Gitmo should stay open, waterboarding OK: Cheney ABC News reporting
#1
Posted 2008-December-15, 20:17
Cheney admits approving waterboarding and states Guantanemo should remain open.
At this point, words fail me....
#2
Posted 2008-December-15, 20:35
Impeach the bastard!
#3
Posted 2008-December-15, 20:53
#4
Posted 2008-December-15, 21:08
#5
Posted 2008-December-15, 21:21
jdonn, on Dec 15 2008, 10:08 PM, said:
I have seen film of the process. It is actually better described as "controlled" drowning - and the process can cause death from what I gather.
#6
Posted 2008-December-15, 22:04
Winstonm, on Dec 15 2008, 10:21 PM, said:
jdonn, on Dec 15 2008, 10:08 PM, said:
I have seen film of the process. It is actually better described as "controlled" drowning - and the process can cause death from what I gather.
Yeah I cracked and went to wiki. So essentially it IS drowning, just that can supposedly be stopped at any moment. Sounds rather tortuous to me.
#7
Posted 2008-December-16, 01:05
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#8
Posted 2008-December-16, 05:00
Just wonder how the History will treat this case, do you know that in Spain they teach us that all the Black Legend (inquisition and that stuff) is a bunch of lies invented by the english? lol
#9
Posted 2008-December-16, 05:04
Winstonm, on Dec 16 2008, 05:17 AM, said:
Cheney admits approving waterboarding and states Guantanemo should remain open.
At this point, words fail me....
Glen Greenwald has a good article on this
http://www.salon.com...nion/greenwald/
Look for the entry titled
Monday Dec. 15, 2008 09:30 EST
Senate report links Bush to detainee homicides; media yawns
#10
Posted 2008-December-16, 09:17
"SO WHAT"
#11
Posted 2008-December-16, 18:29
Quote
Indeed, it was his earlier ruling that eventually got to the Supreme Court and was reversed by a 5-to-4 vote.
Writing for the Supreme Court majority in June, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the system set up by the Bush administration — and ratified by Congress — was fraught with the risk of error because the detainees had no right to counsel, no meaningful way of knowing what the allegations against them were, and no chance to rebut evidence against them.
The freed men were transported by the government in shackles and hoods. The other two men in the case are still imprisoned illegally.
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#12
Posted 2008-December-16, 20:06
To do that somebody repeatedly...it wouldn't take long. And it's fairly safe (worst case scenario, you could put a tube in their throat).
But it's interesting because it has no long term effects, at least not physical ones.
#13
Posted 2008-December-16, 20:24
How anyone can say this was the right thing to do and want to continue these atrocities is simply mind-numbingly irrational.
#14
Posted 2008-December-18, 07:33
We are currently fighting in Afghanistan and I guess the plan is to increase the level of forces there. I assume that in some of the battles there are some on the other side(s) who surrender. What are we doing with them and what will we be doing with them under the new administration? I assume, with considerable but not complete confidence, that we accept their surrender rather than just shoot them. Do we turn them over to the Afghan government so that they can shoot them? Do we have a catch and release program? I know nothing about our current practice and nothing about Obama's thoughts on this for the future.
#15
Posted 2008-December-18, 07:57
kenberg, on Dec 18 2008, 08:33 AM, said:
We are currently fighting in Afghanistan and I guess the plan is to increase the level of forces there. I assume that in some of the battles there are some on the other side(s) who surrender. What are we doing with them and what will we be doing with them under the new administration? I assume, with considerable but not complete confidence, that we accept their surrender rather than just shoot them. Do we turn them over to the Afghan government so that they can shoot them? Do we have a catch and release program? I know nothing about our current practice and nothing about Obama's thoughts on this for the future.
Good questions, Ken. I admit I do not know. Hopefully, the decision will be to follow the Geneva Convention.
Regardless of your position on this subject, I would encourage everyone to delve more deeply into understanding the issues by watching one of the documentaries that have been made.
#16
Posted 2008-December-18, 08:36
Brinksmanship, drug-trade, oil, mil-ind complex pressures, diversion from home-grown problems....some things never change.
#17
Posted 2008-December-18, 10:13
Quote
Is keeping them open Cheney's way of "supporting our troops"?