator was unaware, however, of men in his unit pouring cold water over the detainees, as the Afghans later complained.


ACLU (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/american_civil_liberties_union) attorney Amrit Singh said such interrogation techniques are taught at SERE schools only to show soldiers how to withstand them from enemy captors. She called the methods, when used together, a form of torture.


"They were intended to be defensive methods, not offensive methods," Singh said. "This raises serious questions about the interrogation methods that were being applied in Afghanistan."


SERE methods were also used on detainees by military interrogators in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Singh said.


The Pentagon (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/the_pentagon) and the Army did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday evening.


The 2004 criminal inquiry of Nasser's death was among a string of probes into alleged abuse of prisoners in U.S. jails in Afghanistan.


Trying to deflect the kind of scandal that followed the abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan ordered a review of their secretive network of about 20 jails at bases across Afghanistan.


Nasser was among eight detainees who were held at Gardez for between 18 and 20 days. The Army concluded he died of a stomach ailment

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/17/prisoner.abuse.ap/index.html

Does the ACLU make sure American's Civil Liberties are safe, or does it ensure that Americans protect the Civil Liberties of others?

Just curious.....

Does the ACLU make sure American's Civil Liberties are safe, or does it ensure that Americans protect the Civil Liberties of others?

Just curious.....

American Civil Liberties Union

Sounds like it could also enforce the lack of civil liberties afforded by America can't it?

ACLU stands for one thing anymore. To garner more and more fame/money and power for it's driving members.

It got too big and lost it's purpose imho.