Tuesday, August 25, 2009

The Big Kahuna

You can read the whole thing (although still heavily redacted.) here.

You should. This stuff was done in your name. We're all responsible for it in a way.

The report reads like something out of the Inquisition.

A revealing quote found within:

"One officer expressed concern that one day, Agency officers will wind up on some 'wanted list' to appear before the World Court for war crimes stemming from activities [redacted],"

He was right about that.

We conducted mock executions, we threatened to kill peoples children and rape their wives in front of them. All of which is expressly forbidden by federal law. No reasonable person can dispute that.

This happened. In America, this happened. Let that sink in for a bit....

Once you see whats in there and you see how much is still redacted, you wonder "if this is what they're willing to let out, what in the world could they be hiding?".


Anonymous said...

I have no problem using enhanced interrogation techniques to elicit confessions and vital information from known terrorists. I also have no problem using torture to elicit information from someone that could save the lives of thousands of innocent people. (Ever watch "24," art does imitate life!)

Why do liberals get outraged over known criminals being subjected to interrogation and yet condone and promote the killing of unborn babies?

Whatever your criticisms of Bush are, there is no doubting his courage to face down the enemies of our country and do everything within his power to protect our country. He did not give in to political pressure. Unlike Obama, Bush was not a paper slogan. Whether you agreed with him or not, Bush had convictions.

jack b. said...

I'll point out three problems with your comment:

1) the second sentence in your comment is supporting a violation of international law. any public figure who shared your view and acted on it would end up in a war crimes court.

2)i believe the position of the pro-choice movement is that no gov't body has a right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do w/ her body. i have never heard someone promotiong abortion. only choice.

3)i agree. bush did everything within his power. and lots of it was aginst the law. fortunately for him, it would be too politically toxic to prosecute him. so, barack is protecting him. but i would advise him to not do any international traveling...

Anonymous said...

Are you telling me that an unborn child is only tissue connected to the mother and not a life of its own? If so, I ask you when does life begin? The government tells people what they can and cannot do with there bodies all the time. Besides, you didn't answer the question. Why do liberals care more about the rights of terrorists as opposed to innocent unborn babies? Do they not have rights?

As for violating international law.... First, I pray that we never ever worry about the international community or international law. I suppose those tea party naysayers would have violated some sort of international law by standing up to tyranny. America is free to do whatever is necessary to protect its citizens.

As for Bush allegedly violating some law, I would remind you that the the enhanced interrogation program was first started by Clinton and repeatedly endorsed by the Congress. Speaker Pelosi not only was briefed, but approved of it. Is she guilty too? How about Bill Clinton and Leon Panetta who approved the manual used by the Bush administration. Are they also war criminals? Check out the following:




jack b. said...

to you first question, i'm not telling you anything. thats what they would tell you. personally, i'm against abortions and i would never counsel someone to get one. but i also have to recognize that until the baby is grown enough to survive on its own, it is part of the mother. and pro-choicers would argue that what they choose to do is their business, not the governments. consequently, i found your original statement about people "promoting" abortions hyperbolic and unhelpful.

to your second paragraph, i don't know where to start. you've heard of ronald regan, i presume? he signed the treties that we're party to that say "we won't torture no matter how justified we may feel." that document was signed by other nations. they can hold us accountable. so, when bush and co. decide that our security is dependent on us going against these agreements, don't get mad when people who signed that treaty want to prosecute them. i can't believe you actually said "America is free to do whatever is necessary to protect its citizens.". really??? you believe that? in every instance? the law be damned??? what is this, rawanda? i don't think you thought that through very much before you typed it... so, we'll just move on...

to your last point. the simple answer is "yes". anyone who knew about, signed off on, or participated in any torture should pay. otherwise what kind of nation are we? we are the light on the hill. we're supposed to have to moral high ground, right? we forfeited it. every nation in the world now knows america tortures, and our captured men and women will pay for that...