Torture probe: Americans divided

I weep for my country when torture has become acceptable to half the population. When did we become the barbarians we used to condemn? When did we snuff out the shining city on the hill and replace it with a torture chamber?

Like they have done on health care, Republicans are spreading misinformation, which the corporate media repeats. There is no persuasive evidence in the public record confirming their assertion that torture was absolutely vital to capturing terrorists and preventing attacks on the United States. In fact, A May 20, 2005 Memo by Justice Department Principal Deputy Attorney General, Steven G. Bradbury to CIA General Counsel John Rizzo rebuts the notion. In fact, torture most often garners time consuming, unreliable information.

Instead of standing up for our troops and American values by demanding accountability, Republicans apparently want to politicize the issue.

Almost all troops learn in basic training that torture is immoral, illegal, and ineffective. Veterans know that torture acts as a recruiting tool for terrorists with the result that more troops are killed and maimed.

President Reagan signed the Convention Against Torture (CAT) that was ratified by the United States Senate in 1994. The treaty obligates the U.S. government to conduct a "prompt and impartial investigation" and "submit the case to competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution." The federal anti-torture statute, 18 USC Sec. 2340A, criminalizes torture and the conspiracy to commit torture and creates jurisdiction in the U.S. courts.

Contrary to the view of what's left of todays Republican party, ignoring violations of law by excusing torture harms our legal and moral standing and thereby increases the possibility of future terrorist attacks.

Ask the relatives of the 9-11 victims how they would feel if that attack could have been foiled by aggressive questioning (hardly torture) of the Islamic terrorists who hijacked the planes. Then ask how you, yourself, would feel if such questioning would save the lives of your loved ones. I don't know about you, but frankly, I place my family a whole heck of a lot above a bunch of Islamic or any other kind of nutcase terrorists.

Ask the relatives of the 9-11 victims how they would feel if that attack could have been foiled by aggressive questioning (hardly torture) of the Islamic terrorists who hijacked the planes.
Posted by: Garfield | September 4, 2009 2:09 PM

Why don't you ask them how they would have felt if the president in the office at that time had taken time to read the security threat issued called Bin Laden to attack US. I know...I know.....How could they ever have figured it out? Who would have ever thought Planes....terrorists....World Trade center...it would have taken a brain surgeon to figure that out.

Ask the relatives of the 9-11 victims how they would feel if that attack could have been foiled by aggressive questioning (hardly torture) of the Islamic terrorists who hijacked the planes
Posted by: Garfield | September 4, 2009 2:09 PM
********************************************
.

How about we ask the families of 9/11 how they would feel if Bush and Cheney tortured (which they did) and they were given false information (which they were) which led them on tax payer funded wild goose chases all over the world (which happened) because torture leads to - LIES.

All Bush and Cheney had to do was read the memo that they blew off before 9/11 that said; "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE INSIDE US!"

24 is fictional TV show and Jack Bauer is fictional TV character. Keep reminding yourself of that, you clown.

I weep for my country when we have a government that frees our country's enemies, but prosecutes our country's defenders.

Cutting off a terrorist's arm would be torture and is wrong.
Enhanced interrogation is not torture no matter what critics say and resulted in saving American lives and I wholeheartedly support the dedicated folks who are working hard on our behalf.

I weep for my country when we have a government that frees our country's enemies, but prosecutes our country's defenders.
Posted by: Saddened | September 4, 2009 4:25 PM
**********************************************
.

Really? Is that why you Republican cretins tried to prosecute Bill Clinton over a bj?

Idiots....

Why can't Cheney be a man and submit to an inquiry. He could explain what he approved and let the courts decide if it was a crime. He obviously feels it saved lives. If he broke the law he should be prosecuted like any other criminal. If he broke no laws he will be exonerated. Cheney sounds more like his daughter than a man who takes responsibility for his actions.

"The president at that time..." Bill r. says. He must be referring to Bill Clinton who was president when the first WTC attack occurred and while the 9-11 terrorists were not-so-secretly in this country learning to fly planes.

Enhanced interrogation is not torture
Posted by: Mike | September 4, 2009 5:08 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------
.

"Enhanced interrogation" means torture. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld made up that phrase so that they could sugar coat what they were really doing; all the while knowing that idiot lockstepping Wingnutters like you would be stupid enough to not only accept it but also blindly defend them.

Try again, Mikey...

Why not follow the law and follow the evidence to where it may lead? Why state a thesis beforehand?

Garfield, ole gal, the first WTC bombing was shortly after Clinton's inauguration--within weeks of Jan 20 1993.

If the US is the Great Satan, as the bad bearded ones posited, then the WTC towers were the horns of Satan and had to be clipped, didn't they?

I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, but I don't hold him responsible for WTC One.

WTC Two--well, that does fall back on Bush, doesn't it?

I mean, it was known for years that the WTC was on the target list, wasn't it?

And that "Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S." memo was sitting in his in box during his month at the ranch in August, 2001, wasn't it?

More broadly, no concrete example of meaningful information extracted by Bush's torturers has emerged, has it?

Not one single concrete example that can be verified, has there?

Leave aside the legal and ethical infirmities of Bush/Cheney for the moment and just answer the efficacy question.....

Hello?

Mansfield?

Hello?........

"Not a former Republican" says: "Contrary to the view of what's left of todays Republican party, ignoring violations of law by excusing torture harms our legal and moral standing and thereby increases the possibility of future terrorist attacks."

Really, regardless of fact I deny any of the enhanced interrogation techniques are torture, I am really curious as to the source of your claim. Oh, wait. You don't have any sources. You just make it up as you go. Never mind (I do miss Gilda).

Rick