News-Record.com

Our government does not use nor condone torture of any prisoners, either here or in Iraq or Gitmo or anywhere.
So what "torture" are you talking about? Do you mean real torture, or some legal treatment that you choose to claim is torture so you can lash out against the government with another meaningless claim?

JayCee,
He is probably referring to the torture that some of our military personnel are being tried and convicted of. You read the paper's much?

Bob, the "torture" you refer to is not government sanctioned and approved techniques, it is the criminal acts of a few individuals, acting outside the law and military policy. It is a criminal act, and no more connected with the Patriot Act or US policy than bank robbery. And the offenders are being prosecuted as criminals.
I ask again...what "torture" is being referred to here?

As someone that knows what the military is like, I believe that the torture in Cuba was ordered by senior officials.
JayCeeNC, make no mistake that what happened in Cuba was real torture. There was nothing legal about what happened there. And by the way, our government does use torture as a means of intel extraction, but it is done below the radar of most people. I've even seen senior officials turn their heads when one of our own, an American citizen and Sailor was being tortured in order to coax him to confess to a crime. My credentials are US Navy 1993-2002 holding a Secret security clearance. You?

Brian could also have included the US govt. policy of extraordinary rendition, which is torture by proxy. Our use of this is well documented.

Criminal acts by individuals, acting outside the scope of their duty and authority, no matter how "torturous" are NOT government sanctioned torture. That's like saying if a soldier at Ft. Bragg robs the PX it means the government is sanctioning robbery.
Brian, please produce a document or legally binding order santioning "torture" as defined by law to support your theory. And I don't mean some action that, in your opinion, is "torture." What you may call torture because you don't think it's right does not mean it meets a legal definition of torture. Some people think income taxes and red light cameras are torturous...

I don't believe the torture in Iraq was unnoticed by upper ranks in the military and government. If so, then they truly failed in their responsibility to oversee these soldiers.

Having said that, I'm not sure embarrassment and poking fun would really count as torture. Though I'm sure more persuasive forms of Torture are being used in Cuba and Iraq.

Unfortunately, this country is at war. We can all talk about the Geneva conventions and rules of war, but at the same time we have to be realistic. Private contractors and others are being beheaded in Iraq on an ongoing basis. This is what we are at war against. This would be happening regardless of whether our country was guilty of torture or not.

Our enemy does not follow the rules of war. They will stop at nothing to defeat us. Even killing innocent men, women and children.

In order to defeat them, we cannot play nice. This is war. Just like Jack said, "You can't handle the truth!"

It would suffice to say that "JayCeeNC" will not believe the evidence given. So, give it a rest people!

It appears that some here see, know, and believe the truth. And sadly, the US Government does support AND sanction torture of "enemy" prisoners. Ask any soldier who has been in hostile action. The answers will come. While the aforementioned may not have come from the Pentagon or White House "officially," there is knowledge and support from the same.

And I have no official claim to rank nor security clearance, I am using rational thinking from information gathered and read. Most people need to do the same!

Darryl, you can "believe" what you like with no evidence to support it, that's up to you. No evidence has been presented. Provide one single piece of documentary evidence that directs anyone in our government to "torture" anyone else as it's defined under law. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. Our government does not torture people, as defined by law. Just because someone is squeamish about some methods does not satisfy the legal requirement for torture.
I often see on the news where someone's house has been "robbed." It hasn't been robbed, it's been burglarized. Legal requirements are very specific. It's baseless to classify anything you don't like is "torture."
I use both rational thinking and experience to form my opinions.
Provide evidence, nobody's shown any yet.

JayCeeNC,

torture : Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.

I can't provide proof that I witnessed any torture from what I experienced first hand, but I know what I saw, and what I saw was torture plain and simple. Why don't you provide proof that the US doesn't torture. Hmmm......

The pictures of our troops harming prisoners in Cuba and Iraq is torture. The soldier that went to trial for it even said he was given the order to get information from the prisoners by using these unorthodox techniques.

bigmouth,
Just because we are at "war" doesn't give us the right to torture prisoners of war. Our troops that are convicted of torturing enemy prisoners of war (thus violating the geneva conventions) should be made to do their time in an Iraqi prison with Iraqi guards!

Why would you expect me to defend against something that hasn't occurred? If you're referring to Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, you're way off base. The criminal acts at Abu Ghraib were individual acts of soldiers committing crimes, NOT state sponsored policies or government practices. No credible evidence exists that anyone in the US government ordered Lynddie England to put dog collars on anyone, etc. And she and others are being prosecuted for their crimes, as they should be.
Brian, please provide the cite for your above definition of torture, which law book did it come from, or which canon or international law? I'm not talking about a dictionary definition, I mean the legal statute or code which defines torture as applies to a sovereign nation's responsibility in regards to prisoners.

JayCeeNC,
You clearly have no clue how our military works. CYOA is a term used widely throughout the military. Cover Your Own Ass is what it stands for.
What happened in Cuba WAS torture, whether it was state sponsored or not. The following is Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions:

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Exactly that DID happen in Cuba and Iraq. Torture did occur. Was it state sponsored? Absolutely not. Was it ordered by senior military officials? More than likely it was.

My definition of the word torture came from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

JayCee:

If you want to examine what is documented, you'll come to understand that there was indeed a sytematic attempt by high government officials to justify and encourage torture. Here are a few:

Pentagon officials removed safeguards against torture, civilian contractors (to whom the Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention do not apply) were allowed to conduct "interrogations," and complaints filed from the field were ignored by higher-ups.

A memo from US Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee advised that only actions causing severe organ failure would constitute torture and even then, torture and even deliberate killing of prisoners might be necessary to protect the US.

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales advised the president that the threat of terrorism made the Geneva Conventions obsolte.

The fact is that a host of official actions were taken by people in power (not renegade soldiers) to systematically prepare the way for torutre.

You can no longer deny the existence of "credible evidence." You can examine the evidence provided to you (which apparently was unknown to you previously) and learn the truth or you can live in denial, but those who are informed recognize your opinions expressed above as contrary to the facts.

Bigmouth:

The torture in Iraq was just "embarrasment and poking fun?" It's really hard to give your opinions any credence when you minimize this:

Just a little poking fun.

Such comments make Bush defenders seem either dellusional or monsterous.

While some things done might seem like "torture" to you, roch, they are NOT torture under the law. You choose to define torture in a way that suits you and condemn people for it, but your definition would not hold up in court.
You decide to ignore the legalities of the situation and classify something you don't like as "torture" but it is not.
That's one reason we have White House Counsel, Attorney General, etc., to interpret the law and advise on how to obey the law while still doing our job. That's why people like you are not in charge, you don't know the difference.
Or do you claim to know more about their job than they do? If so, why aren't you in charge??

JayCee, your "logic" is eating itself. First you offer that the torture was the act of a few renegade soldiers -- acts which you acknowledged were "outside the law." The only question remaining then was, were those illegal acts sanctioned by higher-ups?

When presented with evidence that adminstration officials cleared the way for torture, you contradict your previous recognition that the acts were "outside the law" and say that they weren't -- even going so far as to say that such a defintion of torture wouldn't hold up in court (Which, in fact, it did -- to the tune of a 10-year sentence.)

You retreat from the facts, you retreat from the truth, you even retreat from your own opinions. That's what defending the Bush administration does to people; it sends them spinning in circles because so many of this administration's actions are simply indefensible.

Let's see if we can make this very plain: The Geneva Conventions establish the legal treatment of prisoners. Bush administration officials argue that they don't apply and lo' and behold, people get tortured and the torturers get convicted. It's not that hard JayCee.

I'm flattered that you wonder why I'm not in charge, but your question says less about what I know and more about the incompetence of those who are in charge.

bigmouth said:

"Our enemy does not follow the rules of war. They will stop at nothing to defeat us. Even killing innocent men, women and children.

In order to defeat them, we cannot play nice. This is war. Just like Jack said, 'You can't handle the truth!'"

The problem with having the moral high ground is that you have to have it all the time. If we only act morally when it's convenient for us to do so, then we aren't really acting morally at all.

If we are the good guys in this conflict (and we are), it is because we don't purposefully kill innocent men, women, and children, we don't behead prisoners in public, and we don't turn our heads or skirt around precise definitions in order to allow acts of torture to continue.

Does this make it harder on us? Yes, it does, the same way it makes it harder to win a game when your opponent is cheating. It still doesn't make it right for you to cheat. It isn't easy to fight a clean war against a dirty opponent, but the alternative is giving up the reasons why we were the good guys in the first place.

Roch, I've tried every way I know to explain the difference between the criminal act of an individual and the policy of a nation. They are two different things. I'll try once more, for those of you Rio Linda.
Those soldiers at Abu Ghraib, like the one you linked to, committed criminal acts as individuals. Their acts were not national policy or US Army rules and regs they were following, but the criminal act of an individual acting outside the scope of his job and authority. That is NOT a violation by a nation of any conventions or laws on prisoner treatment. It's the same as when a local guard does something wrong in a jail. Do we assume the Sheriff has a policy of abusing or assaulting prisoners? If a worker in Wal-Mart does something wrong at work do we demand the CEO of a 1 million+ employee company step down? Of course not, because that employee was acting on his own outside of company policy. If so, Wal-Mart would be hiring a different CEO every single day.
Is there a single iota of evidence that torture as defined by law (not just your opinion of what you don't like) was ordered or sanctioned by the US government? Nobody has shown me any evidence, just opinion pieces written by people who take any opportunity to bash our government, no matter how false their facts are. Evidence of individual criminal acts does not constitute evidence of state-sanctioned, ordered, or supported "torture." If you have proof that the US Government ordered Lynddie England to put dog collars on people or Spec. Graner was ordered to do the criminal acts he was rightly convicted of, you need to contact the government NOW because you have evidence that they don't have. And apparently you're much smarter than all of the Army lawyers and all of the goverment lawyers, because you know much more than they do, don't you?

Sorry, the above comments to Roch were mine, my name got left off.

I don't justify torture. But War is about killing people. And given the choice of people blindfolding me and posing me in embarrassing positions or even roughing me up, I choose any of those before being killed by beheading or any other fashion.

And to respond to thejtrain, I'm not sure if I would consider the U.S. to have the moral high-ground anymore. One look at a television show or movie made in this country would seriously bring the moral high ground issue into jeapordy. In fact, part of the reason people in the world hate us and fear us is because of our lack of general moral standards.

And when it comes to war, what is higher on the moral ladder? Torture or just killing the enemy and getting it over with?

"Nobody has shown me any evidence..." -- JayCee.

Yes, we have. You're in denial.

i keep reading stories about prisoners being transported to countries that do allow torture. surely, somebody with authority is giving the okay to do this.

obviously, the crimes committed with respect to torture were witnessed and/or approved by commanders. yet, nobody in charge has been dismissed. if somebody in charge was to be held responsible, then it will be perceived as a direct action by the u.s. government. they won't let that happen, so the little guys will continue to take the fall.

as the self-proclaimed leader of the free world, the u.s. must set the example for human rights. especially in times of war. not to mention a war that we started (iraq)! if we do not uphold the standards set forth by the geneva convention, we will have no moral authority with which to negotiate. i.e.: say a soldier is captured in iraq, north korea, or iran and his captors decide to torture our soldier exactly the way we tortured prisoners (many innocent civilians, by the way) in iraq and/or cuba. what can we say to protest this action? we did the same!!! private contactors and u.s. soldiers are all agents of the u.s. government, so their actions do make our nation accountable.

Roch, you still don't get it, do you?
The act of an individual committing a crime is not the formal policy of an entire nation. What part of that do you not understand? If a soldier robs a bank at Ft. Bragg, do we assume that Sec. Rumsfeld now has a policy of robbing banks? Ridiculous.
Yaker, you hit the nail on the head. You keep "hearing stories" and assume it's the truth. Where do these "stories" come from? What news outlets do you get your news from? The news you hear is what you use to form your opinions, and if the news is full of lies and partisan claims (like CNN, CBS, etc.) then your opinion will be based on these lies. The fact is, if enough news channels repeat the same baloney often enough, people begin to believe it's the truth, whether it's backed up by any evidence or not. Sort of like what Roch keeps saying, but that's just because he doesn't want to accept the truth.

"reading" is the word i used, not "hearing". many stories i have read were filed and distributed through the associated press.
some prisoners are beginning to file suits, and the articles will list the alleged torture. certainly, not everyone is lying. perhaps we'll have to wait for mr. moore's next movie to discover the real truth.

"I'll try once more, for those of you Rio Linda."

Why is it not at all surprising to hear a Rush-ism from this guy

Yaker, you're right again..."alleged." I can allege that Bill Clinton crawls on all fours and howls at the moon but that doesn't make it true. You've never known a criminal to lie? Come on...just because a newspaper prints an allegation it does not strengthen or give any more truthfullness to an untrue allegation.
I threw that comment in just for you libs, Rusty. I knew it would garner some smart-aleck comment.
The sad thing is, it's true. Many of you far left guys just don't get it.

I hope you weren't referring to me with that "far left guys" comment. And as for the "libs" comment, I only hope you meant Libertarian (or classical liberal), because I sure as hell am not a contemporary liberal. I'm about as far from the "left" as can be. But that's a problem with you Rush-types (if I may generalize as you did). You automatically assume someone is a whacko anti-capitalist leftwing nutjob just because we believe in civil liberties and the rule of law. You're not really interested in doing any real substantive research or debate. Name-calling and easy-to-pin labels (however wrong they are) are much more to your liking.

JayCeeNC,
Thanks for giving me a laugh. Your ignorance on this subject is overwhelming, but you are entitled to your OPINIONS as am I. You commented on the news organizations and their lies and partisan claims, yet you left out Fox News Channel. Why? They are the biggest perveyor of lies and partisan claims. If you get your news from that source, then no wonder your ignorance is great.

j.c.n.c.- "alleged" is the p.c. term when something has yet to be proven to be true in court. however, the photos i have seen speak for themselves.

as for the labels you so freely assign to everyone: i think bush is an absolute horrible president because he is, not because of his party, or mine. as for my party, i'm an independant, but being called liberal is a badge of honor!

Yaker, you say you have photographic PROOF that the President of the US ordered what is considered by international courts to be torture?
Please forward them to the FBI, because you have proof that no one else in the world has.
And if you knew anything about the law, you'd know that NO piece of evidence speaks for itself. That's why the courts require witnesses to present evidence, including photographs.

Hmm, Brian, let's see..on the liberal side we have ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR...then we have FOX, which gives both sides of the issue.
I'd say you libs must be really scared when the most impartial network has you guys screaming and running around in circles. Why are you guys so afraid of the public hearing the truth?

Jay, if you want to be the arbiter of media objectivity you better offer evidence. Not anecdotes, but quantifiable evidence of systematic bias in the media. So far all you've offered is an opinion that's not very convincing.

j.c.- this tit for tat stuff is tiresome, as is your failure to read carefully the text in front of you. pictures of torture has absolutely nothing to do with accusing bush of ordering the torture that one sees in the photos. i never said that bush ordered torture.

Just because Bush didn't order the prisoners to be tortured, doesn't mean they weren't. Some United States military personnel DID torture prisoners of war. That is a FACT and cannot be disputed. Oh yea, Fox News does NOT give both sides of the issue. *LAUGH*
I agree that most networks have a liberal slant, but Fox News has a conservative slant.

"Oh yea, Fox News does NOT give both sides of the issue. *LAUGH*"

There's more than 2 sides to most issues.

Nobody ever said that individual soldiers didn't commit crimes against prisoners. But they didn't do it on orders from the military or on orders from anyone, so it's not state-sponsored or condoned "torture." They did it on their own in violation of the law, which this administration was quick to investigate and punish those who did it. Not torture, my friend, but criminal assault by an individual. Nobody has disputed that.
Ever watch Hannity and Colmes? Both sides. Ever watch Geraldo or any of the other anchors? They have people from both sides of any issue. O'Reilly? He has those with opposites opinions on for debate. All the other liberal news just crams their snotty opinions down our throats as if they were "news" but they're really the liberal idea they want you to believe. I prefer to hear healthy debate from both sides, Fox gives that.
That's my point, Brian, you've got half a dozen liberal news outlets, and one that's not liberal. So the liberals scream "Foul!" when somebody challenges their domain...sounds like they're deathly afraid people will hear the truth for a change.

All I know is that I used to watch Fox News when I was a republican a few years back and even then I knew they were biased. Most news organizations are, and I don't dispute that, but when someone says that Fox News is "fair and balanced", I simply laugh, because they aren't.
CNN and even the "liberal" NPR interview people on both sides of issues. That isn't a benchmark for bias.
Torture as defined by the military: When an enemy prisoner of war is beaten, humiliated, or deprived of basic human needs by a person detaining that prisoner, for gain of information or confession. Got that from a friend in Norfolk who is an Intelligence Specialist onboard an aircraft carrier. So yes, they were tortured.
I have never screamed foul about anyones domain. I like debate that is open and based on facts.
By the way, what "snotty opinions" have been cramed down your throat? Just wondering. I have had many "snotty opinions" cramed down my throat over the years as well. Gay marriage, the Ten Commandments, religion in general, this "war" on terrorism, and so on. I guess liberals and conservatives will have to agree to disagree on almost everything and somehow live in harmony on this planet together.
But before I go, lemme ask you a question. What did you think about Farenheit 9/11? Don't answer if you have never seen it.

Jay, Hannity & Colmes is evidence of Fox's objectivity? "Snotty opinions" are evidence of liberal bias?

Just be honest and say you prefer Fox's point of view. Your arguments about bias are just plain silly.

Guys, all the media is biased. If you think pointing out only 2 points of view is objective you're crazy. The media is the 4th branch of government.