Yes we do know. It was brought out in trial, one of the defendants used it in his defense. The defense was unable to find any corroborating evidence. It was just a damned ploy by a defense attorney advancing a plausible argument in a vigorous defense of his client. No evidence.

That's good enough for an atheist why isn't it good enough for you?

B

Simply because I am a skeptic by nature and demand concrete proof to support any assertion,although this is,I realise, largely impossible.

The soldiers in charge who countenanced,aided,abetted and participated in this disgraceful episode may well have done it on their own,BUT,and I add this caveat with care,they must have have had,if not tacit approval,at least lack of oversight or outright unconcern from their superiors which helped to determine their course of action.

__________________

How do you know that?

Just listen to the "news"

__________________

Did you read what I wrote?

I'm not sure what you mean by "it", but I'm struck by the lack of support for Cheney's position. Do you know of any expert interrogators who agree with Cheney? I've heard several disagree with him. None that agree. Probably that liberal media again.Miranda is a rule concerning the admissility of evidence. It has nothing to with gaining intelligence. There are time-honored answers to each of your other questions. Why does Cheney think he can change the rules?Red herring.Red herrings all. And all easy to answer. You state them as if they pose dilemmas, yet there are easy, well accepted answers to each. None of those concerns justify our deviating from internationally accepted standards of decency.

No? Okay.


Oh, which international standards? Can we should use the same ones that our enemies use, would that be okay? Or maybe we should make them use our standards of warfare and prisoner treatment. Yeah, and if they don't, we'll go to the Hague and make ugly faces at them.

B

Sorry. I should have scrolled down before posting. That noone above the defendants admitted to giving orders doesn't prove it didn't happen. I think the most that can be said is that the defendants were unable to prove they were under orders.

Well said, friend dculkin,humanity still burns with a flicker of light in some places.

__________________

yep. That's the way I see it, too.

Same with people who believe in god(s), huh? Can't prove they're wrong, even if they provide no objective evidence in support of their argument.

B

Absolutely not.Is that your justification for allowing barbarism by our soldiers? That the terrorists do bad things? I am unconvinced. More importantly, so are many legislators, judges, and millitary officers. It seems as if the Cheneys of the world are finally headed for irrelevancy, thank God.

What, if we capture a suspected terrorists we don't have to treat them as we do other suspects? Go tell that to the hispanic guy that is supsected of coming to the USA to use a radioactivity bomb. The feds treated him as an enemy combatant and the courts said that was wrong, he had to be treated as an american citizen in criminal court. Miranda applies.

Personally, I approve of that decision. I think citizens should always be afforded constitutional protection unless they voluntarily cede them, like joining the armed forces. Now foreigners, especially if caught in an area of military operations, I am not so strict in how they're treated. If they follow the Geneva Conventions then I think they should receive the protection of the Conventions. But if they don't play by the rules, I think we can lower our responsibilities quite a bit.

Bot

"The White House initially tried to kill the anti-torture provision while it was pending in the Senate, then switched course to lobby for an exemption in cases of "clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States." The president would have to approve the exemption, and Defense Department personnel could not be involved. In addition, any activity would have to be consistent with the Constitution, federal law and U.S. treaty obligations, according to draft changes in the exemption the White House is seeking."

I'm in agreement with the requested exemption. It provides some leverage against potential threats to this country by people who are not citizens of this country.

Be interesting to see if the administration can manage to get the exemption.

I sure do see a significant shift away from the far right. The fact that the senate has taken up this legislation, and has bi-partisian support, is very surprising.

Under these circumstances it means that the folks on the Hill have some scary information that is forcing them to ignore the typical partisan sniping and embrace methods that we as a society find repellant.

Must be some scary chit, because supporting, in writing, extreme interrogation measures is something that either party would love to pin on the other. Wonder what it could be....

Bot

We disagree. What a surprise!

FYI, we didn't "invade their homeland" until they attacked the U.S. on 911.

For that, I want Bin Ladin's head on a stick, as well as the rest of the Al Quaida leaders. There are folks at Gitmo who knew where he could be found. Shame on us for not persuading them to talk. That failure will probably result in another attack. That should be obvious even in Berkley.

__________________
Palangi

2004 C240 Wagon 203.261 Baby Benz
2008 ML320 CDI Highway Cruiser
2006 Toyota Prius, Saving the Planet @ 48 mpg
2000 F-150, Destroying the Planet @ 20 mpg



TRUMP .......... WHITEHOUSE
HILLARY .........JAILHOUSE
BERNIE .......... NUTHOUSE
0BAMA .......... OUTHOUSE