Reply With Quote
i don't get it. why didn't they torture saddam for wmd's and al-kyda positions?
Remember its all in how Dubya defines torture that matters...
General claims Bush gave 'marching orders' on aggressive interrogation at
Published: Monday October 22, 2007
RawstoryNew book says US uses 'methods of the most tyrannical regimes'
More than 100,000 pages of newly released government do ents to demonstrate how US military interrogators "abused, tortured or killed" scores of prisoners rounded up since Sept. 11, 2001, including some who were not even expected of having terrorist ties, according to a just-published book.
- snip -
"The do ents show unambiguously that the administration has adopted some of the methods of the most tyrannical regimes," write Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh. "Do ents from Guantanamo describe prisoners shackled in excruciating 'stress positions,' held in freezing-cold cells, forcibly stripped, hooded, terrorized with military dogs, and deprived of human contact for months."
Most of the do ents on which Administration of Torture is based were obtained as a result of ongoing legal fights over a Freedom of Information Act request filed in October 2003 by the ACLU and other human rights and anti-war groups, the ACLU said in a news release.
- snip -
President Bush gave "marching orders" to Gen. Michael Dunlavey, who asked the Pentagon to approve harsher interrogation methods at Guantanamo, the general claims in do ents reported in the book.
The money quote: "including some who were not even expected of having terrorist ties"
Impeach NOW!
Last edited by Nbadan; 10-23-2007 at 03:30 PM.
i don't get it. why didn't they torture saddam for wmd's and al-kyda positions?
for the same reason they couldn't risk putting Saddam on trial in the International court of justice - he had the goods on Reagan, Rummy and the whole Neo-con mafia...
He had plenty of opportunity to spill the beans.
Too who?
I wonder if this war had been conducted by a Democratic President would Dan, clambake and others still be so critical . . .
to whom
If it involves the use of torture, or 'aggressive interrogative techniques' against anyone not directly responsible for the 911 attacks, or another imminent attack, sure...
To whomever he wanted.
In U.S. custody?
Did he come into possession of the beans he could spill only after he was in custody?
Who else was he gonna tell? Iraqis?
sounds like the type of intel we'd be interested in.
if a dem president lied us into this war, you bet your ass.
He could have told you. You seem to be a big champion of his cause.
Or, he could have told the Russians, the French, or the Germans...all of whom seemed keenly interested in keeping him in power. Might have even put in a call the the U.N. Secretary General's office, who had a son heavily invested in the Oil For Food scandal.
But, at the very least, he could have used the old trick of mailing a certified letter to all the major press outlets with copies of all the incriminating evidence on the evil Bush administration.
But, you just don't go to the gallows with that kind of information on your heart. You tell someone.
, even I have an "upon the occasion of my death," letter in a safe deposit box. It doesn't contain any incriminating information that'll put anyone in prison or get them impeached but, if I had that kind of information, that's one place I'd make sure it appeared.
My point is; if Saddam Hussein had any information to incriminate the Bush Administration -- who had been revving up for a war with Iraq for a long time (depending on who or what you believe are the cir stances) -- he had ample opportunity to make sure that information was revealed under whatever terms he chose.
why wait for him to zend a letter? why not tortue him for zee imformation?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
