WikiLeaks Revelation: The U.S. Tortured an Innocent Man and

Post Reply New Topic

I think, given Poe's Law, you really should clarify that you're joking.

He's joking or trying to make conservatives look bad, seriously I only glanced at this originally thinking it was a waterboarding incident and didn't look at it in detail.

I guess we now know why the CIA director resigned.

Irrelevant. Torture is not a reliable means of getting information, and even if it was, it is still wrong.


They cannot know that, and even if they did torture is (a) wrong, and (b) unlikely to get you any answers.


Yes, it is. It is very simple: torture is wrong. All civilized, decent human beings can see this quite plainly. If you support torture in any context, you are a bad person.


Are you kidding? Torture was official policy under the Bush/Cheney administration, and we have public confessions from both of them on the subject.

If it came down to you needed to get the information about a bomb in the city about to go off in the next few hours and you had the guy that planted the bomb or one of his co-conspirators that knew where it was, what would you do. This individual is a fanatic btw and doesn't care if he dies.



They screwed up, I agree with you. I also think they crossed the line in the fact Bush authorized waterboarding not the garbage they put this guy through especially after they knew they had the wrong guy.



Do you think I enjoy actually agreeing with torture ever being used at all. The problem is we are fighting against people that honestly believe that if they kill infidels they go to heaven and get all these young hot virgins to fulfill their every desire.



If you check you'll notice Bush agreed to waterboarding not stuff at this level. Furthermore, upon discovering that the guy was innocent, George W. Bush would have had the guy sent to the best doctors available to deal with any injuries and would probably then find some way to apologize to the guy in person. Bush also would have had the individual that picked the man up in the first place fired for incompetitence. If Cheney were involved, you may be right in your assessment on the keeping this guy locked up. Bush on the other hand would have probably asked the guy's advice on how to make sure this kind of screw up didn't happen again.

You have to look at Bush's mindset and think about a Texan's way of thinking. You screw up, and have the wrong guy the proper thing to do from a Texan standpoint would be to apologize and do your best to make up for it. Cheney's mindset is more of he's just a casualty of war.

Again: life is NOT an episode of 24.

Ever heard the phrase: "Truth is stranger than fiction."

Again: life is NOT an episode of 24.

Once again... I reject your hypothetical situation as implausible, and irrelevant.


Well then he's not going to break under torture, is he?


Cheney is on record saying that even when the torture went way beyond waterboarding, he was still in favor of it. I have no doubt that Bush felt the same way.


Actually, the most common motivations for terrorists are geopolitical, rather than religious, in nature. Basically, they're pissed that we're bombing their homes, killing their children, propping up oppressive regimes, etc.


You have absolutely no evidence for this claim other than your cult-like devotion to Bush. There were plenty of cases where people were wrongely incarcerated and tortured under the Bush administration, and none of them were given the best doctors or a personal apology. What makes you think Bush "would have" done something that he in fact did not do?


Bush is from Connecticut. It figures that you're gullible enough to fall for that fake cowboy BS of his.

Stop being a broken record.



Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02818.html

Guess this is just a hypothetical situation huh.



Not necessarily true.



I'd say it depended on who they got, Bush probably would have had no qualms about gutting Bin Laden, but Bush wouldn't stand for an innocent man being tortured even after people knew they picked up the wrong guy.



Let me guess you're going to next say it is all Israel's fault? Seriously, the US does not support Iran. This isn't geopolitical, this is religious fanatic they can't stand that nonmuslims control their 3rd most holy site. They hate us for even being there.



You really don't know about how things work. There are times the President is not told what is going on so the President has plausible deniability.



So he was born in Connecticut, he moved to Texas and adopted their style of doing things and their mindset. One doesn't have to be born in Texas to have the same mindset. Btw, they moved to Texas when he was still a young child.

Then stop pretending that reality is like television.

No, but our unconditional support for Israel does not win us many friends in the Muslim world. In regards to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, we are not perceived as an honest dealer.

But the Israel issue aside, there are plenty of other reasons for them to hate us. We have a history of propping up oppressive regimes (remember the Shah?) and we are currently occupying two major Islamic countries, while engaged in a secret and illegal war in another. Our tactics in warfare, such as the reprehensible use of cluster bombs and the casual disregard for civilian lives, only creates more enemies for us.


Define "there" more clearly; you should not use pronouns that don't refer to a previous noun. If by "there" you mean Afghanistan or Iraq, hell yes they hate us for being there. We are a foreign occupying force to them. Of course they are going to fight us.


Bush was completely in the dark about everything that went on during his administration while Cheney was actually calling the shots?

Actually, I wouldn't be too surprised.


BS. He went to fancy prep schools and then to the Ivy League (not of his own merit, mind you, but because of family connections). His has always been a life of luxury.

Tough, if they stopped trying to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth we wouldn't have to keep coming to Israel's defense.



I know of him, the guy that replaced him was far worse than the Shah. Also, they can cry me a river when it comes to Afghanistan if the Taliban had just handed over bin Laden we wouldn't be there in the first place. Saddam made the mistake of trying to tweak George W. Bush's nose one too many times. What was that idiot thinking, considered he tried to have George H.W. Bush assassinated?



Where did you come up with us using cluster bombs? Also the idea of us not caring about civilian life is bull, we are fighting against an enemy that hides being civilians and use them as human shields. Are you saying we should just have our people let themselves get killed?



How about you read the Quran/Koran (however you pronounce it) and get back to me on that. This is part of their religion about us being infidels because we aren't muslims therefore we must either bow down as slaves, convert, or die.



Not saying that Bush was in the total dark, but there were things Bush wasn't told so if there was a fallout Bush could honestly say he didn't know what was going on.



Yeah I figured you wouldn't thing is he can't be so stupid he wasn't doing anything and be an evil mastermind.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Says here he attended elementary in Midland, Texas as a boy. They moved to Houston when he was in 7th grade.

We are not Israel's guardian. We are their ally, and we should have their backs if they are actually attacked, but the whole mid-east peace process with attempted resolutions of the conflict between Israel and Palestine are not helped by us unconditionally supporting everything Israel does.


Yeah, that's one of the negative consequences that comes from trying to control other governments. Sometimes it backfires. We have deposed democratically elected leaders in many parts of the world to install brutal dictators.


Would the Taliban have been able to do that? And should our objective have been anything more than "kill bin Laden?" Why do we have to install our own puppet government against the will of the people?


Personal grudges justify invading a sovereign country?


It came out in Wikileaks that Britain was illegally storing cluster bombs for us (in violation of an anti-cluster-bomb treaty they, and most of the civilized world, signed).


Current estimates (and they will always be estimates) give upwards of a million civilians dead in Iraq. There are multiple documented cases of senseless and irresponsible massacres of civilians.


I'm saying we shouldn't be there, and that if we are there, the troops need to be trained not to shoot at everything that moves before figuring out if it's actually a threat or not.


I actually have read a reasonable amount of the Koran. Parts of it can be interpreted in that way, yes, but that doesn't mean every terrorist has those same motives. Generally speaking, Muslims are willing to live in peace with us if we don't bomb them. The best recruiting tools for Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are outrage over real and/or perceived injustices perpetrated by the American government. Otherwise, why are the terrorists not attacking Canada? Or Sweden? Or Argentina? None of those countries are Muslim. By your reasoning, Muslims should hate them just as much as they hate us.

Face it. They don't "hate us for our freedoms." If they did, there are other free countries they would also be attacking. They hate us because our government has done stupid and evil things in the past.


Where have I ever called Bush an evil mastermind?


Moved to Houston to attend a fancy prep school.

@ Orwell

If Bush is so stupid, then what does that make John Kerry, because apparently Bush did better in school than Kerry.

Bush was thrust into a situation that we were very lucky to have him as President instead of Al Gore whom would have just sat there like a beached whale and whined.

The problem with the Israeli/Palestinian situation is that both sides have to be willing to work towards peace. Right now, Israel is actually more willing to work for peace than the Palestinians. Palestinian children are indoctrinated into hating Israelis and to want to be suicide bombers, until that stops I don't see how there can be peace and blaming Israel is stupid.

If you'll recall the Taliban also took some Americans hostage during while Bush was trying to get them to turn over bin Laden, which is like taunting a Klingon that is already enraged.



He had plenty of other reasons to go after Saddam, but you don't try to bluff a Texan, that is just asking for it. There is a saying that: "Texas isn't just a state, it is a state of mind."




Didn't I point out earlier that study was debunked, and the thing is who killed the civilians. A lot of the civilian casualties are the results of terrorists not our troops. Should we just leave and let Iran take over.

Also, whether we should have gone there or not is a moot point. We are there now, and we made a mess that we need to be responsible and clean up. I think it would be irresponsible for us to abandon the Iraqi people or the people of Afghanistan to Iran or Al Qaeda.

Do you really believe that nonsense?

Since when is it nonsense.

Gore did such a good job concerning Elien Gonzolas.