Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

And my main point was that we should all aspire to have the moral courage to stand up to someone who is abusing their authority and abusing other people, regardless of the conequences. The people I mentioned did so.

KR: Thank God for people willing to defend the country, and thank God for people willing to defend the Constitution upon which it was founded.

Thanks for the useful info. It's so interesting

"We should never forget that some people did rise up to defend the Constitution, such as Jack Goldsmith of the Office of Legal Counsel, Alberto Mora, General Counsel of the Navy, and FBI agent Jim Clemente who helped stop the outrageous abuse at GITMO.

That's what we should aspire to."

I'm sorry, after serving with men and women who died in our military, I cannot see putting them in the same area of respect. These men didn't die to protect the constitution.

Doesn't mean they aren't deserving of some respect. Hard pill for me to swallow when it comes to lawyers, I have yet to find one that deserves to be in the same company as my dead friends.

KR writes: It would be hard for anyone today to say in that position they would have done something different.
______________________________

We should never forget that some people did rise up to defend the Constitution, such as Jack Goldsmith of the Office of Legal Counsel, Alberto Mora, General Counsel of the Navy, and FBI agent Jim Clemente who helped stop the outrageous abuse at GITMO.

That's what we should aspire to.

I know Danny, everything is a conspiracy theory with Cheney at the wheel. Quite honestly, I'm tired of hearing it. Enough excuses already. It happened, many people were involved, people will argue the "torture" fight for generations to come. At least some of the "enhanced" interrogation techniques were axed. Be done with it. Our opinions differ and that's where it lays.

Hi KR--

Regarding the legal process andintelligence committess, there's a book called "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals." It does a great job of reviewing how torture was rammed through by Cheney and Addington, often circumventing due process in the executive branch, even bypassing powerful, lifelong hardline conservative military lawyers.

I'll try to respond more when I'm not at work.

"that is the basis for much bad stuff in history, people used that idea to kill a lot of innocents claiming they were in the 'right'.."

No doubt. The US bombed civilians in WW2, interned the Japanese in camps, dropped the nuclear bomb, all of those things look different today then they did back then. Doesn't mean they are open to prosecution now. We learn from it and move on, creating ways to avoid it in the future. It brought about smart weapons that drastically reduced collatoral damage and revolutionized targetting.

So we should put down the pitch forks and torches and learn from it. This seems to be Obama's approach, at least mostly.

People did what they thought was right at the time. Posted by: KR

that is the basis for much bad stuff in history, people used that idea to kill a lot of innocents claiming they were in the 'right'..

"if, those in D.C. have the courage to stand for what they believe in."

Given that both sides of the isle have their fingers in it, and that they are politicians, I wouldn't hold my breath.

And in all honesty, given the mindset of Americans at that time in 2002-2003, I'm not sure it is even worth going back to with today's mindset. It would likely be unfair to all parties involved. Too much mud has been slung for anyone to get a fair look.

In my opinion, we had the #2 from AQ in our hands shortly after 911. There was great desperation in the country at that time to uncover any sleeper cells still operating in the US to prevent another 911. People did what they thought was right at the time. It would be hard for anyone today to say in that position they would have done something different. War has an effect on people that way, its unfortunately human nature.

KR
re: 'by pointing a gun at someone but not pulling the trigger, did you shoot and kill? No, but you did point the gun. Does that constitue a crime as if you had pulled the trigger?

Pointing a gun at someone is a misdemeanor called “brandishing.” But, you could also be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, a felony which carries up to six years in prison.

'given what we know'
Posted by: KR

We arrive at the core of the issue. What we 'know' is filtered and slanted by those on all sides of the political spectrum. Only through a thorough and neutral investigation (if such a thing is still possible) can some sort of reconciling of events take place. This issue, depending on what the outcome someday reveals goes a long way in determining if we are who we say we are. Time and information will show us what we need to know, if, those in D.C. have the courage to stand for what they believe in.

I am sure he, along with all the others at Gitmo are innocent and they all were tortured. Just let them all come to America and set up shop in your neighborhood. We can give them a free house, food, medical care and whatever else their hearts desire.

"I am not suggesting that anyone 'be let off the hook' for decisions they made......The only way for the truth to be known is a full investigation... the chips then, will fall where they may. This has to be above the usual politics."

I just think that, given what we know, the process it went through, the opinion that this particular procedure, preventing the water from being ingested, gave some solice to those who reviewed it. I am certain it was presented as no chance of drowning, no permenant physical harm, only causing anxiety. All of which appears to be true, even through testimony of those who have been through it (with the preventative rag). Taking it to the point of unconsciousness would be the extreme, essentially sufficating. Did that occur? It begs the question in an example, by pointing a gun at someone but not pulling the trigger, did you shoot and kill? No, but you did point the gun. Does that constitue a crime as if you had pulled the trigger? It is a convoluted scenario and one that most likely, at the time, those involved saw it as just that, convoluted and subject to opinion, which has been my arguement all along. Obviously the long list of people, at the time, were not sure either and so they leaned on the side of getting the information they thought would keep America safe. Kalik did give names of people who actually existed which lends credence that, whatever was done, provided a result. Good or bad, is subject to opinion.

If it was so clearly torture, then why did both parties in Congress review it and not do anything about it? This was a bi-partisan review.
Posted by: KR

I am not suggesting that anyone 'be let off the hook' for decisions they made......The only way for the truth to be known is a full investigation... the chips then, will fall where they may. This has to be above the usual politics.

"There was no bipartisan legal approval of torture--some members of Congress were briefed after Cheney and Addington had already twisted the Office of Legal Counsel process to make it "legal"."

There was no approval, there was bi-partisan review. It went through the intelligence committee, which is a bipartisan entity. This was an intelligence gathering event, which is why they were briefed and reviewed.

And since when did the Democrats bow to Cheney? You are saying the Democrats caved to Cheney cause he said it was legal? I believe that about as far as I can throw Cheney.

btw, from the same testimony... looks like both, not just the rag. I would imagine the condemnation of the water torture included all of the examples, not just the rag.

"He was turned upside down and water poured up his nose and beaten into
unconsciousness.62

...they would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down.
They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth
until I lost consciousness...63"

There was no bipartisan legal approval of torture--some members of Congress were briefed after Cheney and Addington had already twisted the Office of Legal Counsel process to make it "legal".

So if it was torture, how come the review in Congress had no snags? If everyone knew it was torture, how come no one in either party said anything? Where is the answer to this. I see lots of evidence and opinion that it was torture, yet no one came to this conclusion when it was going through congressional review? No one involved in the process raised a flag before it happened? It if is considered torture now, why was it not then? Respond to that Danny, you haven't yet.

Point taken Danny. So if that is the case, this was torture, how come Congress, and both parties, reviewed it and said nothing? How come no one involved said, "wait a minute, this is torture?" Both Democrats and Republicans were silent. What gives?