The Back Alley Archives

The ball is in YOUR court Mr. President and Mr. Holder. Today John Conyers (D-MI) and 22 other congressmen wrote a letter to AG Holder requesting a special prosecutor to investigate the use of torture.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/conyers_and_nadler_to_holder_we_need_special_tortu.php
The letter on scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14740959/Holder-Letter-042809#key30kmx0ygdrdj7aduxls

Anyone think they will do the right thing?

bad idea.

It's a bad idea to find out if the gubbmint broke the law? Gotcha.

LOL or did you mean just writing that letter to Holder was a bad idea?

it's a bad idea, in this case, to go after "torture" at gitmo. Those "people" at gitmo were deserving of no better fate than a bullet to the head. If we used some tactics to get info from them before we offed them, then so be it. They are not the same as uniformed combatants. If they were, then we could investigate prosecuting, but not in this instance. Not IMO, anyway.

So torturing non-uniformed enemy combatants is OK but torturing uniformed combatants isn't OK?

Just making sure I know where we're drawing the line.

torturing legitimate enemy combatants* is not ok - uniformed or not. torturing terrorists, on the other hand, I have no problems with whatsoever.


*legitimate enemy combatants IMO are those from a legitimate military force that also recognizes the rules/laws of war.

Couple questions:

Do they need to be convicted of terrorism to be tortured? Also, why no problem with torturing terrorists? Because they deserve it? Or another reason?

before I answer further questions - let me add this...

I know that most (any?) are not likely to agree with me on this...I'm ok with it.

1. convicted? no. That would presume their entitled to a trial like the rest of civilization. Though, I would say you need more than a mere suspicion. Probable cause would be enough for me.

2. They're not people to me. They're animals...less than animals, really, and do not deserve humane treatment of any kind.

Cool. I don't really have a dog in this fight; the issue confuses the hell out of me. But I don't think there's ever an excuse for not investigating the government.

I just find it infinitely ironic that the same Republicans who impeached President Clinton and wanted him investigated for the Mark Rich pardon are now dead set against investigations committed under a Republican President. Can you say hypocrisy anyone?

How is it hypocritical? What Bush was allegedly doing/supporting - however you want to put it - was in an effort to make the country safer. What Rich was doing (trading with Iranians at a time when they were holding US Citizens hostage) was borderline treasonous.

Do you honestly believe that the Mark Rich thing is more serious than the laws that were broken due to our torturing of prisoners? If you do, then you are truly around the bend.

I thought you said you didn't want to discuss politics with me anyway.

I don't want to discuss politics with you. However, for now, I cannot help myself. It gives me a chance to vent even though I know we're headed for a disastrous time for this country.

I do not believe any wrongs were done to any terrorists at gitmo. To state it bluntly and completely without compassion or remorse of any kind....those bitches had it coming.

IHate: I agree with you 100%. I have my own ideas on how the Islamic Threat should be met. And my ideas ain't pretty. The ONLY thing those animals understand and respect is overwhelming force. I say give it to them.

As for investigating the Bush Administration for crimes...I don't view waterboarding mass murdering sub-humans as a crime. Perhaps animal cruelty, but I digress. If you want to go after the Bush admin, go investigate their financial bailout plan, and investigate their entire Amnesty plan. But as far as torture is concerned, I don't see any crime having been committed.

I think it's bad policy to prosecute officials in prior administrations for things they did in connection with their jobs. You necessarily run the risk of criminalizing - for political gain - every controversial decision an administration makes.

As for torture, I don't know if waterboarding counts or not, but I'll assume that it does, legally speaking (though I'll note that we submit our own troops to it during SERE training). That said, I think we showed remarkable restraint in only waterboarding 3 individuals of critically high importance in the War on Terror (tm). I don't think we should engage in such practices regularly, but I believe there are times when it is warranted.

What do y'all think of the reliability of intelligence gathered through torture? It seems that the question is up for debate among even torture experts.

Im not an expert...but it seems to be a better alternative than repeatedly asking the fuckers nicely. Those sub-humans only understand one thing. Force.

Apparently the FBI and other agencies have historically gotten more unreliable info through torture.....is it a good use of resources to send our resources chasing after wild geese?

I don't know how much of such info is unreliable...but somewhere there has to be a cost/benefit analysis if we're getting a bunch of bad intel. I mean, I know torturing those fucks makes us all feel a better in a sick way, but if we don't get much good info doing it, seems like a waste of resources to me. Again, I'm no expert.

agree, wes, my guess is since we keep doing it they must be fessing up to some good shit

I would think even one valid piece of info would be worth chasing down several dead ends.

I would think even one valid piece of info would be worth chasing down several dead ends.

Generally I agree with you...so long as the focus is ALWAYS to try to figure out which info is good or bad, and deal with it accordingly. However, One could argue that bad intel breeds further terrorism in that it will likely lead to plenty of unjustified use of force (although it is excusable...still not truly justified if its based off false info)...and unjustified use of force is one of the things that gets passed down from generation to generation and stays in a culture's blood.

But getting a bit of info then running into Iraq, for example, (slider--look--I'm criticizing a "rightie" or whatever the fuck) probably stirred up more terrorist cells than existed before we went in for a trumped reason (don't get me wrong...I'm sure it was trumped up with the best of intentions...but still). So if you fuck over enough innocent folks in the name of 'national security', sooner or later they start to ask...why do they get national security while my 2 sons, my uncle and aunt, and a cousin are dead for no reason and the school where my last surviving son went got destroyed last week?

Don't take that as me advocating for the thugs. I'm just sayin...sometimes acting on what looks like good info can have FUCKED UP unintended consequences.