Carter Says U.S tortures Prisoners

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by vegmom

That would be everyone on here. Unless someone on here is a former CIA interregator, then we are all making our own assements.

So what we are left with is... let them do their jobs. They are saving lives everyday that we don't even know about. I can assure you these practices have been going on for a long time and didn't just pop up on the radar when Bush became president; which proves this whole thing is politically motivated.

When Hillary gets into the WH do you honestly believe the practices will come to a stop?

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

We do have big proof that prisoners will admit to anything under pressure from the innocent Americans in USA jails link HERE.

So the torture might give "valuable information" but it just is not true info.

Hey JPC, stay with the conversation. We are talking about interrogating terrorists and extracting information to stop another attack or capture bigger targets.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by forestal

Hmm, well, regular interrogation worked pretty well against the Nazis...

Are these experienced experts good enough for you?

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

For six decades, they held their silence.
The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.
When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.
"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.

And not surprising you still haven't answered my questions. How many interrogations today are conducted in this manner: playing chess or ping pong? Once again you are insinuating CIA interroogators are running in the containment room with needles, wire, and electrical probes. You don't have a clue.

German soliers that were captured on the battlefield were typically killed on the spot. Nazi commanders of concentration camps were executed on the spot. And then there is this:

In 1989, a Canadian novelist by the name of Jacques Bacque wrote Other Losses, which contained accusations against General Eisenhower in this regard. Bacque argued that Eisenhower’s misdeeds led to the starvation of "over 800,000, almost certainly over 800,000 and quite possibly a million" German POWs. Bacque claimed that Einsehower nefariously got around the Geneva Conventions by changing the status of the Germans prisoners from "Prisoner of War" to "Disarmed Enemy Combatant."

There was widespread mistreatment of German prisoners in the spring and summer of 1945. Men were beaten, denied water, forced to live in open camps without shelter, given inadequate food rations and inadequate medical care. Their mail was withheld. In some cases prisoners made a "soup" of water and grass in order to deal with their hunger. Men did die needlessly and inexcusably. This must be confronted, and it is to Mr. Bacque's credit that he forces us to do so.

There are many allegations of mistreatment and unwarranted brutality. If reclassification of a detainee in order to cut his or her rations constitutes "torture," then some may conclude that Nazis were "tortured" after the fall of Berlin. If rough treatment designed to break an individual's will constitutes torture, then some may conclude that Nazis were tortured when subjected to rougher treatment, Holocaust films and American propaganda in the reeducation process.

Here's the bottom line here Forest... when we are at war the CINC has a responsibility to conduct the war in a manner that is consistent with certain international laws. But he has to weigh this with the immense responsibility of protecting the country.

Because of your political motivations, you liberals have him caught in an impossible situation. If he uses too much force or employs questionable tactics you liberals are all over it. If he complies with your demands to step things down a notch and the result is another attack you’re all over it. Bottom line there is nothing he will do that is acceptable. We dropped two atom bombs on Japan killing 120,000 Japanese civilians. Millions of others suffered the rest of their lives. In all wars, this single event represents the worst act committed by any country in history. It was committed by the US. Despite the level of torture this inflicted on them, Japan is our ally today and they live in prosperity as a democracy. You liberals aren’t willing to make these tough decisions. You’d rather politicize it. You’d rather destroy the effort to win this war for political expediency and power. For you it’s not about defending a country; it’s about power.

[forestal]

We're not at war. The military is at war.. The rest of us get our tax cuts, watch football on TV, buy gas for our hummers, and spend time with our families.

hahah, I find it hilarious that you insinuate that Bush spends much time pondering and weighing issues and decisions of great importance. He doesn't, and he doesn't care about the consequences his 'decisions' have for others.

You are exaggerating to the extreme again, as all conservatives like to do to justify their warped views. Bush is losing the war on terror specifically because his tactics and actions are a PRIME motivator for the jihadis to take up arms against us.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Here's the bottom line here Forest... when we are at war the CINC has a responsibility to conduct the war in a manner that is consistent with certain international laws. But he has to weigh this with the immense responsibility of protecting the country.

Because of your political motivations, you liberals have him caught in an impossible situation. If he uses too much force or employs questionable tactics you liberals are all over it. If he complies with your demands to step things down a notch and the result is another attack you’re all over it. Bottom line there is nothing he will do that is acceptable. We dropped two atom bombs on Japan killing 120,000 Japanese civilians. Millions of others suffered the rest of their lives. In all wars, this single event represents the worst act committed by any country in history. It was committed by the US. Despite the level of torture this inflicted on them, Japan is our ally today and they live in prosperity as a democracy. You liberals aren’t willing to make these tough decisions. You’d rather politicize it. You’d rather destroy the effort to win this war for political expediency and power. For you it’s not about defending a country; it’s about power.

[forestal]

It's interesting that within your same quoted article you don't quote the parts that refute your assertations...

To prove that German POWs were not mistreated, Americans hired third-party, neutral Swiss inspectors to report on the conditions inside the camp and to relay this information to the Germans.

Christof Strauss of the University of Heidelberg calls into question many of Bacque’s accusations, as have others, as spelled out in this debate conducted by HNN in 2003. While Strauss decided that "conditions in these camps indeed did not meet the requirements of the Geneva Convention of 1929," he also maintains that "contrary to Bacque’s assertion, the Americans did allow aid to be delivered to the inmates by representatives of the German churches." The International Red Cross was also permitted to see the prisoners. Strauss says that Bacque made the death toll appear much higher than it actually was.

There is no question that Eisenhower changed the status of the POWs and turned away some trains bringing aid – but why these decisions were made is still a matter of debate. Steven E. Ambrose argues that Eisenhower’s approach was justified because there was a food-shortage ravaging post-war Germany as a whole, and more food was needed elsewhere among civilians.

Meanwhile, though Canadian historian A. Rettig confirms part of Ambrose’s defense that the Allies "intended to shift priority away German POWs to Hitler’s victims, who might be starving,"

We have no excuse not to treat our prisoners well, and we have plenty of food to go around, unlike the situation in WW2.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Hey JPC, stay with the conversation. We are talking about interrogating terrorists and extracting information to stop another attack or capture bigger targets.

You and President Bush are just speaking and acting out of emotional fear and that is why honor and morality are swept aside.

No one can pursuade the USA to act in accord with the Geneva Convention or even to seek peace because of the USA's fear of terrorism.

The ancient Chinese philosipher Confucious once stated the definition of cowardice and it was later afirmed by Mahatma Gandhi and it goes like this:

When one knows the right thing to do, and has the ability to do the right thing, but does not do right out of their fear - then that is true cowardice.

This is what the Bush administration has given the USA.

[High EGT]

Originally Posted by forestal

Torture invariably brings out what the questioner wants to hear, and its hardly ever valuable intelligence.

One can try and justify government sanctioned torture by offering unproven hypothetical situations.

Here's something that isn't hypothetical, it's real. The U.S. government kidnapped a german citizen and tortured him in Afghanistan, destroying his marriage in the process. But in your opinion, that's okay, because someday we might actually save somebody's life using these practices. You are not worthy of the freedom that Americans have died protecting.

On New Year's Eve 2003, police in Macedonia detained a man named Khaled el-Masri, a German of Lebanese descent. After 23 days, the Macedonians turned him over to agents of the CIA, who spirited him away to Kabul, Afghanistan. There, el-Masri claims, they tortured him until they figured out that he was not Khalid al-Masri, a terrorist who was part of the al-Qaida cell in Hamburg that planned the 9/11 attacks.
After five months, and having concluded they had the wrong guy, CIA agents dumped el-Masri on a remote hillside in Albania. Eventually, el-Masri made his way home to Germany, where he filed suit against George Tenet, the CIA director at the time, and a flock of corporations and John Does associated with the agency.
Now the kicker. El-Masri has no way to get justice under U.S. law.
A federal district court ruled that his suit could not proceed because it might disclose state secrets that could jeopardize national security. An appeals court agreed, and on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would not hear his case.
El-Masri is a victim of what the CIA calls "extraordinary rendition" in which the agency sneaks a suspect away to a secret location in some foreign country away from U.S. jurisdiction. There, the dirty work of torture can occur, away from prying eyes and the Bill of Rights.

I see you would rather cut and past quotes off of Far Left web sites then answer the hypothetical question. As I see it, you and others like yourself like to play the ethical card NOT simply because you actually care about some terrorist suspect being interrorgated in some cell in Afganistan but more likely that because of your hatred of this admistration and the opportunity to dump on Bush is more important then the lives of this countries and our allies. I dont think that its out of line to say if your gal Hillary takes over, you and others who rant about ethics regarding torture of suspected terrorist will become strangly silent.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by forestal

We're not at war. The military is at war.. The rest of us get our tax cuts, watch football on TV, buy gas for our hummers, and spend time with our families.

And this is the problem. You don’t see any sense unity of country. You don’t even see our military as Americans. You see them as this separate entity, over there, away from their families; a bunch of robots blindly following orders. How arrogant that you sit so comfortable in your home living under that protection they provide and you are completely oblivious to their sacrifice that keeps you free. It’s this kind of ignorance that demoralizes our military and makes this country vulnerable to our enemy. But all you care about is your selfish political purposes.

hahah, I find it hilarious that you insinuate that Bush spends much time pondering and weighing issues and decisions of great importance. He doesn't, and he doesn't care about the consequences his 'decisions' have for others.

I find it hilarious that you think you know EVERYTHING about our military, CIA, and the inner thoughts of the president. Once again, you predictably deny that this war we are fighting against terror is of any importance. As long as it isn’t directly affecting you, it must not be real. A sad fantasy land you live in.

You are exaggerating to the extreme again, as all conservatives like to do to justify their warped views. Bush is losing the war on terror specifically because his tactics and actions are a PRIME motivator for the jihadis to take up arms against us.

What’s extreme is denying we are at war. What’s extreme is believing that if we pretend there are no enemies out there that want us dead, then they must not exist. You wont wake up until it hit you or someone you love; until then it’s all make believe for you.

And wait a minute… in your first paragraph you said “we’re not at war”. So how can we be losing something we are not even fighting? You don’t even know what position you want to take with this. Not only is this complete ignorance but it’s also humorously embarrassing.

Lastly, let me say I hope this is a prime motivator for the Jihadists to take up arms. I want them all dead. The more that pop up, the more we kill. Anyone cowardly enough to commit suicide while targeting innocent civilians deserves to die from an American bullet or bomb. I’m fed up with this “we are creating more terrorist” when their brutal and cowardly actions against us should be creating more American warriors. But rather, we have a cast of cowards in this country that would prefer to aid and abet the enemy through their political hatred rather than take up arms against them. It’s not about fighting a known enemy for you; it’s about blame and political gain.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

You and President Bush are just speaking and acting out of emotional fear and that is why honor and morality are swept aside.

You say this like there is something wrong with having fear. There is nothing dishonorable about the fear of another 911 attack. It wasn’t some nightmare and then we woke up. It really did happen and they want to do it again. You liberals are little concerned about it. But it’s not a fear that keeps me cowering in a corner like you liberals. “We’re creating more terrorist”, “we’re losing the war”, “Bush is taking our rights away”. I’ve heard all the fear mongering from you liberals enough for a lifetime. Then you want to preach to me about fear. You make me sick.

No one can pursuade the USA to act in accord with the Geneva Convention or even to seek peace because of the USA's fear of terrorism.

Was our bombing on Japan within the Geneva Conventions? Was the internment of the Japanese in America within the Geneva Conventions? No they weren’t. But all the events that we committed during WWII that may have violated the Geneva Conventions of 1929 won us that war. Sometimes you have to go to the extremes to win a war. Wars are not won with stringent rules that only one side is expected to follow. This doesn’t suggest we go around, willy-nilly, breaking international law. What it means is sometimes you have to use extreme measures to end and war. Surrendering (the only resolve you liberals have) is NOT the answer.

The ancient Chinese philosipher Confucious once stated the definition of cowardice and it was later afirmed by Mahatma Gandhi and it goes like this:

When one knows the right thing to do, and has the ability to do the right thing, but does not do right out of their fear - then that is true cowardice.

This is what the Bush administration has given the USA.

Your lack of vision and selfish ambitions wont allow you to even see what the right thing is. It wasn’t until decades later that we saw dropping the bombs on Japan was the right thing to do. Sometimes doing the difficult thing, no matter how unpopular it is, is the right things even if it doesn’t appear to be at the moment. Your lack of patience, lack of vision, your inability to see anything positive in the future, and your narrow and selfish political motivations defines cowardice.

[High EGT]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

My scenario was slightly different but I tried this a while back and he never answered.

Reponded yes. But never answeres the question because it makes him uncomfortable to think that he would likely do what others would do to get the information and to save a life. Its ok Forestal, just make sure you look in all directions so your alone and ensure the video camera is off before you extract that info.