[W]e do have evidence for an alternative explanation of what motivated Bybee to write his memo that August, thanks to the comprehensive Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainees released last week.
The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.
In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections. Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” A month after Bybee’s memo, on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney would make his infamous appearance on “Meet the Press,” hyping both Saddam’s W.M.D.s and the “number of contacts over the years” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If only 9/11 could somehow be pinned on Iraq, the case for war would be a slamdunk.
But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.
Read the whole article. There’s a lot more.
How were interrogations done during WWII? Battle of wits style.
#158, I don’t know. As far as I know I haven’t viewed them.
So, your turn.
Your point was “on balance we’ve improved over WW2.”.
Again my answer is “Bull Shit Paddy!!!!!!!!!!!”
That in part, because of proven Abu Ghraib events (he torture, sodomy and homicide of prisoners held in Abu Ghraib prison) that you appear to be intentionally unaware of.
In regards to your subtext (The one rule we have dropped from WW2 & Ike’s day is that we don’t execute unlawful combatants anymore for simply being unlawful.) is a subset of your main point “on balance we’ve improved over WW2.”
I have responded to your main point in my first reply to your post. As always your just another dim witted Bush accolite like Alfred1 and MikeN and just too dense to realize it.
#160 Umm, try to follow along. My direct question to you was, “do you think we should summarily execute unlawful combatants as we did in WW2?”
I asked you a specific question. I understand that being a liberal, it is against your nature to respond to direct Qs, but try…
161,
If the prisoners were taken on the field of battle as unlawful combatants, they could be shot, and frankly it would have been better for everyone if they were.
However, a majority of the people held were turned over by warlord “allies” in return for bounty. So your case falls apart. We applied the label to those it did not pertain to, and sold our souls in the process.
#162 – Do you think that we should execute people who come to the US to sabotage/destroy stuff (regardless of whether they accomplish it) as we did in WW2?
Let me try this again for the evil in you.
In regards to your subtext (The one rule we have dropped from WW2 & Ike’s day is that we don’t execute unlawful combatants anymore for simply being unlawful.) is a subset of your main point “on balance we’ve improved over WW2.”
Torture, sodomy and homicide of prisoners held in Abu Ghraib prison is not an improvement of executing Unlawful combatants in WW2.
We tried POWs during WWII for war crimes, as we also tried unlawful combatants, such as spies, sabateurs, and enemy soldiers in American uniforms (as in the Battle of the Bulge). However, they were tried before special courts martial, or in the case of the Bulge combatants who were sumarily executed, consisting of three officers. This exception wasn’t right then, nor is it right now.
Please reread your post and understand your own question you are asking.
#164 answer the question.
Give it up, noname… no one has been able to argue successfully with Paddy O’Troll… and he thinks it’s because he’s so smart. 🙂
It’s pretty clear, despite the wingnuts’ frantic attempts to distract us. Torture is against the law for several reasons, one because we signed a treaty stating that fact. In fact it was signed under St. Ronnie. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture) How about that wingnuts, even Ronnie Alzheimer was against torture. Signed treaties are enforceable laws (read your Constitution). The only question is, will the Obama administration have the guts to follow the law.
And the people who insist waterboarding someone 183 times isn’t torture… wow. Serious detachment from reality.
But like I said before… all you struttin’ chickenhawks who love torture so much… have the courage of your convictions. Tell everyone you know how much Republicans love torture. Especially any soldiers you meet. They’ll thank you for supporting them so much… not.
# 167 Phydeau said, “They’ll thank you for supporting them so much… not.”
That must be why service personnel voted 75% for the Repub candidate… ROFL
Cluck, cluck, chickenhawk… so brave behind your keyboard… 🙂
#169 – Just because you got BRUTALLY owned is no reason to go all incoherent on us…
# 165 Paddy-O said, on April 27th, 2009 at 10:55 am
#164 answer the question.
Answer the question Where is the evidence that Barney Frank blamed the voters for political corruption? You have been asked many many times before. You always refuse to answer.
C’mon asshole, ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!
2nd article on Bush…. we are not bitter are we? man get over it. you have a bigger rascal in the white house now.
“Too often we… enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
# 174 verycheeky, # 171 Paddy-O, # 143 Alfred1 # 137 MikeN GET OVER IT, THE ELECTION IS OVER FOR 4 YEARS; STOP your incessant whining, pull the load, we are all tired of doing your share.
You repugnant-cons, have no clue what national security is, it’s not just oil. If you think not torturing puts us at risk; well, the tactics “gord head” Bush used with Chenny’s advice put all our military at great risk to loose their life (tortured then beheaded) if captured.
Again Repugnant-cons haven’t got a clue.
Repugnant-cons should stop ripping off money and pay attention to whats really going on in the world.
Fusion, still having trouble with reading
comprehension? I gave you the date of the memo, which has been publicly released.
>95% of the intelligence experts who testify that, not only does torture not work, it is *more likely* to produce false intelligence that actually puts our operatives at risk.
I guess they haven’t read the declassified CIAs memos then.
>#136, #137.. Give it up MikeN.
Debating and defending the ‘effectiveness of torture’ is a sick 19th century discussion.
It’s not only sick but illegal, immoral, barbaric and the US is obligated to treaties by civilized nations.
Give it up. That dog don’t hunt.
Yes, liberals don’t want to hear the truth, and would prefer a make believe world where torture never works. What is the point of calling yourself superior, and saying that torture isn’t worth the cost if there is no cost?
#176 Answer the question.
#177, Lyin’ Mike,
If you can’t produce the memo, then it is not verifiable. What is so hard to understand about that?