NYT editorial department is in the lead.

Yeah, everybody was always taking advantage of Saddam's peaceful and generous nature.

They're about as indebted to the American people as Exxon-Mobil is.

They'll take the highest price they can get every time.

But they who to call when they get in trouble.

Ungrateful rich bastiges.

Exxon-Mobil? Isn't that who they called last time?

Yeah, that's why Kuwaiti Royals danced up a storm at discotheques in Cairo when American soldiers were deployed to fight their war for them. It was the Kuwaiti Royal family dance of gratitude. Hell, they even left a tip for service well performed.

Ennit... indeed.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0208/S00068.htm

No more than all the rest of the intentionally blind.

Howdy Charlie Ray.

Huh? To up the price of it?

Heyyo Spaceman! :~D

Congress I think. There's all too much evidence to suggest that Bush is already working hand in hand with Bin Laden.

Live Free Or Die

10 Oct 2007 03:33 pm

I should address Bret Stephens' other point in his attempt to excuse his paper's support for the torture of prisoners in American custody, including the Nazi techniques of Verschaerfte Vernehmung, and his own support for the Khmer Rouge technique of water boarding. It pains me deeply to see Marty Peretz endorsing "absolutely harsh techniques" as well. Bret's point is as follows: the long-standing decision by democratic societies, and especially by the Anglo-American powers, to eschew the torture or abuse of prisoners to extract intelligence has now been rendered moot. It has been rendered moot not by the Nazis or the Communists - but by the Islamists. To risk the possible loss of American lives by maintaining the pre-Bush American horror of torture is irresponsible. My own view is described thus:

Taken seriously, it says that the civilized world would be better off sustaining a nuclear 9/11 than tarnishing its good name, that righteous victimhood is a finer thing than an innocent life saved through morally compromised methods, and that self-preservation is not the most fundamental requirement of democratic life.

In nearly all conflicts, even existential ones, limits should be observed, and it's worth thinking through where exactly the limits lie. But when the moral trade-off comes down to KSM waterboarded in order to extract actionable intelligence, or some mother's child murdered, it's not a tough call. And no amount of inflated, imprecise and tendentious allegations of torture should change that.

Let's leave aside the fact that Stephens goes immediately to the nuclear scenario. Let's also leave aside the never-ever happened hypothetical of the ticking time-bomb. The basic issue is: should torture be indefinitely legalized as American policy to prevent the potential loss of many American lives?

First: I do not believe that torture does save people's lives, because I do not believe it gives us reliable intelligence and because the use of it historically leads to its becoming the primary method of intelligence gathering, and so undermines our extreme need to develop better intelligence gathering, especially human intelligence. And I do not believe that the illegal torture of KSM gave us any actionable intelligence that was not destroyed by the huge amount of false intelligence he also coughed up under torture, and that diverted law enforcement in ways that probably did endanger American lives. And I do not trust those in power who tell me otherwise, because there is no check on them whatsoever, no oversight that they have not cheerfully avoided, and any admission of guilt on their part would lead to war crime prosecution. So Tenet would say that his authorization of "enhanced interrogation" saved lives, wouldn't he? In the protectorate that has now supplanted the republic, we will never reliably know. Our freedoms have already been eviscerated.

But secondly: yes, I do think that in a choice between legalizing torture and the loss of American lives, I would choose the loss of American lives, including my own.

This is not righteous victimhood. It is righteous self-defense. There are some things worse than avoiding all casualties in warfare. One of those things is abandoning the core meaning of what a country and a civilization stand for. If America does not stand against the torture of individuals seized without due process by an unchecked executive power, then American stands for nothing. In fact, if this standard had applied two centuries ago, America would not exist at all. The president takes an oath not to prevent any American life from being lost in wartime, but to protect and defend the Constitution which is the sole guarantor of such liberty. Churchill upheld that rule, even as London was reduced to rubble and hundreds of thousands of mother's children were lost. Washington made it a central hallmark of the meaning of his new republic. To destroy the constitution, the rule of law, and habeas corpus and to legalize torture in the false hope of saving lives is the action of those who do not understand freedom and who do not understand America. It is the action of cowards and slaves.

What part of "Live Free Or Die" do these people not understand?


http://dailydish.typepad.com/

Myanmar opposition leader tortured to death: group

BANGKOK (Reuters) - A Myanmar opposition leader who was arrested during last month's mass protests against the junta died due to torture during interrogation, an activist group said on Wednesday.

In Washington, the United States threatened new sanctions against Myanmar after media reports of the death of Win Shwe.

"The junta must stop the brutal treatment of its people and peacefully transition to democracy or face new sanctions from the United States," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in a statement.

The White House did not say what additional sanctions it was considering on the former Burma, but it called for a full investigation into Win Shwe's death.

The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) said that Win Shwe, a 42-year-old member of the National League for Democracy, and four other people were arrested on September 26 because of their active support for and participation in the biggest pro-democracy protests in nearly 20 years.

"He died as a result of torture during interrogation," the Thai-based group said in a statement on its Web site (www.aappb.org), sourcing its information to authorities in Kyaukpandawn township.

"However, his body was not sent to his family and the interrogators indicated that they had cremated it instead."

Official media in Myanmar said 10 people were killed when the junta sent in soldiers to end days of Buddhist monk-led demonstrations in September, although Western governments say the toll is likely to have been much higher.

The AAPP said in its statement that "many dead bodies and injured persons were cremated or placed in the river".

"Some dead bodies of monks have appeared in the Pazundaung River in Rangoon (Yangon) in the past few days. In addition, many of those who have been arrested have been tortured during interrogation."

U.S. First Lady Laura Bush told USA Today in an interview published on Wednesday that the United States would announce further sanctions on Myanmar's military government "within the next couple of days" if the junta does not take steps toward democracy.



http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...dName=worldNews

Carter Says U.S. Tortures Prisoners
White House Denies Charge

POSTED: 4:50 pm EDT October 10, 2007

The United States tortures suspected terrorist prisoners, former president Jimmy Carter said Wednesday on an interview on CNN.

"I don't think it. I know it," he said. "But you can make your own definition of human rights and say we don't violate them, and you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate them," Carter told CNN.

"Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," he said in the interview. "We've said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we've said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime to which they are accused."

On Thursday, the New York Times reported that secret Justice Department memorandums supported interrogation techniques that included "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures."

The Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales' leadership issued the opinion in 2005 authorizing use of painful physical and psychological tactics against terrorism suspects, the paper said.

Gonzales approved the legal memorandum over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after disagreements with the White House over its anti-terrorism actions.

Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be "ashamed" when the world eventually learned of the memorandum, the paper reported.

The opinion came a year after the Justice Department publicly declared torture "abhorrent."

It was followed in 2005 with another opinion secretly declaring that none of the CIA's interrogation practices violated the standard in the new law, as Congress was moving to outlaw "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of prisoners, The New York Times said, citing interviews with unnamed current and former officials.

On Friday, White House admitted the memos exist, refused to make them public and said they don't condone torture. Bush went in front of reporters on Friday to insist that, "This government does not torture people."

In the CNN interview, Carter called Bush's statement inaccurate: "Ff you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored -- certainly in the last 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated."

http://www.local6.com/news/14312600/detail.html

Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday.
art.carter.cnn.jpg

Former President Carter says the U.S. "has abandoned the basic principle of human rights."

"I don't think it. I know it," Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

"Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," Carter said. "We've said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we've said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime to which they are accused."

Carter also said President Bush creates his own definition of human rights.

Carter's comments come on the heels of an October 4 article in The New York Times disclosing the existence of secret Justice Department memorandums supporting the use of "harsh interrogation techniques." These include "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures," according to the Times.

The White House last week confirmed the existence of the documents but would not make them public.

Responding to the newspaper report Friday, Bush defended the techniques used, saying, "This government does not torture people."

Asked about Bush's comments, Carter said, "That's not an accurate statement if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored -- certainly in the last 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated.


"But you can make your own definition of human rights and say we don't violate them, and you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate them." Video Watch Blitzer's interview with the former president »

After reading a transcript of Carter's remarks, a senior White House official said, "Our position is clear. We don't torture."

The official said, "It's just sad to hear a former president speak like that."

Carter also criticized some of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates, calling former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani "foolish" for his contention the United States should be open to use force on Iran.

"I hope that he doesn't become president and try to impose his conviction that we need to go to war with Iran," Carter said.

The Giuliani campaign declined to comment on Carter's criticism.

The former president didn't spare the rest of the GOP field either.


"They all seem to be outdoing each other in who wants to go to war first with Iran, who wants to keep Guantanamo open longer and expand its capacity -- things of that kind," Carter said.

"They're competing with each other to appeal to the ultra-right-wing, war-mongering element in our country, which I think is the minority of our total population."

Carter declined to say which Republican candidate he feared the most.

"If I condemn one of them, it might escalate him to the top position in the Republican ranks," he said.
advertisement

Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois also drew Carter's criticism for refusing recently to pledge to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of their first terms if they win the presidency in 2008.

"I disagree with their basic premise that we'll still be there; I think the American people want out," Carter said. "If there is an unforeseen development where Iraqi people request American presence over a period of time I think that would possibly be acceptable, but that's not my personal preference."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/car...ture/index.html

Golly, might speak to the quality of your man Jimmah.

48 days. 'Course those are California days, I think.

I knew guys that were supposed to do weekends in jail for DUI. They'd go on Friday evening and sign in and back on Sunday to sign out. They were friends of the jailer.

I expect that helps.

Yeah, several of our members were cops or retired cops. There was a really tight group of Irish and Italians who had grown up in the North Hill neighborhood.

The Torture Debate

10 Oct 2007 08:01 pm



It has come alive again - largely because of new revelations that the Bush administration lied to the Congress and the world by saying three years ago that such practices were abhorrent and no longer in operation. My two-pronged counter-argument to Bret Stephens' recent piece in the Wall Street Journal can be read here and here. Senator Clinton's strained words on the subject are dissected here. A plurality of Americans think the president is lying here.

(Photo: a Khmer Rouge waterboard, which the Wall Street Journal and Bret Stephens do not believe was an instrument of torture. It is, for some reason, in a museum dedicated to recording the history of torture techniques in Cambodia during the genocide. The Cambodians don't seem to understand that the Khmer Rouge were simply employing "enhanced interrogation," as practiced by the US under president George W. Bush.)

http://dailydish.typepad.com/

Live Free Or Die, Ctd.

11 Oct 2007 07:08 am

A reader writes:

Thank you. After struggling with the "torture issue," those were exactly the conclusions I’d come to. It really is simple.

Number One: The government of the United States of America is torturing human beings.

Number Two: The "evidence" gained from this torture, from any torture, is deeply suspect. We have sold our soul for nothing.

Number Three: We should be willing to die for the freedoms we hold so dear. We should be willing to die for the Constitution. From the beginning, we have asked Americans to spend their lives to preserve the ideals of liberty. Yet today, we hysterically trade those ideals for fleeting security. We tell ourselves not to worry about the Constitution, or habeas corpus, because American lives are worth more than that.

They are not.

I would add a fourth: we didn't exactly decide these things at all. They were decided for us - and for generations of Americans and Westerners - in secret, by a handful of people, pushed through against the law, against the advice of many decent people in the government, and then lied about systematically. Yes, by re-electing the Decider, we perpetuated it, and we knew what was at stake at the time. But this was ultimately a function of ceding the rule of law to the rule of one man - not for a one-off emergency, but permanently, indefinitely, because this war has no end, and the Republican establishment believes that the president has no limits on his power in a permanent state of war.

http://dailydish.typepad.com/

http://desktopdownload.org/goodies/katzride1.gif

Or we could be like the RW radicals on this board, continue to ignore the injustices committed in "our name" and question the patriotism of anyone who does so.

Except in their case, they won't be able to "profess ignorance" at their own colusion with war criminals.

Wow, changing someone's quotes. That's a serious breech of board etiquette.

People get booted for that.

Just FYI.

It's SOP on many forums these days. Can you cite the rule?

http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com/index.php...st&p=337164

That's not a stated rule.

So moderators can apply it to some posters and not others?

Well, fine, if it makes life more fair for the intellectually inferior. I guess they need all the help they can get.

I deleted the post. Probably will be looking for FAIR moderators soon. Please people. Snide is one thing, but try to react to what people say honestly, not what you wish they said. Changing direct quotes is not nice, even as a joke.

No, but it still isn't nice and will lead to anarchy and real hatred beyond political. If we all can't get along, at least we can fight fair.

Thanks beasty. That was big of you.

It had nothing to do with the nice exchange of 'fingers', right?

I thought the picture of the Dutch kid was precious.

I asked Bee to cite a rule. She didn't.

No, it was just fair. I did the same for Brian Lambchops on Sunday.

There isn't one. I wasn't here for the rule-making, but it seems some things are fair and some aren't. I have the ability to change other people's posts, does that mean I should?

Fingers back and forth are fair, but if we all go to changing each other's posts things are going to deteriorate. I've come to like this place, and it isn't guaranteed to exist. It only goes on if people can agree to disagree and keep coming back. If they can't fight back fairly they won't.

Fair enough.

I didn't assert that Bub had broken any rules, just that it was a breech of board etiquette, and I happen to agree with you on this.

Yeah, but did ya boot him without so much as a warning?

Not trying to be a dick, just curious.

Where is this alleged list of "rules"? I had never heard of such a thing until it was too late. A real suprize considering I and others have done it for years.
Seems to me other things are far more offensive and egregious.

Like what?

Just curious.

I didn't realize that was such a breach of ettiquette...sorry if anyone was truly offended.

Are you really the board moderator?

I dont s'pose I have any room to talk. Others have brought it up tho..

Just A moderator. The only one interested when I was too sick to post and had family problems to boot.

I stuck Space with the deal without asking. Not fair to him, but who said life was fair. He's a spam deleting stud.